I am starting this thread to keep the thread "What do Non-Muslims want from Muslims" on topic and not breaking down into a debate. Each of us do want and/or expect something from our non-Muslim members.Let us state them here. In the interest of sharing not of fighting.
Somethings I want from our non-Muslim members.
1. Understand how much respect we have for Allaah(swt), Islam, Muhammad(PBUH) and the Holy Qur'an
2. Know we are not really grouchy, but we do have little tolerance for anything that ridicules our belief.
3. Try to understand we are individuals.
4. Understand that some of us have experienced persecution and as a result will be defensive.
5. Not to try to give the Islamic view in answers to any questions by non-Muslims.
6. Understand we are an Islamic forum and one of our goals is to bring reverts to Islam.
I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.
I just want non-muslims to just respect my religion as much as I try to respect their religious beliefs...and to maybe stop thinking Islam oppresses women that really gets under my skin....but any who lets just all TRY to get along and respect one another as best as we can.
"Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why we call it 'The Present'."
2- Christianity can claim to be monotheistic all it wants, they are in fact a poster religion for modern day paganism. they pray before idols that is a material effigywhich is exactly what we have seen with that 'touch down Jesus' and they worship more than one god which is the very definition of paganism.
Praying before 'idols' as you call them is only in Catholicism (and perhaps in Eastern Orthodox sects); if you look at any Protestant sect of Christianity, you'll see there are no idols, or pictures of Jesus.
Why don't you go read up on the history of Christianity, and the Christian faith, before making wild and uninformed statements about the religion.
I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods. While we love Jesus(as) deeply and have very high respect for him we consider worshiping him to be paganism. Jesus(as) is one of the most beloved of Prophets(PBUT) but he is not a god and should not be worshiped.
Don't you think, though, that it would be difficult for Christians to accept your words when you tell them that "Jesus should not be worshipped"? I'm not Christians myself, so maybe some user who is one can comment on this, but I feel like you're telling Christians to respect your idea that their god is false -- that'd be very difficult to do without being offended. It would be no different if a Christian said to a Muslim, "We (Christians) don't think that Muhammad should be considered with any reverence, because we don't believe him to have been a true prophet...but we also want you to respect this view of ours." You see what I'm getting at here?
Umm, well according to Christians, he is God. I'm not an expert on Christians theology and its history, but you can read a lot of material on that subject. I can certainly tell you that Christians have never considered him to have been a pagan god, since from the beginnings of Christianity during the Roman Empire, the Church had been trying to separate itself from the pagan society within which it had arisen by constantly advocating that its creed is the worship of one God, and that the worship is the many gods of Roman polytheistic society is all false. It's somewhat similar to the beginnings of Islam, and the firm insistence on the worship of a single deity by Muhammad and his Muslim followers -- the breaking of the idols in the Kaaba is, in fact, exactly what was done by Christians inside of the pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire, after they had become the majority and seized power.
I hardly think that's the point. I don't wish to derail the thread any further (he said with no trace of hope of not doing just that thing) but just because someone uses semantics as a cover-up or denial of their beliefs, that does not mean it's not still what they believe. Trinitarianism may not be polytheism in the strict sense but it is still a monument built of words on the foundation of polytheistic logic. The words are piled on, as thick and meaningless as possible, to obscure their pagan bedrock, at least as much to the Christians who say them as to outsiders. Much moreso, in fact. Calling a plurality a singular plurality does not qualify you as referring to an actual singularity; it just makes the plural more incoherent.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
I hardly think that's the point. I don't wish to derail the thread any further (he said with no trace of hope of not doing just that thing) but just because someone uses semantics as a cover-up or denial of their beliefs, that does not mean it's not still what they believe. Trinitarianism may not be polytheism in the strict sense but it is still a monument built of words on the foundation of polytheistic logic. The words are piled on, as thick and meaningless as possible, to obscure their pagan bedrock, at least as much to the Christians who say them as to outsiders. Much moreso, in fact. Calling a plurality a singular plurality does not qualify you as referring to an actual singularity; it just makes the plural more incoherent.
You make a great point. I certainly would not argue with you in regard to the obscurity of trinitarianism, since I definitely share your view of it being quite polytheistic, as I fail to see how a God with three forms -- the father, the son, and the holy ghost (I don't understand what this third thing is supposed to be) -- can be a single entity.
Having said that though, it's important to make an important distinction in general about Christianity. I see many people on this site talking about trinitarianism as if it is a pan-Christian creed. It's not. As I mentioned already, many Protestant sects reject this -- precisely for the reasons that you have stated.
Praying before 'idols' as you call them is only in Catholicism (and perhaps in Eastern Orthodox sects); if you look at any Protestant sect of Christianity, you'll see there are no idols, or pictures of Jesus. Why don't you go read up on the history of Christianity, and the Christian faith, before making wild and uninformed statements about the religion.
I spent my formal years in a christian parochial school. It is a safe bet that I know more of Christianity than you do, as well given your chosen way of life.
Do you have something to impart other than referencing us to vague history and circuitous logic to which you yourself don't subscribe?
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I spent my formal years in a christian parochial school. It is a safe bet that I know more of Christianity than you do, as well given your chosen way of life.
Well clearly you haven't been paying attention in your school then. Why don't you check out a few sources, like "The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine", or "The Christian Doctrine of Faith", or "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" by Jaroslav Pelikan -- the latter one is quite good in discussing Christianity after the Protestant Reformation.
In fact, you can visit Wikipedia, even, for easy and quick information about this.
Well clearly you haven't been paying attention in your school then. Why don't you check out a few sources, like "The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine", or "The Christian Doctrine of Faith", or "Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture" by Jaroslav Pelikan -- the latter one is quite good in discussing Christianity after the Protestant Reformation.
In fact, you can visit Wikipedia, even, for easy and quick information about this.
Again---
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Do you have something to impart other than referencing us to vague history (name dropping) and circuitous logic to which you yourself don't subscribe? all the best
.....
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Okay, miss. Then why don't you forward me to a place where I can correct my seemingly ridiculous and absurd views, and so that by the grace of your most enlightened suggestion I can reform my knowledge about Christianity
Okay, miss. Then why don't you forward me to a place where I can correct my seemingly ridiculous and absurd views, and so that by the grace of your most enlightened suggestion I can reform my knowledge about Christianity
linear thought processes can't be remedied with a course I am afraid. As for reforming your knowledge with Christianity, perhaps for a start you should question why you've chosen atheism as a way of life? Being an atheist already has you at a bias against (well theism) in all its colors!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
linear thought processes can't be remedied with a course I am afraid
It's not really a matter of 'linear thought processes', you can just recommend a book to me, which I'll read -- simple as that
And why have I chosen to be an Atheist? I just don't see where this great being God is; I'm not forcing myself to reject him/her/it, I just don't see or hear or feel such an entity -- now can you really blame a bloke for that?
Also, just because someone's an atheist, doesn't mean that he/she cannot study and understand theology. The assumption that a non-believer ought to be viewed as inferior and misled in his understanding of religion is utter prejudice.
It's not really a matter of 'linear thought processes', you can just recommend a book to me, which I'll read -- simple as that
That is exactly what it is a matter of, having an independent thought based on collective knowledge and not a spoon filled distillate as fed you in book form!
And why have I chosen to be an Atheist? I just don't see where this great being God is; I'm not forcing myself to reject him/her/it, I just don't see or hear or feel such an entity -- now can you really blame a bloke for that?
I can't blame you and couldn't careless under either circumstance-- however you can't claim to understand very fundamental tenets of a religion when you in fact don't subscribe to it, under what authority and assertions do you speak? Any outsider looking in at Christians can easily conclude that a triune god is at odds with monotheism, at odds with the laws of mathematics and at odds with the laws of logic. Unless you have personally decoded the christian enigma that has eluded theologians and lay man alike I don't see you as having much to offer.
Also, just because someone's an atheist, doesn't mean that he/she cannot study and understand theology. The assumption that a non-believer ought to be viewed as inferior and misled in his understanding of religion is utter prejudice.
see above response.. I am off to bed
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
That is exactly what it is a matter of, having an independent thought based on collective knowledge and not a spoon filled distillate as fed you in book form!
That's not what we were talking about. I asked you to provide me with sources. You see, I'm reasonable guy, so if you show to me a book that is a legitimate academic source, which includes ideas about Trinitarianism that you seem to possess (but which you've been keeping a secret from me so far ), then I would be persuaded and would change my views -- of course, that is only after I see that most scholars, theologians, and Christian adherents agree on that particular idea first.
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
an independent thought based on collective knowledge
What on earth do you mean by 'collective knowledge' in this context? Scholarly books are a great way of learning about theology; what could be better that? (in case you may be misunderstanding, I'm referring not to high school textbooks but detailed university-level academic sources.)
Sweet dreams
P.S. I actually wonder: you said you went to a Christian parochial school, what sect of Christianity did that school belong to?
That's not what we were talking about. I asked you to provide me with sources. You see, I'm reasonable guy, so if you show to me a book that is a legitimate academic source, which includes ideas about Trinitarianism that you seem to possess (but which you've been keeping a secret from me so far ), then I would be persuaded and would change my views -- of course, that is only after I see that most scholars, theologians, and Christian adherents agree on that particular idea first.
sources for what really? I actually have no idea what you want... go ahead and read any book by bart ehrman or watch debates between Ahmed Deedat and Josh McDowell or ahmad deedat and Dr.Floyd E. Clark or ahmad deedat and Pastor Stanley Sjoberg, or Dr. Jeffrey Lang or Dr Laurence B Brown.. what is the point of this exercise in futility? Are you looking to support your own views from what exists of evidence or are you looking to be brain washed of someone else's views because it is academic without a forethought as to why you subscribe to it?
Also I must have maintained a thousand times over that your views should be swayed by logic and conviction not anyone's opinion and that it wouldn't matter to me under either circumstance, you are entitled to your individualism even if it is wrought with error in judgment (amongst other things). Again the mere fact that you subscribe to atheism already has you at a bias to speak with any sort of authority or conviction!
What on earth do you mean by 'collective knowledge' in this context? Scholarly books are a great way of learning about theology; what could be better that? (in case you may be misunderstanding, I'm referring not to high school textbooks but detailed university-level academic sources.)
books are great, transferring the written word to formal cognition and practicality is even more impressive-- unless you are a parrot meant to amuse someone's guests by inane repetitive words?
Sweet dreams
indeed.
P.S. I actually wonder: you said you went to a Christian parochial school, what sect of Christianity did that school belong to?
the type that subscribed to a three headed self-immolating ineffectual god!
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
I'm not an expert on Christians theology and its history, but you can read a lot of material on that subject. I can certainly tell you that Christians have never considered him to have been a pagan god, since from the beginnings of Christianity during the Roman Empire, the Church had been trying to separate itself from the pagan society within which it had arisen by constantly advocating that its creed is the worship of one God, and that the worship is the many gods of Roman polytheistic society is all false.
so are you saying that jesus was already worshipped as God since he was still on earth?
when did all those "church" business started to materialise?
I thought Jesus a.s. was a jew?
format_quote Originally Posted by Thucydides1987
It's somewhat similar to the beginnings of Islam, and the firm insistence on the worship of a single deity by Muhammad and his Muslim followers -- the breaking of the idols in the Kaaba is, in fact, exactly what was done by Christians inside of the pagan temples throughout the Roman Empire, after they had become the majority and seized power
exactly.
Jesus a.s. was similar to Muhammad SAW in that both tried to guide people to go back into the tawheed (oneness of God).
when did all those "church" business started to materialise
Well, the Christian Church, as an institution started at around the 2nd century A.D. It was an underground institution, because Christians were only a persecuted minority. It really started to gain momentum and power in the 3rd century, and finally when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity on his deathbed, Christianity finally had the support of the Imperial court -- so as a result, the Church gained huge political and social influence. From Constantine onward, it was expected for Roman Emperors to be Christian, and to preside in Christian theological matters. So, after the 4th century onward, the Christian Church began to solidify its doctrine into a universal form, because Christianity was very divided at the time (it never had a center before this period). That's how Catholicism was born. But of course, almost a thousand years later, there was the Protestant Reformation, which broke away from Catholic doctrine -- but that's a whole other story
With regard to Jesus, there is very little factual information available. What we can piece together though, is that he was a Jew who tried to reform Judaism. Scholars don't believe that he had tried to start a new religion altogether -- that seems to have been a phenomenon that occurred after his death, and involved many different individuals like St.Paul and others.
Are you looking to support your own views from what exists of evidence or are you looking to be brain washed of someone else's views because it is academic without a forethought as to why you subscribe to it?
If only you would use the same logic to your adherence to the Quran
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
), then I would be persuaded and would change my views -- of course, that is only after I see that most scholars, theologians, and Christian adherents agree on that particular idea first.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks