/* */

PDA

View Full Version : What Is Christianity?



Umar001
05-08-2008, 11:42 AM
Hi,

This is a question I have been pondering, can Christianity be pointed to? As I understand Christianity cannot be debated, refuted or destroyed in its totality by most. I say this because according to the Bible Jesus has left such a wide idea of what it is to be Christian that anyone can claim to be a christian and claim almost anything to be his theology.

Does anyone see what I'm saying?

What are your views?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 11:55 AM
Yeah I read yuo loud and clear. I think this is a problem that all religions which feed on "mysticism" have. We can see the same with Sufi Muslims. The more you leave room for personal interpretation, the more that people will expand the religion and insert their personal views.

copy paste:
Some mystic traditions use jokes, stories and poetry to express certain ideas, allowing the bypassing of the normal discriminative thought patterns. The rationality that confines and objectifies the thinking process is the opposite to the intuitive, gestalt mentality that the mystic is attempting to engage, enter and retain.

By developing a series of impacts that reinforce certain key ideas, the rational mind is occupied with a surface meaning whilst other concepts are introduced.
Reply

ddz
05-08-2008, 12:12 PM
This is a question I have been pondering, can Christianity be pointed to? As I understand Christianity cannot be debated, refuted or destroyed in its totality by most. I say this because according to the Bible Jesus has left such a wide idea of what it is to be Christian that anyone can claim to be a christian and claim almost anything to be his theology.
Hmm.. quite a tricky one... Im sure Christianity can be pointed to.. but perhaps by a fellow christian, just as Islam can be pointed to by a fellow muslim. What I mean is that if a person is in need, surley the christian way, or muslim way would be to help out your neighbour as much as you can.. so if a christian does this a fellow one may be like 'that was a very christian thing to do' and same goes for Islam. Having said this, maybe this is not what you were asking for in your question? lol :-[ for which then I apologise for..

When you say wide idea, can you give me examples? or elloborate on what ideas you are talking about? because yes, if one interprets his beleif of what Jesus says, and passes on the message, you may find a new denomination of christians lol


Does anyone see what I'm saying?

What are your views?
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 12:27 PM
Hey Hope you are well,

What I meant, was reffering to, was the fact that Jesus is reported to have said by John that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truths or that it will guide you. Now, this same Holy Spirit is used as an authority by alot of Christians, so I have Christians claming to me that Jesus is God saying that the Holy Spirit is helping them, then you have Christians saying Jesus is not God saying the Holy Spirit is helping them. You see what I mean? And this can be done with alot of topics.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
ddz
05-08-2008, 12:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Hey Hope you are well,

What I meant, was reffering to, was the fact that Jesus is reported to have said by John that the Holy Spirit will lead into all truths or that it will guide you. Now, this same Holy Spirit is used as an authority by alot of Christians, so I have Christians claming to me that Jesus is God saying that the Holy Spirit is helping them, then you have Christians saying Jesus is not God saying the Holy Spirit is helping them. You see what I mean? And this can be done with alot of topics.
Your right in saying that, and there are different beleifs held by Christian Denominations today, its all a little daunting at times I know hehe but I agree with Abdul Fattah in the sense that when people interperate Jesus' Teachings and what the Bible says, different Denominations then become present, a Protestant will tell you So and So.. and a Catholic will tell you So and So.. and it can be done with a lot of topics with a lot of different opinions, having said that, these denominations may have different beleifs upon what Jesus had to say etc.. but im sure all in all their ulterior motive is to teach their followers to lead a good life in that they worship God Almighty and Love one and other and be at peace.
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 01:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ddz
Your right in saying that, and there are different beleifs held by Christian Denominations today, its all a little daunting at times I know hehe but I agree with Abdul Fattah in the sense that when people interperate Jesus' Teachings and what the Bible says, different Denominations then become present, a Protestant will tell you So and So.. and a Catholic will tell you So and So.. and it can be done with a lot of topics with a lot of different opinions, having said that, these denominations may have different beleifs upon what Jesus had to say etc.. but im sure all in all their ulterior motive is to teach their followers to lead a good life in that they worship God Almighty and Love one and other and be at peace.
Yes, the problem would be in then stating, who is God? What is a good life? And many other possible questions. God would seem to have left the religion so open to interpretation, to alteration. That's what worries me.
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 03:16 PM
The fundamental Christian doctrine is quite simple really.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

The differences lie in ritual and the importance of works vs. faith. The Catholic/Protestant schism did not come about over a difference in doctrine, but the corruption of the Catholic Church i.e. the selling of indulgences and other issues.

The fundamental Christian doctrine is easily recognized, and those who do not follow the fundamental doctrine are easily recognized.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 03:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The fundamental Christian doctrine is quite simple really. ..
Hi Keltoi
Under your defenition of christianity it might be simple. But other Christian denominations disagree with some of the things you listed as fundamental, which was the whole point that brother Al Habeshi was trying to make in the first place.
Reply

Amadeus85
05-08-2008, 04:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi Keltoi
Under your defenition of christianity it might be simple. But other Christian denominations disagree with some of the things you listed as fundamental, which was the whole point that brother Al Habeshi was trying to make in the first place.
Other christian denominations like...? Just please dont tell me about mormons or Jeahova Witnesses who are not christians.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 04:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Other christian denominations like...? Just please dont tell me about mormons or Jeahova Witnesses who are not christians.
Unitarians also and many of the denominations that became extinct shortly after the council of nicea. As for jehova's witnesses and mormons, the main reason they aren't considered christians by the other denominations is because they don't believe in the trinity in the first place. So that's a bit of circular thinking there:

1. All Christian denominations accept the trinity.
2. all denominations that don't accept the trinity aren't christian.

Maybe you need to define Christianity then. Doesn't the word suggest those who allegedly follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? don't Mormons as well as Jehovah's witnesses believe to be following the teachings of Jesus? Of course you might reply that their view on those teachings is wrong, but I (as well as they) might argue the same thing about your view. Eitherway even within catholic and reformed Christians you'll find many people who don't believe in the trinity, original sin, and the savior concept. I know because I talked to many of them =)
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 04:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The fundamental Christian doctrine is quite simple really.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

The differences lie in ritual and the importance of works vs. faith. The Catholic/Protestant schism did not come about over a difference in doctrine, but the corruption of the Catholic Church i.e. the selling of indulgences and other issues.

The fundamental Christian doctrine is easily recognized, and those who do not follow the fundamental doctrine are easily recognized.
Well, would you say that someone who does not believe in Jesus being God of God is not a Christian?

The problem is that according to them you are not a Christian, and you both have equal power, either of you can claim to have recieved revelation from the Holy Spirit, and thus have the same authority.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Other christian denominations like...? Just please dont tell me about mormons or Jeahova Witnesses who are not christians.
This is exactly the problem, you dont think they are not Christian, but they are, well, according to the Holy Spirit which speaks to them. Now, you may not believe that, but then again if the Holy Spirit is telling them to do what they do then how can you say they aint Christians?

Also, what defines Christian according to the Bible?

Even within the realms of Christianity in our time, forget the early days, there is great diversity.
Reply

Amadeus85
05-08-2008, 04:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi


This is exactly the problem, you dont think they are not Christian, but they are, well, according to the Holy Spirit which speaks to them. Now, you may not believe that, but then again if the Holy Spirit is telling them to do what they do then how can you say they aint Christians?

Also, what defines Christian according to the Bible?

Even within the realms of Christianity in our time, forget the early days, there is great diversity.
Neither Mormons nor Jeahova's Witnesses call themselves christians. They actually cut off themselves from christianity.

In catholicism you have not only Bible but also so called tradition of the Church. Its like Quaran and Sunna in sunnism. You have catehism, which says who is and who is not a christian.

I think that this issue easier than you show it. Catholics, orthodoxes and protestants make up about 95% of christians of evern more. And you focus on marginal sects which dont even call themselves christians.
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 04:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Neither Mormons nor Jeahova's Witnesses call themselves christians. They actually cut off themselves from christianity.
By Christian I appealed to the meaning of the word, as commonly understood, follower of Christ, not the name as a title. The JWs or Mormons may not call themselves by that title, but they do appeal, at least JWs, to the meaning, i.e. belief that they are following Jesus the Christ.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
In catholicism you have not only Bible but also so called tradition of the Church. Its like Quaran and Sunna in sunnism. You have catehism, which says who is and who is not a christian.
Well, the tradition is more like the Athar/Khabar (sayings of other than the prophet, companions and so), the Sunnah is apparently contained in the Bible. Now, the problem is that everyone claims to be following the Bible but interprets it differently, in Islam the interpretation is restricted, where as in Christianity it is very open, this is one of the contributing factors to the diversity of those who claim to follow Jesus.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
I think that this issue easier than you show it. Catholics, orthodoxes and protestants make up about 95% of christians of evern more. And you focus on marginal sects which dont even call themselves christians.
It is not about the quantity, as the Bible reports Jesus to have said, many take the wide road. What I am saying is that we cannot distinguish the correct followers of Jesus. The amount of people that follow a particular style is not, generally, indicative of the truthfullness.
Reply

barney
05-08-2008, 04:46 PM
Kelts summary is pretty much it for all christians.
Some might beleive in the Rapture, some Transubstatiation, some Creationism...but what Kelt said is the fundamentals.

(One point though...why do we need words like "Sitteth"?) :)
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Kelts summary is pretty much it for all christians.
If a person came upto you and told you he believed in three seperate Gods, and told you he was a follower of Christ a Christian, would you be able to say to him. YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN?
Reply

Amadeus85
05-08-2008, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
If a person came upto you and told you he believed in three seperate Gods, and told you he was a follower of Christ a Christian, would you be able to say to him. YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN?
Yes, because we(catholics,orthodoxes and protestants) believe in one God.
Reply

glo
05-08-2008, 05:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi Keltoi
Under your defenition of christianity it might be simple. But other Christian denominations disagree with some of the things you listed as fundamental, which was the whole point that brother Al Habeshi was trying to make in the first place.
I agree that it is probably quite difficult to refute Christianity, in the sense Al Habeshi is indicating in his OP.

And the reason may be that the Bible (and therefore the interpretation of Christians of it) is much less prescriptive and much more open to interpretation than the Qu'ran is.
I see in this forum, how much confusion that causes in Muslims, and how it is perceived to be a weakness.
Compared to the Qu'ran that may be ... the Qu'ran is much clearer (not totally unambigious in some areas, I don't think, but generally much more defined than the Bible is) in what the do's and dont's are.

We have said it a hundred times in this forum - but that is not how the Bible is meant to be read.

Strangely I find the openness of the Bible a real strength - in the sense that it causes me to read, ponder, compare, discuss, read again, pray over, read again, pray some more ... (you get the idea :D)
I do not just follow the book, I also need to look within myself, I need to listen to my own conscience, I need to listen to God's spirit within me. It is much more than just following an instruction manual!

As a consequence of Christians doing all the above, we come to have so many denominations.
Again, I don't see that to be a weakness. In the past as well as now, there have been people saying 'I don't agree with you on such-and-such ... I think it is so-and-so' ...

But as Keltoi so nicely points out, our differences are not as important as the basic premise of the Christian faith, which most denominations agree with (and those who don't are very much on the fringe of the Christian religion, if indeed still part of it ...)
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The fundamental Christian doctrine is quite simple really.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

The fundamental Christian doctrine is easily recognized, and those who do not follow the fundamental doctrine are easily recognized.
With regards to wishing to refute Christianity - why should that be so important in the first place?
How about 'To you your religion, to me mine'? :)

Peace
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 05:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi Keltoi
Under your defenition of christianity it might be simple. But other Christian denominations disagree with some of the things you listed as fundamental, which was the whole point that brother Al Habeshi was trying to make in the first place.
There are no CHRISTIAN denominations who disagree with that doctrine. If they do, they are not Christians at all but some other religion. As has already been mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, they are offshoot sects with a different faith system altogether.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 05:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are no CHRISTIAN denominations who disagree with that doctrine. If they do, they are not Christians at all but some other religion. As has already been mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, they are offshoot sects with a different faith system altogether.
Yes, different faith system according to you, but they also base their religion on the bible and their belief in the holy spirit who guides people, don't they? They also claim to be following "Christ" In a way couldn't they be considered Christians then? Or does your denomination have exclusive copyrights on that word? ^_^

Anyway, lets forget about terminology and back on topic, why should people accept that the holy spirit is a genuine source for your denomination, but not for others?

If someone would ask me an analogue question, like why this Islamic denomination and not another, I could point out many contradictions and inconsistencies with the many sects which show that although most rely on the qur'an, they still haven't got the same authority to speak in the name of Islam. But that is a method that is not open to christian denominations since there cannot be any "inconsistency" behind the big veil of mysticism. Since All denominations allow free interpretation of scripture, you cannot render another denomination as false for it's interpretation, even if it is the opposite of your interpretation!
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Yes, because we(catholics,orthodoxes and protestants) believe in one God.
What if they asked: 'provide evidence that I (JW) am not a follower of Christ.

format_quote Originally Posted by glo
With regards to wishing to refute Christianity - why should that be so important in the first place?
How about 'To you your religion, to me mine'? :)

Peace
Ah, I dont want my family going hell that's why. :)
Reply

Amadeus85
05-08-2008, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Lol, provide evidence that he is not a follower of Christ.
Christ didnt teach politheism.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 06:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Christ didnt teach politheism.
He didn't teach trinity either. The only (alleged) references of trinity in the bible are relying on interpretation of mystic verses, nowhere in the bible is it explained clearly and explicitly. Yet at the same time Keltoi listed it as a basic undeniable tenet, and anyone who disagrees is not Christian even though Christ didn't teach that. so obviously your criteria "didn't teach that" isn't sufficient.
Reply

Amadeus85
05-08-2008, 06:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
What if they asked: 'provide evidence that I (JW) am not a follower of Christ.
For me its simple, catholic teaching says who is and who is not a christian.I am catholic and I trust it as truth. So according to Catholic Church those who will go to heaven by the faith in Messiah are- our brothers orthodoxes and our brother protestants. Not a word about J.W or mormons sir. :)
Reply

Amadeus85
05-08-2008, 06:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
He didn't teach trinity either. The only (alleged) references of trinity in the bible are relying on interpretation of mystic verses, nowhere in the bible is it explained clearly and explicitly.
The word trinity doesnt appear in Bible, just like the word Quaran or Islam.
But the in New testament you can see existence of Jesus,God The father and Holy Spirit.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
The word trinity doesnt appear in Bible, just like the word Quaran or Islam.
What's your point there exactly?
But the in New testament you can see existence of Jesus,God The father and Holy Spirit.
You can see the existance of jesus, but not as part of trinity, you can see the existance of God, but not as part of a trinity, and I don't know where in the bible you can "see" the holy spirit, but I doubt there's any place that shows that it's part of a trinity either. Basically your argument is, all the components are there. That's like looking at a recipe for pie, and suggesting that it is a recipe for pancakes because all the ingredients for making pancakes are there. It will take more then simply showing that the "required parts" are there to convince me that Jesus taught trinity, or to convince me there's traces of that in the bible.
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are no CHRISTIAN denominations who disagree with that doctrine. If they do, they are not Christians at all but some other religion. As has already been mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, they are offshoot sects with a different faith system altogether.
You mean that they are not your type of Christian, do you have any evidence, from your religion to say they are not if that makes sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaron85
Christ didnt teach politheism.
Well, what if they said, according to the Bible the Holy Spirit will teach the followers all truths, part of that is to recognise that there is more than one God, but only One supreme God. And that the Holy Spirit taught them this.
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 08:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
You mean that they are not your type of Christian, do you have any evidence, from your religion to say they are not if that makes sense.



Well, what if they said, according to the Bible the Holy Spirit will teach the followers all truths, part of that is to recognise that there is more than one God, but only One supreme God. And that the Holy Spirit taught them this.
Mormons are not Christian because the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible, but a different character altogether. According to Mormonism, Jesus was the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became god of this world. The Jesus of Mormonism was made god of this world because of his good works on another planet in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth.

Does that sound like Christian doctrine to you?

That is why it is fairly easy, by actually understanding the belief system of these groups, to come to the conclusion that they are not Christians.

If someone claims the Holy Spirit is calling them to worship something other than the One God as described in the Bible then that claim does not come from the Holy Spirit.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 08:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Mormons are not Christian because the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible, but a different character altogether.
Sorry but that is incorrect. While they do have a different book (the book of mormon) they also believe in the bible. They do believe in the same Christ, however they believed that Christ visited other places after he resurrected.
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 08:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
What's your point there exactly?

You can see the existance of jesus, but not as part of trinity, you can see the existance of God, but not as part of a trinity, and I don't know where in the bible you can "see" the holy spirit, but I doubt there's any place that shows that it's part of a trinity either. Basically your argument is, all the components are there. That's like looking at a recipe for pie, and suggesting that it is a recipe for pancakes because all the ingredients for making pancakes are there. It will take more then simply showing that the "required parts" are there to convince me that Jesus taught trinity, or to convince me there's traces of that in the bible.
The Trinity doctrine came about because each part of the Trinity, meaning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are referred to as distinct persons. Often acting in unison and who exist as the Will of God. These are not separate "gods", but manifestations of the One God. Without God there would be no Christ, without God there would be no Holy Spirit.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 08:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Trinity doctrine came about because each part of the Trinity, meaning God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, are referred to as distinct persons. Often acting in unison and who exist as the Will of God. These are not separate "gods", but manifestations of the One God.
First of all, the bible only explicitly shows one of those three as God, the rest is your interpretation. Also being in unison doesn't indicate trinity either. The different prophets like Abrahim, Mozes and Noah also "acted in unison" could they be part of a different trinity?

Without God there would be no Christ, without God there would be no Holy Spirit.
without God, you wouldn't exist either. Does that make you part of the trinity to? Wait, I mean the quartet...
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 08:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Sorry but that is incorrect. While they do have a different book (the book of mormon) they also believe in the bible. They do believe in the same Christ, however they believed that Christ visited other places after he resurrected.
Simply claiming you worship the Jesus of the Bible does not mean that you actually are. As described above, the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus contained within the Bible. Nothing I stated in the prior post was "incorrect". That is their doctrine on their version of Jesus. That version is not the Jesus of the Gospels.

Here is a simple test. If Mormons wish to be thought of as Christians, would they accept me as a Mormon if I dismissed John Smith (their prophet) altogether and everything he said? Obviously not.
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 08:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
First of all, the bible only explicitly shows one of those three as God, the rest is your interpretation. Also being in unison doesn't indicate trinity either. The different prophets like Abrahim, Mozes and Noah also "acted in unison" could they be part of a different trinity?


without God, you wouldn't exist either. Does that make you part of the trinity to? Wait, I mean the quartet...
Actually that isn't true. The Holy Spirit(Spirit of God) is used over and over again, always in relation to God Himself. Christ claimed divinity as the Son of God.

As for acting in unison, what I meant is that they act as the Will of God and exist as the Will of God.

As for the three prophets you mentioned, that is a strawman. We both know we are talking about God, not men.

The last statement is so ludicrous I don't feel the need to address it.
Reply

barney
05-08-2008, 09:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are no CHRISTIAN denominations who disagree with that doctrine. If they do, they are not Christians at all but some other religion. As has already been mentioned, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians, they are offshoot sects with a different faith system altogether.
You cant blame them really. Joseph Smith wasnt going to get very far if he suddenly announced he was God. People would want miracles, clear visable and audiable signs. This was the 1800's, people were a lot more savvy then than in ancient times.
Much better to take an already established religion, with miracles, prophets and done deals and simply claim that you were the last in line of Yahwehs Prophets. (no more after you)
It's a much slippier sell and a whole lot of less work involved.
Rather than starting from nothing,aka the IPU or FSM all you have to do is convince people that Mormanism is the true word and the Book of Mormon is the uncorrupted version of Gods message, that Christians have got it wrong, even if they mean well and you beleive in their prophets too.
A small leap of faith really.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
05-08-2008, 09:28 PM
Hi keltoi
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Simply claiming you worship the Jesus of the Bible does not mean that you actually are.
But aren't Christians also "simply claiming" based on their interpretations of that bible?

As described above, the Jesus of Mormonism is not the Jesus contained within the Bible. Nothing I stated in the prior post was "incorrect". That is their doctrine on their version of Jesus. That version is not the Jesus of the Gospels.
It is incorrect that you claim that the claim it was a different person, they don't claim that at all. They do claim it's the same person as the gospel.

Here is a simple test. If Mormons wish to be thought of as Christians, would they accept me as a Mormon if I dismissed John Smith (their prophet) altogether and everything he said? Obviously not.
That logic is flawed as much as saying: All birds can fly, mosquito's aren't birds, therefor mosquito's can't fly.

Actually that isn't true. The Holy Spirit(Spirit of God) is used over and over again, always in relation to God Himself.
In relation yes, but it isn't specified what kind of relation! All prophets are also mentioned in relation to God in the OT, so by that same logic would you assume that the other prophets are also part of the trinity by that same logic?

Christ claimed divinity as the Son of God.
Yes and apearently, so has John and his friends also claimed divinity:
1 John 3:1-3 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when [Jesus] appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
There are many more examples of other people or even nations being referred to as children of God, specifically in the OT, since "children of God" is a metaphorical way to refer to pious people in Judaism. So why take on literary and the other metaphorically? How do you explain the double standard?

As for acting in unison, what I meant is that they act as the Will of God and exist as the Will of God.
There is not a leave that drops on this earth or it's by God's will, so by that logic, the whole universe is part of the trinity? Maybe we should call it the infinity then?

As for the three prophets you mentioned, that is a strawman. We both know we are talking about God, not men.
It's not a strawmen, I know you're talking about God, I'm simply making an analogy to show you that your logic is flawed. To show you that just because things are in unison isn't sufficient to conclude they are a unity!

The last statement is so ludicrous I don't feel the need to address it.
it was an argument ad absurdem yes, so I understand your reaction. However there is a point beneath it, namely that just because the existence of one is dependent on the existence of the other, doesn't mean that both are the same thing!
Reply

barney
05-08-2008, 09:53 PM
But Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as the son of god, alpha and omega etc etc.
But your not christians. Mormanism is the same.
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Mormons are not Christian because the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus of the Bible, but a different character altogether. According to Mormonism, Jesus was the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became god of this world. The Jesus of Mormonism was made god of this world because of his good works on another planet in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth.
They worship a different Jesus to what you worship, they interpret the text differently to your interpretation. That's it. Now, which is true? Well, if we hold that the Holy Spirit is an authority, and they claim to get their teachings from the Holy Spirit then surely they have authority too, as much as you have authority claiming the same claim. This authority gives them a different interpretation of the same text, which interpretation is more valid? I can't challenge either in saying this one is more in line with the Bible since the Bible itself teaches that the Holy Spirit will teach.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Does that sound like Christian doctrine to you?
It doesn't sound like mainstream I agree, but that doesn't mean its wrong.

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
That is why it is fairly easy, by actually understanding the belief system of these groups, to come to the conclusion that they are not Christians.
They are followers of Christ if the Holy Spirit genuinly came to them, how do I know if the Spirit they have is true or not? You say go to the Bible and see if what they preach contradicts, well how can I say it contradicts if their Spirit teaches them how to interpret things, just like your Spirit does!

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
If someone claims the Holy Spirit is calling them to worship something other than the One God as described in the Bible then that claim does not come from the Holy Spirit.
Well they would say that of you. They would say your Spirit is probably not the right Spirit. Since, truly understanding the Bible is dependent on a Holy Spirit, i.e. for interpretation.

EDIT:

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
But Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as the son of god, alpha and omega etc etc.
But your not christians. Mormanism is the same.
If Christian means follower of Christ then we are and are not. In the sense taht we follow Jesus by not following him.

Example, if a policeman said to you, dont follow me, follow your guide.

And you did not follow him, in reality you did follow him, meaning listen to him, if you did not follow him and followed the guide.

That make sense? We Muslims do follow Jesus, by following Muhammad.

Similarly Mormons claim to follow Jesus by following the teachings of the Holy Spirit.
Reply

Keltoi
05-08-2008, 10:52 PM
Mormon's did not interpret the Gospels differently. They created their own Bible in order to back up their version of Jesus. The Gospels do not in any way, regardless of how it is interpreted, point to Jesus being "made" a god of the Earth by a council of other gods because of his good deeds on another planet. Period.
Reply

barney
05-08-2008, 11:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

If Christian means follower of Christ then we are and are not. In the sense taht we follow Jesus by not following him.

Heh, yeah i get what your saying.
I'm pointing out that
Jesus is a Prophet in Mormonism.
Jesus is a Prophet in Islam

Muslims worship God.
Mormons worship God

Muslims had a messenger. Mohammed PBUH
Mormons had a messenger. Jo Smith.

Mohammed was persecuted and called mad
Jo Smith was persecuted and called Mad.

Mohammed Brought the Koran, which mentions prophets of old and relates to the book
Jo Smith brought the Gold Plates of neffy or whoever it was, which mentions prophets of old and relates to the book

Islam and Mormonism have some similarity, one aspect of which is whilst accepting Jesus, they reject the properties assigned to him by Christians.

Mormons are no more Christian than Muslims are.
Reply

Umar001
05-09-2008, 08:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Mormon's did not interpret the Gospels differently. They created their own Bible in order to back up their version of Jesus. The Gospels do not in any way, regardless of how it is interpreted, point to Jesus being "made" a god of the Earth by a council of other gods because of his good deeds on another planet. Period.
But look, if the Holy Spirit is what helps you interpret the Bible, as your teacher, then surely if these people have the Holy Spirit they will interpret it better than you. So for example, they will be able to see hidden meanings.

You may say they don't have the Holy Spirit, ok, thats your point but we cant be sure.

As you have said the Gospels may not mention that, but maybe it was because the time was not right, you see God has a plan, he revealed himself slowly, first through blood scrafice to the elders, slowly giving them glimspses, then slowly he revealed his salvation plan Jesus dying, and then he revealed how Jesus achieved that position of being able to give his life as God.

I mean, the Gospels don't speak against it either, so it could be argued that God was giving milk to the children and now the time for meat had arraived.

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Mormons are no more Christian than Muslims are.
And Catholics are no more than Mormons and Evangelicals and Muslims and etc.
Reply

Keltoi
05-09-2008, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
But look, if the Holy Spirit is what helps you interpret the Bible, as your teacher, then surely if these people have the Holy Spirit they will interpret it better than you. So for example, they will be able to see hidden meanings.

You may say they don't have the Holy Spirit, ok, thats your point but we cant be sure.

As you have said the Gospels may not mention that, but maybe it was because the time was not right, you see God has a plan, he revealed himself slowly, first through blood scrafice to the elders, slowly giving them glimspses, then slowly he revealed his salvation plan Jesus dying, and then he revealed how Jesus achieved that position of being able to give his life as God.

I mean, the Gospels don't speak against it either, so it could be argued that God was giving milk to the children and now the time for meat had arraived.



And Catholics are no more than Mormons and Evangelicals and Muslims and etc.
Sorry, but I'm afraid you aren't making any sense to me at this point. That kind of circular logic can be applied to anything.

Christians do believe that the Holy Spirit(the Spirit of God) was sent to us as a Comforter. Yes, the Holy Spirit can guide one on his or her spiritual path, but that path is one that is already described to us. We do not follow other prophets or doctrine. As Christians we do not believe another prophet of God will come or is even necessary. In fact we are warned about false prophets. Joseph Smith was a false prophet and taught a false doctrine.

I get the point you are trying to make, which is how do we know if the Holy Spirit has truly led a person to a new doctrine? The question already has the answer though. The Holy Spirit doesn't lead people astray. As Christians we know the path we are meant to walk, as desribed to us by Jesus Christ. We may differ on rituals and theological theories about salvation vs. works, but that fundamental element doesn't change.
Reply

Umar001
05-09-2008, 05:52 PM
But the path which Jesus layed out can be interpreted by this Spirit, that's the whole point. What you deem astray is your interpretation, not neccesarily wha the Spirit has lead others to interpret 'astray'. This is what I am saying.

I dont get why you say you follow no other prophets because I havent seen that ever, maybe you could elaborate.
Reply

Delta
05-09-2008, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
But the path which Jesus layed out can be interpreted by this Spirit, that's the whole point. What you deem astray is your interpretation, not neccesarily wha the Spirit has lead others to interpret 'astray'. This is what I am saying.

I dont get why you say you follow no other prophets because I havent seen that ever, maybe you could elaborate.
Assalamu Alaykum,

Before anything else I'm a Roman Catholic, so I give our faith interpretation

1)

The bible didn't came down from heaven in a cloud or in a angel hand, and there is no copy of that book in heaven

2)

The bible was made by man, by inspiration of God, it is not the verbatim word of God, we don't claim that the bible is a absolute word of God

You even have each author in the top of each chapter

3)

Jesus Christ did not come and promise us a book. If Christ had wanted us to be "people of the book," as Muslims call us, then He would have written one.

But instead He promised us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which is the guiding force of the True Church that Christ established.

Scriptures are more of a letter of introduction to God, and not the ultimate authority that Protestants hold them to be. That authority authority was given to the Church that canonized the Scriptures.

4)

Catholicism doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

Jesus only left us with what He taught his apostles & disciples Himself. Most of which have been passed down to us from (Catholic) bishop to bishop, and in the many writings of the early church fathers.

Early church (all 'Catholic' -word Catholic meaning "universal") fathers listened to the apostles, were taught by them, and had their (bishops) authority passed to them by the apostles themselves.

If you know a secret formula for a chocolate cake, and transmit it to your sons, and your sons to their sons and so on and further on....the formula will be preserved in your family tree ( genealogical tree )

5)

God is Spirit, a book is a book, and CAN KILL YOU

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians, 3-6

It was the Church who made the bible and not the contrary, IT WAS NOT the bible who created the church

Outside the church there is no Bible, just a multitude of sects, heresies, gnosticism, all due to bad interpretations

That's what is meant by Holy Spirit assistance, because God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light

To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?
Reply

aadil77
05-09-2008, 08:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
Assalamu Alaykum,

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?
there's a difference between misinterpreting and reading out of context, so no they will not become a terrorist even if they read it literally

God knows best
Reply

Delta
05-09-2008, 08:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77

there's a difference between misinterpreting and reading out of context, so no they will not become a terrorist even if they read it literally

God knows best
Reading a passage of the Quran in context does not mean just reading it with the preceding and following verses.

You have to also know the sha’ne nozool, i.e. the historic context, why and in what occasion Muhammad said a certain verse. That is why you have tafseer.

Tafseer is the interpretation of the Quran. Tafseer means interpreting, clarifying, expounding. It is derived from fasara, which means "to explain, to open or to unveil"

Many books of tafseer have been written.

Does this mean that you can't interpret the absolute word of God, the Verbatim Word of God ?
Reply

Umar001
05-09-2008, 09:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
Assalamu Alaykum,

Before anything else I'm a Roman Catholic, so I give our faith interpretation
Wa Alaykum Salam and thank you for your contribution and I am glad you recognise the following to be your faith's interpretation.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
1)

The bible didn't came down from heaven in a cloud or in a angel hand, and there is no copy of that book in heaven
Agree.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
2)

The bible was made by man, by inspiration of God, it is not the verbatim word of God, we don't claim that the bible is a absolute word of God

You even have each author in the top of each chapter
Ok, well the supposed author.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
3)

Jesus Christ did not come and promise us a book. If Christ had wanted us to be "people of the book," as Muslims call us, then He would have written one.

But instead He promised us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which is the guiding force of the True Church that Christ established.

Scriptures are more of a letter of introduction to God, and not the ultimate authority that Protestants hold them to be. That authority authority was given to the Church that canonized the Scriptures.
Well the Scriptures are the writings of Jesus' teachings. Therefore they are, as Jesus' teachings an ultimate authority, are they not? Their interpretation is what you claim to have authority over too.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
4)

Catholicism doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

Jesus only left us with what He taught his apostles & disciples Himself. Most of which have been passed down to us from (Catholic) bishop to bishop, and in the many writings of the early church fathers.

Early church (all 'Catholic' -word Catholic meaning "universal") fathers listened to the apostles, were taught by them, and had their (bishops) authority passed to them by the apostles themselves.

If you know a secret formula for a chocolate cake, and transmit it to your sons, and your sons to their sons and so on and further on....the formula will be preserved in your family tree ( genealogical tree )
You state: 'Jesus only left us with what He Taught his apostles & disciples Himself.' Is that not what the Bible contains? If so then isn't this authoritative?

As for the line, I understand the concept, though I dont think it happened as such.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
5)

God is Spirit, a book is a book, and CAN KILL YOU

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians, 3-6

It was the Church who made the bible and not the contrary, IT WAS NOT the bible who created the church

Outside the church there is no Bible, just a multitude of sects, heresies, gnosticism, all due to bad interpretations

That's what is meant by Holy Spirit assistance, because God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light
That is your interpretation. That the rest is bad is what you understand Jesus' message to be. The whole of the above is what you interpret, and your Church. But others hold claims different from yours but just as valid to an outsider.

format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?
No I don't see, the style of interpretation is not an or/either matter, some parts maybe literal others maybe parables and such things. There are rules on how to interpret the Qur'an, not interpreting the words literally does not mean that they are interpreted in any manner, rather, they maybe interpreted in a way the Prophet himself, meaning God, since the Prophet is God's representative intended them to be interpreted.

But also interpreting them literally makes one a fundamentalist, which is one who holds to the fundamentals, this is not bad, is it?

But I dont know why you think it would make them a terrorist, a terrorist is one who causes terror, if I interpret 'love your enemy' literally do I cause terror?

The difference here is that the Qur'anic interpretation is based on evidences which have to be provided. Now, I agree this is also a part in Christianity, source critisism and so forth, but Christianity gives the reader of the Bible an option, to interpret the text according to the Holy Spirit, the individual's teacher, now, this cannot be tested, since if the Holy Spirit/God tells an individual 'love your enemy' means x.y.z how can we debate that!?

And God knows best.
Reply

barney
05-09-2008, 09:30 PM
Welcome Delta to the forums, We need a few catholics here, so hope you enjoy your stay!
Reply

MustafaMc
05-10-2008, 02:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The fundamental Christian doctrine is quite simple really.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

The differences lie in ritual and the importance of works vs. faith. The Catholic/Protestant schism did not come about over a difference in doctrine, but the corruption of the Catholic Church i.e. the selling of indulgences and other issues.

The fundamental Christian doctrine is easily recognized, and those who do not follow the fundamental doctrine are easily recognized.
I agree that all Christians (as commonly accepted) believe in the above stated portion of the Nicene Creed; however, not all would agree with all of the unstated last part:

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-10-2008, 04:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
Assalamu Alaykum,

Before anything else I'm a Roman Catholic, so I give our faith interpretation

The bible was made by man, by inspiration of God, it is not the verbatim word of God, we don't claim that the bible is a absolute word of God

Jesus Christ did not come and promise us a book. If Christ had wanted us to be "people of the book," as Muslims call us, then He would have written one.

But instead He promised us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which is the guiding force of the True Church that Christ established.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


The bible didn't came down from heaven in a cloud or in a angel hand, and there is no copy of that book in heaven

absolutely agree!


Catholicism doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

Jesus only left us with what He taught his apostles & disciples Himself. Most of which have been passed down to us from (Catholic) bishop to bishop, and in the many writings of the early church fathers.

Early church (all 'Catholic' -word Catholic meaning "universal") fathers listened to the apostles, were taught by them, and had their (bishops) authority passed to them by the apostles themselves.

God is Spirit, a book is a book, and CAN KILL YOU

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians, 3-6

It was the Church who made the bible and not the contrary, IT WAS NOT the bible who created the church

Outside the church there is no Bible, just a multitude of sects, heresies, gnosticism, all due to bad interpretations

That's what is meant by Holy Spirit assistance, because God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light

and yet the Roman Catholic Church brings us:

The Catholic Inquisition

Rafael Rodríguez Guillén


To say that the INQUISITION, the most fearful scourge of persecution in history, which the Catholic Church hath used against genuine Christians, whom she has been silencing and censuring for centuries, is still in existence in the 20th century, imposed by Catholicism, is a very different subject to comprehend, and taboo; because of (the) historical ignorance and the excommunications which those who are dedicated to the truth suffer. These faithful Christians fear not to speak their conscience, and undertake the great task of speaking the truth and opening the eyes of thousands of Catholic believers, who have been falsely educated concerning the truth about the Catholic Inquisition and its consequences.
source:

http://christianprogress.com/7.htm

and:


THE INQUISITION:
A Study in Absolute Catholic Power

Arthur Maricle, Ph.D.

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." {Revelation 17:6}

Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has been constantly evolving over the centuries.

This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal, changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and propagation.

The nature of its response to the inroads made by spiritual challengers is dictated by its cultural surroundings. The more Catholic the culture, the more severe the response. In past centuries, when Rome's ecclesiastical power was virtually absolute throughout Europe, the intensity of the attacks by the papists upon their spiritual enemies could be equally absolute. Ignoring the injunction of II Corinthians 10:4 ("For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..."), Catholicism built its own philosophical system to justify the use of carnal (fleshly, human, physical) means to achieve spiritual ends.

Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Muslims, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree of control.

To what lengths is the Catholic hierarchy prepared to go in its drive to repress opposition and achieve its goal of instituting the kingdom of Christ on earth? To find the answer, one must look to the pages of history.

When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government. As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following.

By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.

[Pope] Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Muslims, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him.

The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Muslims (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces.

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."A

This is but one example from the long and sordid history of Catholic atrocities committed against their bitter enemies, the Bible believing Christians. Much worse treatment of Bible believers was forthcoming during that stage of bloody Catholic history known as the Inquisition.

It is vital, though, that we here define what is meant by the term "heretic". According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, this is a heretic: "One who holds or advocates controversial opinions, esp. one who publicly opposes the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic, Church." Or, as one author has put it, "Heresy, to a Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible."B Another summarized the official stance as this: "Every citizen in the empire was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the pope was considered treason against the state punishable by death."C

From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.D

Pope Alexander IV established the Office of the Inquisition within Italy in 1254. The first inquisitor was Dominic, a Spaniard who was the founder of the Dominican order of monks.

The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.E

The Inquisition was a terrifying fact of life to those who lived in areas where it was in force. That domain would eventually include not only much of Europe, but also the far-flung colonies of Europe's Catholic powers.

The Inquisition, led by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, was usually early on the scene following each territorial acquisition of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. The methods used, which all too often were similar to those used by Serra in California or the Nazi-backed Ustashis in Croatia, sowed the seeds of reaction and aversion that have proved to be a barrier for true missionaries ever since.

Albert Close writes of the Jesuit mission to Indonesia in 1559 that "conversion was wonderfully shortened by the cooperation of the colonial governors whose militia offered' the natives the choice of the musket ball or of baptism."

Everywhere it existed, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition spread its tentacles of fear.

When an inquisitor arrived in an area he called for reports of anyone suspected of heresy, sometimes offering rewards to spies who would report suspected heretics. Those suspected were imprisoned to await trials. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as judge, prosecutor, and jury. The accused had no lawyer. It was often simpler to confess to heresy than to defend oneself, especially since torture was often employed until the accused was ready to confess.

Because church and state had not been kept separate, the church powers could call upon the government to use its power against the convicted heretics. Anyone who fell back into heresy after repentance was turned over by the Inquisition to the regular government to be put to death. Most of those condemned to death were burned at the stake, but some were beaten to death or drowned.

The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because the church considered its work so praiseworthy.F

Even after the death of a victim, his punishment was not ended. The property of condemned heretics was confiscated, leaving his family in poverty.

It is important here to emphasize Rome's role in the brutality of the Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to excuse the Vatican's role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: "The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians claimed by the Popes as God's representatives on earth, as [Pope] Innocent III expressly states it."G

In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.

Dollinger continues: "It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,"H

Will Durant informs us that in 1521 Leo X issued the bull Honestis which "ordered the excommunication of any officials, and the suspension of religious services in any community, that refused to execute, without examination or revision, the sentences of the inquisitors." Consider Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II: "We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.I

The methods used by the Inquisition ranged from the barbaric to the bizarre.

When the inquisitors swept into a town an "Edict of Faith" was issued requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge. Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the inquisitors' wrath. Informants would approach the inquisitors' lodgings under cover of night and were rewarded for information. No one arrested was ever acquitted.

Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".

"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.J

This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy." In 1815, Comte Le Maistre defended the Inquisition by advocating: "The Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has power."K Such a viewpoint could only be expressed by one so brainwashed as to think that the cruel, torturous deaths of dissidents to Catholicism is preferable to the survival and propagation of those who would challenge the Vatican's authority.

Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."L Historian Will Durant stated, "Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first 3 centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure. Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."M

Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the significance of the Inquisition, saying that relatively few people were ever directly affected. While controversy rages around the number of victims that can be claimed by the Inquisition, conservative estimates easily place the count in the millions. This does not include the equally vast numbers of human beings slaughtered in the various wars and other conflicts instigated over the centuries by Vatican political intrigues. Nor does it take it account the Holocaust wrought upon the Jews by the Nazis, led by Roman Catholics who used their own religious history to justify their modern excesses. As one secular history explains, "As the Germans instituted a bureaucracy of organized murder, so too did Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor, a worthy of predecessor of Heydrich and Eichmann."N

Because her basic doctrinal premises remain in place, Rome can yet again rise up against her spiritual enemies at some future date when she again wields exclusive ecclesiastical control of a region. In fact, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in which it can stamp out "heresy". As recently as 1938, a popular Catholic weekly declared:

Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same that concedes to the spiritual authority the power of life and death over the archtraitor.O

The Inquisition proved how Catholicism will react when it has possession of absolute power. Is it any wonder that in the 1880s, Dr. H. Grattan Guinness preached the following:

I see the great Apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters; I see those vice-gods, that Gregory VII, that Innocent III, that Boniface Vlll, that Alexander Vl, that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I hear their insufferable blasphemies, I see their abominable lives; I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions, bartering away worthless promises of heaven; I see their liveried slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St. Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable dragonnades, that endless train of wars, that dreadful multitude of massacres. I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has brought in the Church and in the world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered, the millions it has ****ed; with holy confessors, with noble reformers, with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan, as the body and soul and essence of antichrist."P

The challenge I give to Bible believing Christians is to respect the heritage we have been given by those who suffered for Biblical truth, that we may be prepared to suffer ourselves. Ours is the generation that may yet again be afflicted for the faith once delivered to the saints. If such is to be our privilege, let us face our trials with this promise of our Lord fresh upon our hearts: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." {Matthew 5:10}

The challenge I give to Roman Catholics is to take up the New Testament of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit of God to speak to your hearts. If a Catholic remains skeptical about this brief treatise on the Inquisition, he is certainly welcome to examine for himself the record of history. If he remains unmoved by my conclusions, he is welcome to draw his own. But of far greater import is his need to examine the teachings of his church in the light of God's Word. Jesus leaves you with this warning: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." {John 12:48} You to whom the Bible was so accessible will not be able to plead ignorance in that terrible day of judgment.
source:

http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html


To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?

no, i don't but...
counterpoint, when you have:

Catholicism [which] doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium
you get:

Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Muslims, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians.

Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.

The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Muslims (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."

The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because the church considered its work so praiseworthy.

"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.

This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy."
WHY?

because [the Catholic]God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light

hmmmm... is that Christianity??


:w:
Reply

Delta
05-10-2008, 02:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Well the Scriptures are the writings of Jesus' teachings. Therefore they are, as Jesus' teachings an ultimate authority, are they not? Their interpretation is what you claim to have authority over too.
You have the answer by Jesus Himself :

10. And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
11. Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
12. For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath.
Matthew, 13:10-12


Which means only the Church owns the true message of Jesus, and the full and correct interpretation of the bible

You state: 'Jesus only left us with what He Taught his apostles & disciples Himself.' Is that not what the Bible contains? If so then isn't this authoritative?
The Bible doesn't have any authority over the Church, since that the Church owns all the teachings of Jesus, apostles, earliest fathers of the churche...thru traditions and magesterium, transmitted generation thru generation, with the Spirit of God always present

Qu'ran is a little different it is a heavy authoritative book thats takes control over all single aspects of your life


No I don't see, the style of interpretation is not an or/either matter, some parts maybe literal others maybe parables and such things. There are rules on how to interpret the Qur'an, not interpreting the words literally does not mean that they are interpreted in any manner, rather, they maybe interpreted in a way the Prophet himself, meaning God, since the Prophet is God's representative intended them to be interpreted.
You should know better than me how the Qu'ran should be read and interpreted. I just said if the Qu'ran is an authoritative book, something complete, perfect; pure; unlimited; definite, positive; not relative transmitted to man....then it is dangerous not to interpret it correctly

Today every Muslim proudly identifies himself with the titles of Sunni, Shia, Ahle-Hadith, Ahle-Fiqah, Ahle-Quran, Hanfi, Shafi, Malki, Hanbli, Dewbandi Brailwi so on and so forth.

But also interpreting them literally makes one a fundamentalist, which is one who holds to the fundamentals, this is not bad, is it?
It all depends on the message you are reading

But I dont know why you think it would make them a terrorist, a terrorist is one who causes terror, if I interpret 'love your enemy' literally do I cause terror?
You know better than me how to interpret the Qu'ran. For example if you take a verse and you feel uncomfortable with the context of it, .i.e, when there is no space left to other interpretation than literally.....then you know what I mean

You should, for example read the New Testament, and then the Qu'ran, for example Sura 9, and make your own conclusions


The difference here is that the Qur'anic interpretation is based on evidences which have to be provided. Now, I agree this is also a part in Christianity, source critisism and so forth, but Christianity gives the reader of the Bible an option, to interpret the text according to the Holy Spirit, the individual's teacher, now, this cannot be tested, since if the Holy Spirit/God tells an individual 'love your enemy' means x.y.z how can we debate that!?
I don't understand what you mean

Love your enemies just means that we must pray for them, not fight back, not accusing others, etc...do to others what you would have them do to you

God Bless
Reply

Delta
05-10-2008, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor


hmmmm... is that Christianity??


:w:
You shouldn't discuss history but rather faith matters.

Inquisition must be understood correctly and you must know very well all single aspects of history. For example, successive threats of schism that the Pope received from kings and queens in that period of time. They wished to control Inquisition for political aspects rather than for faith. It is a long, long debate.

As for Islam, a historian Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization,

describes the Muslim invasion of India as "probably the bloodiest story in history."

The North Western region of India is called the Hindu Kush ("the slaughter of the Hindu") as a reminder of the vast number of Hindu slaves who died while being marched across the Afghan Mountains to the Muslim slave markets in Central Asia. The Buddhists were also targeted for destruction. In AD 1193 Muhammad Khilji burned to the ground their famous library and the Buddhist stronghold of Bihar.

Is this Islam ?

It is very dedicated issues
Reply

YusufNoor
05-10-2008, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
You shouldn't discuss history but rather faith matters.

Inquisition must be understood correctly and you must know very well all single aspects of history. For example, successive threats of schism that the Pope received from kings and queens in that period of time. They wished to control Inquisition for political aspects rather than for faith. It is a long, long debate.

As for Islam, a historian Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization,

describes the Muslim invasion of India as "probably the bloodiest story in history."

The North Western region of India is called the Hindu Kush ("the slaughter of the Hindu") as a reminder of the vast number of Hindu slaves who died while being marched across the Afghan Mountains to the Muslim slave markets in Central Asia. The Buddhists were also targeted for destruction. In AD 1193 Muhammad Khilji burned to the ground their famous library and the Buddhist stronghold of Bihar.

Is this Islam ?

It is very dedicated issues
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i was responding to your comments:

To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?

no, i don't but...
in the case of Catholicism the Church itself is the terrorist. and more to the point, what some misguided Muslims do is VERY DIFFERENT from what the "Catholic" church does. the Catholic Church claims it's authority from God, and thus it's actions MUST be held up to that claim, whereas Muslims or anyone else that doesn't follow the Qur'an & the Sunnah WILL ERR!

it's kind of simple really: to say "i am the Pope, and i speak for god" means that all the lies, deceit, murder, rape and terrorism committed by the Popes and their followers become part of their religion.

Perhaps you prefer "some other form" of Catholicism?
..

:w:
Reply

Delta
05-10-2008, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor
in the case of Catholicism the Church itself is the terrorist. and more to the point, what some misguided Muslims do is VERY DIFFERENT from what the "Catholic" church does. the Catholic Church claims it's authority from God, and thus it's actions MUST be held up to that claim, whereas Muslims or anyone else that doesn't follow the Qur'an & the Sunnah WILL ERR!
ACTIONS, that's what is all about, but don't talk about the past because I gave you just a single example, there is a lot of more. But that is history, and I'm here to discuss faith rather than history

Since we are in the present, XXI century, what type of actions do you thing that are bad or evil from catholics ?

it's kind of simple really: to say "i am the Pope, and i speak for god" means that all the lies, deceit, murder, rape and terrorism committed by the Popes and their followers become part of their religion.
You should read that book of Will Durant - The Story of Civilization -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant

Do you have that feelings about catholics by your own, or is rather based on what was transmitted to you by others ? in which sources do you support your hate about catholicism ?
Reply

YusufNoor
05-10-2008, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delta
ACTIONS, that's what is all about, but don't talk about the past because I gave you just a single example, there is a lot of more. But that is history, and I'm here to discuss faith rather than history

but this church claims to Gods chosen agent on earth, so the history of their actions will either confirm or deny this...

Since we are in the present, XXI century, what type of actions do you thing that are bad or evil from catholics ?

got any nazis in the church? how about pedophiles?

You should read that book of Will Durant - The Story of Civilization -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant

Do you have that feelings about catholics by your own, or is rather based on what was transmitted to you by others ? in which sources do you support your hate about catholicism ?

i was raised Catholic mate...
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

the histories and the mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church, in my humble opinion are the PROOF that Christianity has been derailed and is no longer a valid option for worshiping the One True God. i studied many "forms" of Christianity over the years but came to the conclusion, long before Allah guided me to Islam, that none of the present churches even follow what the bible currently says, let alone what Jesus more likely said.

:w:
Reply

barney
05-10-2008, 06:25 PM
Delta. How do you feel about papal infallability?
Are you into that?
Reply

Delta
05-11-2008, 10:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Delta. How do you feel about papal infallability?
Are you into that?
There is a common believe that the Pope is infallible all the time, and that is wrong. The pope can have his own opinion about a issue just like anyone else, the infallibility comes out only when Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, literally "from the chair", i.e., to all the churchs and catholic communion

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

It was only used a few times in history, and the secret "ex cathedra" formula is well knows, it uses always this words :

by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that
....(here then is the infallible dogma and teaching)

you can see that in few Papal bull, as I said, that infallibility was used only a few times in history, here is one of them : Ineffabilis Deus Bull

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

As for the reasons, that is another history, to make it simple imagine :

There is a important theological issue, and there is no consensus and general agreement on that

You make your FATWA and I make mine

On which should a regular person believe and follow ? yours or mine ?

There is when the Roman pontiff speaks "from the chair" - ex cathedra
Reply

Delta
05-11-2008, 10:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Delta

There is when the Roman pontiff speaks "from the chair" - ex cathedra
Forgot to say

in humility and fasting and a lot of praying to Holy Spirit assistance by the Roman pontiff

not just : Hey man lets make a statement, without any praying or fasting
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-13-2008, 06:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Hi,

This is a question I have been pondering, can Christianity be pointed to? As I understand Christianity cannot be debated, refuted or destroyed in its totality by most. I say this because according to the Bible Jesus has left such a wide idea of what it is to be Christian that anyone can claim to be a christian and claim almost anything to be his theology.

Does anyone see what I'm saying?
Yes, I see what you are saying.

I refer you to this bit of research from the Barna Group:
Two religious groups, in particular, are known for knocking on people’s front door to discuss religious beliefs: Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. While both groups consider themselves to be Christian, many organizations have labeled each a cult in response to some of their unorthodox beliefs and practices. A new study from The Barna Group explores the religious and demographic background of these two groups and shows that they differ significantly from the born again Christian population in a variety of respects.

A Profile of Jehovah’s Witnesses

About the only perspective that Witnesses share with the larger body of born again Christians is a belief that their religious faith is very important in their life, a view held by nine out of ten people from both groups. After that point of concurrence, the gap widens.

It begins with the fact that only 7% of Jehovah’s Witnesses meet the criteria for being born again. Most Witnesses say they have made a personal commitment to Christ that is important in their life, but only one out of every ten of those adults base their hope of salvation on a confession of sins and acceptance of Christ as their savior. Interestingly, the issue is not that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in earning their way to an eternal reward: in fact, they are significantly more likely than born again adults to reject the notion of salvation earned through good works.

While more than nine out of ten born again adults believe that God is the omnipotent and all-knowing creator and ruler of the universe, just three-quarters of the Witnesses (76%) concur with that view.

Witnesses are almost 50% more likely than born again adults to strongly believe that Satan exists (61% versus 42%, respectively). They are more likely than born again adults to argue that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth (77%, compared to 63% among born agains). They are also much more likely to have a firm conviction that sharing their faith with other people is a personal responsibility (74% compared to 54% among all born agains). They also have widespread faith in the Bible, with a higher proportion (88%) contending that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (71% among born again people).

In terms of their faith practices, Jehovah’s Witnesses are comparatively more likely to gather in small groups during the week (75% do so, double the incidence among born agains). They are also significantly more likely to read the Bible during the week (83% do so) but are also more than twice as likely to be unchurched at the moment (28%, roughly double the born again proportion).

Demographically, Jehovah’s Witnesses are substantially different from the born again community in that they are less likely to get married; much less likely to hold conservative political and social views; and are a decidedly downscale group (only one-third as likely to have graduated from college, and their household income levels are one-quarter below the born again average). The Jehovah’s Witnesses community is predominantly non-white (62%) and is shockingly removed from the political process: only 29% are registered to vote, compared to 87% among the born again constituency.

A Profile of Mormons

The Mormon faith perspective parallels the prevailing born again view in various ways. For instance, more than nine out of ten Mormons have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that they describe as being important in their life; nine out of ten say their religious faith is very important in their life; and two-thirds affirm the sinless life of Christ on earth.

However, there are significant variations from the views of the born again population, too. Comparatively few Mormons believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its principles (32%). A majority believes that a good person can earn their way into Heaven. They are less likely to view God as the all-knowing, all-powerful creator and ruler (83%). They also are more likely to believe that Satan exists (six out of ten), and that they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others (64%).

Compared to the born again body, Mormons are more likely to attend church services in a typical week (73% do so) or to attend a Sunday school class (nearly double the born again average). They are also more likely to volunteer at their church in a typical week.

Demographically, they are concentrated in the western states (76% of Mormons live in those states); remain overwhelmingly white (85%); three-quarters are married (versus about 61% of born agains); and are more likely to be conservative on social and political matters. They also have annual household incomes that are about 8% higher than the born again average.

One controversy surrounds the fact that one-third of Mormons (31%) meet the born again criteria. A number of evangelical leaders assert that although Mormons seek a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, their refusal to trust wholly on God’s grace and forgiveness through Christ as the only means to salvation disqualifies them from being born again.

Religion and the Fine Line

George Barna, who conducted the research and presented the findings, noted that in the religious world seemingly small matters can make a big difference. "All three of these groups claim to be Christian, uphold the importance of faith and spirituality, are active in their churches, generally believe in the same God, and accept the holiness of Jesus Christ," Barna commented. "Beyond that, there are huge difference related to central doctrines such as the means to eternal salvation or the reliability and authority of the Bible. The differences are large enough that the members of each of these groups tend to reject the other groups as heterodox and not being representative of the true Christian faith.
It seems you have to have some common idea as to what is meant by the term Christian for one group means one thing and one group means another by it. Until you can agree on a common definition, it is hard to point to something and say this is Christian and that isn't. But of course, if you had a common definition you would already be in agreement and wouldn't be likely to be asking the question for in coming up with that definition you already deciding what you will be pointing to and excluding as being Christian. And by what authority does anyone arrive at their definition being to be preferred over another's other than personal preference? We might say that we let the Bible or Jesus decide, but then we still have to agree as to what they decided for they are unable to speak aloud for themselves, but only as we interpret them which leaves us back at the same question mark we began with.

I could get several million people to agree with me, perhaps even a billion, but I wouldn't get everyone and that one would freely tell the rest of us that we were all wrong and they were the only ones to have it right. I suspect this is true of religions besides Christianity if one were to examine how some claim to be Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, but are rejected as not being true Muslims, Hindus or Budhists by other practicioners of those faiths.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-17-2008, 06:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It seems you have to have some common idea as to what is meant by the term Christian for one group means one thing and one group means another by it. Until you can agree on a common definition, it is hard to point to something and say this is Christian and that isn't.
What definition for Christian do you accept? What criteria puts one within that realm and another outside?
I suspect this is true of religions besides Christianity if one were to examine how some claim to be Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, but are rejected as not being true Muslims, Hindus or Budhists by other practicioners of those faiths.
I accept one as Muslim who says that, "Allah is the only One worthy of worship and that Muhammad was His Servant and Messenger". I am very reluctant to call anyone who professes this statement to be a kafir or unbeliever.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-17-2008, 10:26 PM
I am not sure that the definition given by Wikipedia is completely accurate:

Christianity
is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew/Old Testament.

Are there any Christians out there who agree that this is accurate and complete? If not, what definition do you offer?
Reply

intra
05-18-2008, 02:51 AM
I havn't read all the posts, but for starters Christianity has vastly altered (for the western world) itself during the years. Understandable that it has to adapt, but there should be some limitations, the very fact it has been altered is why it is meaningless to many.

Also there is a huge arguable theory that battles against Christianity, there is a mix of different ancient faiths containing very similar deities to Christ. Some are born around the same time, had the same chosen names (anointed one, lamb of God etc) and also die and resurrect in a similar fashion.
The point is that there have been thousands of generations for thousands of years consisting of many faiths, having emotions that are identical in their worship.
Even the story of ''Noah's Ark'' appears to have similarities with the ancient poem, ''the epic of Gilgamesh'' which dates back to around 1500BC.

The Christian religion is seen by some as a 'hybrid' faith.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-18-2008, 12:52 PM
Christians claim that Christianity is monotheistic as reflected above in the Wikipedia definition.

How do you reconcile one person coming up from baptism, another entity descending upon the first in the appearance of a dove and yet another announcing to those present that the first one is His son - and yet all three are at that very moment only One God? Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water (1): and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove (2), and coming upon him;and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (3).

If Jesus is God incarnate, how can he be tempted by the devil? Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Jesus later says that one can't tempt or make trial of God - Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.

How can God possibly worship the devil? Matthew 4:9-10 and he (devil) said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Notice how Jesus' response was the very essence of Islam! lā ilāha illā-llāh.
Reply

medlink student
05-18-2008, 01:19 PM
:sl:
learn Christianity in 5 minutes!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_gt-3plqf4

:sl: :p TOTALY TRUE!!^
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-19-2008, 09:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Christians claim that Christianity is monotheistic as reflected above in the Wikipedia definition.

How do you reconcile one person coming up from baptism, another entity descending upon the first in the appearance of a dove and yet another announcing to those present that the first one is His son - and yet all three are at that very moment only One God?
How I do it is by understanding that while you have identified 3 persons, that we still are speaking of just one being, even in those three persons.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-19-2008, 09:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
What definition for Christian do you accept? What criteria puts one within that realm and another outside? I accept one as Muslim who says that, "Allah is the only One worthy of worship and that Muhammad was His Servant and Messenger". I am very reluctant to call anyone who professes this statement to be a kafir or unbeliever.
Mustafa, I have said these things and I have meant them, but I don't think you would ever call me a Muslim, nor would I request anyone to.


In answer to what I personally use as my definition of what it means to be a Christian -- to accept Jesus (the Christ) as both your Lord and Savior. Of course I believe more than that is true, but that is what puts one either inside or outside the realm in my understanding.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-20-2008, 12:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Mustafa, I have said these things and I have meant them, but I don't think you would ever call me a Muslim, nor would I request anyone to.
Greetings Grace Seeker, if I heard you say the shahada, then I could not but accept you as a Muslim. There is an hadith about a companion fighting what he believed to be a kafir, but this person said the shahada during the battle. The companion went ahead and killed him because he thought he was insincere and testified only to save his life. The Prophet (saaws) latter reprimanded this companion because he had erred/sinned in this instance.
In answer to what I personally use as my definition of what it means to be a Christian -- to accept Jesus (the Christ) as both your Lord and Savior. Of course I believe more than that is true, but that is what puts one either inside or outside the realm in my understanding.
Please, clarify what is meant by "to accept Jesus (the Christ) as both your Lord and Savior". Do Catholics agree that this is what defines one as a Christian?
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-20-2008, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Please, clarify what is meant by "to accept Jesus (the Christ) as both your Lord and Savior". Do Catholics agree that this is what defines one as a Christian?

What I mean by saying that Jesus is my Lord is that he is the one who directs my life. I am not my own master, I am his servant.

What I mean by saying that Jesus is my Savior is that I recognize that I cannot by my own power, will, or work save myself, but that I am totally dependent on the work which Christ has done for me to find salvation.


I am only answering with regard to that which I know to be true for myself. I will not venture to answer for another.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-20-2008, 06:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
What I mean by saying that Jesus is my Lord is that he is the one who directs my life. I am not my own master, I am his servant.
In other words Jesus is your pilot rather than the co-pilot seen on many bumper stickers.

In contrast, the pattern for how I strive to live my life is the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saaws); however, I am not his servant - I strive to be a servant of Allah by following Muhammad's example. I don't have the sense of Allah "directing" my life, but that may be a personal limitation.
What I mean by saying that Jesus is my Savior is that I recognize that I cannot by my own power, will, or work save myself, but that I am totally dependent on the work which Christ has done for me to find salvation.
I understand that Christians rely upon the free gift of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross rather than their personal "works" for salvation. Likewise, I rely upon the Mercy of Allah to forgive me of my sins and grant me Paradise by His Grace. I pray, fast and give charity not to earn my salvation, but rather to not be disobedient to Allah.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-01-2013, 02:59 PM
  2. Replies: 74
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 03:44 AM
  3. Replies: 135
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 05:23 PM
  4. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-02-2007, 05:10 AM
  5. Replies: 137
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 07:28 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!