Christianity in Five Minutes

[MustafaMc]

i don't want you (or anyone) to misunderstand my tone... i don't want to insult you... although much of this may do that. i'm trying to be brutally honest about this issue of dialoguing with muslims, i don't think it will help, i don't think anything will change, but it's been on my mind. i understand what you are saying... it's not a surprise at all, but it does present a problem for me and for a lot of others in how (or even if) we should talk to muslims.

Not a single word that you wrote in this post offended me. I do believe that honest dialog between the world's 2 great faiths is a good thing.

there was recently a thread asking why Christians come here, who spend so much time talking about Christianity and very little time asking about islam (our usual stated purpose). and i think i mentioned that while there are a lot of people who come to proselytize, many come to ask a few questions about islam but find that christianity is so misportrayed and attacked we feel compelled to at least answer a few things...

I can understand your frustration and the compulsion you feel to defend your faith. I will be glad to try and answer questions that you and other Christians honestly ask about Islam.

i recall my attempt to answer '100 questions' that a user gave me, only to find out after painstakingly researching that the user was not reading my answers, did not actually come up with the questions... but rather posted them from somewhere else and didn't really care what i had to say.

Yes, I can relate as I have felt the same way about some Christian members a while back.

but it would seem from what you say that this is the natural and fated conclusion of any conversation i attempt to have with a muslim about islam... it will turn into a God commanded lecture about christianity, with little regard for our input since, afterall, you believe that the quran already provided you with answers and with little regard for whether we actually wanted to listen to (as i hestitate to use the word discuss) any of this.

No, I don't see it as a foregone conclusion, unless the "conversation" gravitates toward what a Muslim perceives & believes is ascribing partners with God.

with that in mind... what reason does a christian have to take up a muslims' secular invitation to find out more about islam? that is, afterall, my and others' reason for being here... unfortunately we don't get to discuss islam until i basically agree with you (not you personally, but in the general sense) on everything in christianity that you have decided we will talk about.

so, put yourself in my position. you are just a person interested in asking a few questions about islam, not christianity and furthermore you consider muslims' opinions and points about christianity to be invalid, but the muslims you speak to are insistant that they must speak to you about christianity and their opinions are valid. two parties, talking about two different things, with little or no room for movement. this is an impasse.

how do we talk?

Good question. I would be more than happy to discuss my understanding of Islam. We probably would have to agree to "tip-toe" around issues that we know we can't agree upon.

que Dios te bendiga

What does this mean?

 

[MustafaMc]

Though, remembering that Christians already believe in the One God and that Jesus was who he claimed to be, another way to no longer be at odds would be if Muslims members believed that Jesus was not only the Christ, but also the son of the living God, just as he is set forth to be in the Bible.

This is something that I can never believe and yet remain a Muslim.

Quran 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah is the Self-Sufficient; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none comparable to Him.

 

[YusufNoor]

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings to Gene and our other Christian guests,

But some people did have surnames, and among those was a fellow named Mark. You see, Mark is his last name. His full name was John Mark

OK, here we see it implied that this particular John Mark IS the author of the Gospel According to Mark.

Regarding the authorship of Mark:

From The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Including the Apocrypha with General Articles Copyright 1971 by Abingon Press 15th Printing 199: “According to” Lindsey P. Pherigo in the introduction to the Gospel According to Mark:

Authorship. Tradition has given the author of this gospel the name Mark. From Early times he has been identified as John Mark, kinsman of Barnabas; and many scholars today accept this identification, largely on the basis that a gospel would not be attributed to remote a witness unless he was actually the author. However, if a gospel author named Mark was otherwise unknown, there would be strong tendency to identify him with any known early Christian of that name, even with one so little authority as John Mark.

Careful study of the book itself makes it difficult to believe that the author was John Mark of Jerusalem, because he seems to treat both Palestine and Palestinian Judaism as an outsider. His attitude towards the 12 and his reflection of the Pauline viewpoint…make it probable that he was a prominent member of the Gentile Christian community. His background must have been liberal Hellenistic Judaism rather than that of Jerusalem. The strong Semitic coloring of his writing can be attributed to sources he used rather than his own experience.

There is no reason to doubt much a tradition that the author derived much of his information about Jesus from the sermons of Peter, bit it must be remembered that he presents this information from a Gentile Christian point of view, and he includes much that did not come from apostolic memory at all. In Gentile Christianity a great deal of reliance was placed on learning of Jesus from O(ld) T(estament) statements believed to be about him.

we CAN conclude from this that Christians ARE NOT in agreement is assigning authorship to said John Mark! thus when you or anyone else claim it is a fact or a truth, you're either wrong, unsure or deliberately misleading those that you claim it to. Brother Khalid on the other hand merely claims that we don't know...

conclusion: Brother Khalid IS correct and you ARE wrong! we will now subtract 1 point from your 3 zeros to give you a score of minus 1, while we give Brother an additional point raising his score to a positive 2 points. :thankyou:

next, Insha' Allah, we'll deal with the authorship of John.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings to Gene and our other Christian guests,

I am going to take it upon myself to defend brothers Khairullah and Khalid Yasin; I’m an acquaintance of Brother Khalid and Brother Khairullah is relatively new here and I will assume that he wasn’t aware of any mistakes in Brother Khalid’s speech. I’m sure that speech follows Brother Khalid’s “the Historical Jesus”. Brother Khalid consistently quoted from a book without giving us the title. Even I recognize some of the mistakes in the lecture, some from the book, some just a brother having a goof. BUT, I’ll also go out on a (relatively safe) limb and assume Brother Khairullah did not intend to offend anyone. I also should thank Brother Khairullah for taking the time to transcribe the video for us!

Hopefully, Insha’ Allah, I won’t resort to name calling BUT I do intend to point out some discrepancies (as well as probably spell some words wrong)!

First off, we should attempt to point out what our beliefs are and NOT misrepresent those as facts! Let’s start here:



Actually, the unknown writers of Matthew and Luke took some time to inform us of the identity of the Messiah. In Matthew 1:12-16 we have:

12After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

While in Luke 3:23 we have:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Hopping back to Matthew in 13:55, we have:

"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Ergo, Joshua ben Joseph!

Thus, according to the Gospels, he would have been known as Joshua ben Joseph [Anglicized of course] as was the Jewish custom for naming someone. So we DO have a full name for “Jesus”, don’t we? Just because Christians PREFER not to use it for obvious reasons, DOES NOT mean it didn’t exist. The Muslim name of Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam, is probably the most accurate form that we have of his name so we have a right to ask:



So right now we can score Gene at ZERO and Khalid at ONE!

Next:



Great, we KNOW John’s last name, but we DON’T KNOW that he wrote any of the gospels!

Of course, we have:



BUT do we have ANY TRUTH here: we know: I believe and I also believe though not with the same level of confidence as well as: however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.

FANTASTIC we KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE and you haven’t bothered wasting time with ANY TEDIUOS FACTS! Or are we uncertain at the moment of the definition of fact?

Let’s score you DOUBLE ZERO Gene for this bit of misdirection!

we'll try to address authorship of the Gospels in the next post, Insha' Allah.

Sorry, but "ben Joseph" was not Jesus' last name, it like the term "of Nazareth" was just an identifier. If Jesus had had a sister, she would have been known as "bar Joseph". Note the difference in their "last names". There is no surname, no family name, in the sense of "last name" as that is used in modern day English, which is the way I understood it to be used in the post. Even today, a good Jewish boy whose father was name Joseph would be known as "ben Joseph", but "ben Joseph" would not be his last name any more than it was Jesus' last name.

And as for John, he was identified as John, son of Zebedee. And Matthew is identified as Matthew, the tax collector. And Luke is identified as Luke, the physician. But "ben Zebedee", "Taxman", and "Doctor" were not last names at that point in time anymore than Miller or Richardson was, though both would become such in time.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is something that I can never believe and yet remain a Muslim.

Quran 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah is the Self-Sufficient; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none comparable to Him.

I am well aware of that. Just as I am sure that I can never accept the following and yet remain a Christian:

Christian members should acknowledge that the central tenet of their religion flies directly into the face of Islam and that they will continually be at odds with Muslims until they believe in the One God and that Jesus was as he claimed to be, a prophet and servant of Him.

He was so much more than just a prophet.

John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[truemuslim]

hola

no offence but i am always confused why i should believe a muslim (or any non christian for that matter) about christianity. this isn't something they approach honesty, it's always from the perspective of tearing christianity down to build up their own religion. and they are looking at issues they have no party to without any expertise. it is like that ridiculous thread in which lay muslims are attempting to revisit hypostatic union... an issue that is completely insular to Church bishops 1800 years ago. it is like the stranger who bumps into a conversation between doctors and begins telling them what they think about all the work issues the doctors were discussing...

and there is the issue of trusting an apostate... these are the same people who several days ago were telling you they know the absolute truth and it is x, but now they are absolutely convinced that they know the absolute truth and it is y.

...riiiight...

i know about christianity... i'm not here to ask questions about christianity. most of the time these questions aren't important, it's just insisted upon us that they are important. like a merchant who shoves their produce in your face at a market and demands that you need what they are selling. and if they are important there are already reasonable answers that once again it is demanded to us are not reasonable answers.

it's different if this were the result of somebody saying 'be a christian!' and then you ask a challenging question that's really on your mind... but with such a thread one could hardly say that is the case.

que Dios te bendiga

yep, exactly your always confused cuz you aint going in the right path. no offence. and nice thread ppl, but we all know the right way..and again no offence...(dont quote this and make a huuuuge post against it) thanks

 

[YusufNoor]

Sorry, but "ben Joseph" was not Jesus' last name, it like the term "of Nazareth" was just an identifier. If Jesus had had a sister, she would have been known as "bar Joseph". Note the difference in their "last names". There is no surname, no family name, in the sense of "last name" as that is used in modern day English, which is the way I understood it to be used in the post. Even today, a good Jewish boy whose father was name Joseph would be known as "ben Joseph", but "ben Joseph" would not be his last name any more than it was Jesus' last name.

And as for John, he was identified as John, son of Zebedee. And Matthew is identified as Matthew, the tax collector. And Luke is identified as Luke, the physician. But "ben Zebedee", "Taxman", and "Doctor" were not last names at that point in time anymore than Miller or Richardson was, though both would become such in time.

we are asking John who, Mark who? using Jesus, Jesus the son of Joseph helps tell us who! YOU use surname, we want to know who!

we refer to Jesus as Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam and the seal of the Prophets as Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Sallahu Alaihe Wa Salaam so it's perfectly normal for us, as it was for the Jews and Israelis or else they wouldn't have bothered to include the info in the NT.

minus half point... oh:

 

[Grace Seeker]

we are asking John who, Mark who? using Jesus, Jesus the son of Joseph helps tell us who! YOU use surname, we want to know who!

we refer to Jesus as Isa ibn Maryam, Alaihe Salaam and the seal of the Prophets as Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Sallahu Alaihe Wa Salaam so it's perfectly normal for us, as it was for the Jews and Israelis or else they wouldn't have bothered to include the info in the NT.

minus half point... oh:

But that doesn't mean that they had last names. And it was that repeated mantra, as if it were proving something, that I found most objectionable of all. It was, I still assert, pure and utter nonsense to ask for last names for virtually anyone of that time period. Even Julius Caesar did not have Caesar for his last name. That was his title.


But do notice that we Christians do also include identifiers when we think that there might be any confusion over the person mentioned. For instance, I refered to John the Baptist and John the Presbyter in my post. Both are different from John the son of Zebedee who is the same as John the disciple and the author of the Gospel of John. But it is the early church, that assigned the titles and they apparently felt no need for such identifiers. Certainly many of us today wish that they had for that would make it easier to determine if the Matthew who wrote the gospel is the same Matthew who was a disciple.


And from now on, when you refer to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), shall I expect to see you use the complete name from above, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (pbuh) so that I can distinguish him from other Muhammads. If one always used the form you suggest, I doubt if there would have been trouble in mistaking a teddy bear named after a child in a Sudanese classroom for an attempt to insult the Prophet.

 

[YusufNoor]

But that doesn't mean that they had last names. And it was that repeated mantra, as if it were proving something, that I found most objectionable of all. It was, I still assert, pure and utter nonsense to ask for last names for virtually anyone of that time period. Even Julius Caesar did not have Caesar for his last name. That was his title.


But do notice that we Christians do also include identifiers when we think that there might be any confusion over the person mentioned. For instance, I refered to John the Baptist and John the Presbyter in my post. Both are different from John the son of Zebedee who is the same as John the disciple and the author of the Gospel of John. But it is the early church, that assigned the titles and they apparently felt no need for such identifiers. Certainly many of us today wish that they had for that would make it easier to determine if the Matthew who wrote the gospel is the same Matthew who was a disciple.


And from now on, when you refer to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), shall I expect to see you use the complete name from above, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (pbuh) so that I can distinguish him from other Muhammads. If one always used the form you suggest, I doubt if there would have been trouble in mistaking a teddy bear named after a child in a Sudanese classroom for an attempt to insult the Prophet.

you mean you couldn't figure it out when i wrote Sallahu Alaihe Wa Salaam after his name...

and is that a question? :blind:

minus another half point kay:

 

[Qingu]

Very few people in the first century AD had last names.

On the other hand, almost all scholars and historians in the first century signed their names to the texts they wrote, and many cited their sources as well.

The names of the gospel authors do not appear on any of the early texts we have of the gospels. They are the invention of later church fathers. We have no idea who wrote them and many modern scholars doubt the church's traditional authorship.

Given that we have the testimony of John's own disciples (plural) that John wrote the gospel that bears his name, if anything is going to be found to be conclusive it is that John DID write the book that bears his name and that he did know Jesus, not the other way around.

Where is this testimony? do you happen to have an original, signed copy?

As far as the estimated dating of the other gospels, the estimated time of Jesus death is 29 AD, with Mark, Luke and Matthew being written between 64 and 75 AD (roughly 35-46 years after Jesus' crucifixion) and certainly such close enough in time that they could have known him, for if they were the same age as him (and they could have been younger) they would only be around 70 years of age. Before you object to that being well beyond average lifespan, such averages were shortened because of infant mortality. It was not unusual for folks who survived into adulthood to live well into advance years, including 70 and even older.

So why didn't they sign their names? Why are their gospels both highly derivitive of each other (appearing to cut-and-paste from earlier manuscripts) and highly contradictory of each other?

This is not even close to true. Please, if you can support this, provide a quote from the church fathers where they agreed these are pen names.

I agree with you here, what the OP said is nonsense. Muslims really aren't as good at criticizing Christianity as us atheists.

While you are looking, please read this which is the actual statement of Papia, an early church father: The "Presbyter" that Papias refers to is John the Presbyter.

In addition to Papias, another church father, Irenaeus, also identifies Mark as the disciple and interpreter of Peter. (See Irenaeus' Against Heresies, III. i. 2.)

They knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Jesus.

Also, we see that much of the book of Acts is written in the third person. But that suddenly changes to first person in Acts 20 as Paul prepares to leave Greece after several months there. I suggest that this is were Luke joins Paul in his journeys. Whoever it is, it certainly isn't Paul who is doing the writing.

Except first-person plural was a stylistic convention in Hellenistic literature when describing sea journeys, which is exactly when it starts in Acts.

It isn't true the Paul never met Jesus. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.

That's quite a stretch. He was blinded by a talking light.

But make no mistake, even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in records that predate Paul, in works such as the Didache and others there are baptismal forumlas that were used by the church

What? The Christian church did not exist before Paul. Baptism obviously predates Christianity, it is similar to the rituals in many Roman mystery religions.

No. There is no mentioning of Jesus being a divine man god.

Now I think you're just arguing semantics. I'd certainly call Jesus (in Christianity) a divine man-god. He's both 100% man and 100% god, what else would you call him?

Again, wrong. Here is Paul describing himself: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." (Acts 22:3) He was a pharisee. He was no bounty hunter.

Agreed, the original post just gets sillier and sillier.

Though Paul certainly does appear to be a demagogue charlatan.

khairullah,

I suggest you find someone more learned than Sheikh Khalid Yasin to teach you about Christianity. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and it is evident on so many levels it is ridiculous. If you wish to be Muslim and reject Christianity, I know that this is what you will do. But, if you are going to attack or debate it, do yourself a favor, and learn about it from those who are not themselves fools so that they don't make you look like one as well. The Ahmadi are better representatives of Islam than this man is of Christianity.

I agree with you. If you're going to criticize something, you should at least know what you're talking about and avoid making false claims.

 

[Qingu]

yep, exactly your always confused cuz you aint going in the right path. no offence. and nice thread ppl, but we all know the right way..and again no offence...(dont quote this and make a huuuuge post against it) thanks

This is silly. Grace is clearly more knowledgeable about Christianity than the Muslims in this thread. I say this as an impartial observer since I am neither a Muslim or a Christian.

Do you seriously think that being a Muslim makes you automatically more correct in debates than non-Muslims?

 

[Jayda]

yep, exactly your always confused cuz you aint going in the right path. no offence. and nice thread ppl, but we all know the right way..and again no offence...(dont quote this and make a huuuuge post against it) thanks

hola truemuslim,

lol i know you didn't want a long post, but this is really for you and moreso mustafa. my thoughts in response to the conversation/thread rather than any particularly person

...i don't think you understood what my confusion concerns. i'm not confused about faith, islam, God or catholicism, i'm confused why i should believe muslims about christianity. i'm confused why this conversation that is so often pushed on us is something to which i should listen. and so far, muslims have failed to adequately answer those questions... at the expense of my continued... i'm looking for a softer word than irritation, but it is a word in that vein. but perhaps it's as simple as mustafa's response... you believe that the quran says you must say these things. in which case i'm beginning to question what the point of talking to muslims is at all... because if it's a commandment from God you are naturally going to turn away from introspection over the things you say.

and without introspection anything i tell you about the irrationality of the things you seem to believe about Christianity, the lack of authority you have in saying them, and the (objectively) biased slant from which you approach the issue, will simply roll off my tongue onto deaf ears. and i understand that... but it poses a problem for me since it seems to mean i will never get to really discuss islam with you unless i either ignore the things you say (which is difficult) or, which you would prefer, accept them... which completely defeats the point.

it is irrational to say that this stems from not believing in your prophet or book, they are unconnected ideas. unless of course you have some sort of explanation connecting the thoughts that you left unstated... i would be interested to hear it.

there is no reason for me to believe that you really know what you are talking about... most of the things muslims say and believe about christianity seem to defy reason and history, the ignorance is so astounding that it's difficult to take muslims seriously. and there is no reason to believe muslims approach the subject honestly to the contrary, i've read so many 'refutations' of subjects i've never brought up i would say the sole reason most muslims try to talk about Christianity with me is to blast the religion.

added to this is the significant fact these are not conversations on points we disagree that just 'come up' as mustafa suggested, they are usually conversations we (christians) did not invite, and were pushed upon us. take this thread as an example of numerous 'refutation threads' in which an article by some unknown muslim theologian rehashes 'points' which despite their lack of credit on their face are insisted upon us as worthy of consideration and a response is demanded (demands which are often rude or dismissive). we didn't invite this... you insisted upon it. we don't trust or respect the source... if anything it's an irritating distraction from the questions and conversations we came here to have.

and it leaves me with the question why. a question until now i've basically kept to myself and not really discussed with muslims since the number of uninvited terribly ignorant conversations about Christianity has drastically altered the way i view muslims' theological opinions (outside of islam, obviously). but returning to the question, again, i think the answer is, to build up islam. the attacks are necessary to make islam necessary.

and whether it is because the quran tells you or because of internal insecurities (which i also think plays a part) i can see why that would be necessary. there is no foundation for islam in christianity... and the scriptures are very clear that we must follow the message that confirms the messages of God. the quran testifies against the scriptures, calling them corrupt, and against the good news, saying it is a perversion.

as far as i can determine, without attacking Christianity, it would be impossible to establish a need for islam. and without any kind of need for islam, our questions about the religion remain purely esoteric... but for most of us that's all we were interested in to begin with. and for those of us who joined these websites or read books about the religion, it was largely out of a secular invitation from the muslim community at large to get to know islam better in light of present world circumstances. when that turns into an attack on our own religions... one we had not counted on, it feels a bit dishonest.

but my conclusion about islam needing christianity to be torn down is one that i've come to on my own... not so much through conversations with you but on account of them. i always tend to keep my final thoughts to myself since at some point a person simply must make a determination and when it's voiced people feel the need to 'correct it' with their own.

i'm not certain i agree with mustafa that it's possible to 'tip toe' around muslims' thoughts about Christianity, to the contrary it seems on the tips of muslims (collectively) lips before we ever arrive. no matter if it is here, or on CF, the board from which i originally came (i was invited here to ask questions by skillganon) it seems like my islam focused agenda (what do muslims believe about prayer, why do you fast, what is a jinn...etc) is ignored and muslims are more interested in discussing their strange conspiracy beliefs about christianity first... a topic i had no intention of discussing since, i don't think i conceal this, i don't believe i'm receiving an honest conversation most of the time.

que Dios te bendiga

(to answer your question mustafa that means, may God bless you)

 

[Jayda]

lol and please don't feel like you have to address every last one of my concerns... i kind of jumped you with a lot of 'big picture' questions all at once, that weave between asking your opinion subjectively and objectively. also, in case somebody is afraid this is going off topic maybe we could break away my two big posts and form a new thread "what is the point in talking to you? why should we listen to you?" that way muslims can discuss this khalid yasin who appears to have distilled 2,000 years into five minutes. well done to him, that must have been difficult.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[NoName55]

you people, the so-called and self-proclaimed experts do come in to your own, when "debating" 12 year old child, but when faced with an adult, start claiming, "ooh ooh I'm being abused"

what a disgusting, shameful fraud of a website!!!

 

[Jayda]

hola noname,

i'm very confused... are you talking about me or somebody else... (and do you still dislike me?)

que Dios te bendiga

 

[snakelegs]

jayda,
no one is making you either read or reply to these posts.
if you are here so that you can learn more about islam, i suggest you avoid the "comparative religion" section completely and instead ask the questions that you are curious about in the islam sections.

 

[Jayda]

jayda,
no one is making you either read or reply to these posts.
if you are here so that you can learn more about islam, i suggest you avoid the "comparative religion" section completely and instead ask the questions that you are curious about in the islam sections.

hola snakelegs,

no offense but that isn't really looking at the situation in its proper context nor is it taking into consideration human emotions and genuine concerns that lies that attack a person or idea, on a grander scale, are a problem. i mean, you are definitely suggesting a good idea... but really one that is more appropriate if we were talking about a few off color remarks from some disjointed people on occasion. but this is really more of a persistent, much more wide scale situation that impedes discussion... it's not limited to just the 'comparative religions' section, though it concentrates here, you can find it all over the forum (eg)... and in other muslim forums(eg), and in Christian forums where there are muslim posters (eg). that's a bigger problem IMO that requires a different approach...

but before an approach can be found it requires some questions to be asked

this is like being at a party and you are talking to some guests... but you overheard in a corner somebody saying negative things about you to some other people. at first you ignore it and dismiss it, because either they don't know you very well or dislike you... either way you consider yourself above responding to that sort of thing. but then as time goes by you begin to wonder 'but what if those people they were talking to actually believed all of that...' and to your horror you look over and see that same person now talking to another group and still saying bad things about you.

at what point do you say 'well i really don't like this and i'm going to walk over and say some things in my own defense.'

but before long you realize that this person will not be reasoned with, they have a set against you and will continue to say negative things about you regardless of whether it is necessary... and in fact they will try their best to reach the maximum number of people with their message against you. and before long you are spending so much time walking around trying to explain to the guests this person talked to that you are not a bad person and the negative comments were unwarranted, that you aren't spending any time talking to other guests about other things at the party.

it is the same idea. the first few times i experienced this on CF and then here i really just ignored it... 10, 20, 40 threads later when i see there are hundreds of posts i feel a little nervous and think maybe i should say something. and before long i am answering '100 questions about Christianity' and the like to a deaf audience.

i think that any reasonable person can distinguish between a few off handed dismissable comments and a wider perception or even mission as it seems to me that does require somebody to address it. such judgments are the purview of adults, who pick and choose where to have conversations, and children... who simply react to anything they don't like.

and as i become more distracted i continue to forget what it was i intended to ask initially... actually maybe skillganon might remember. either way my interest becomes greatly diminished, i am tending to see islam as more of an antagonistic religion toward christianity than a cooperative one with similar goals and ideas. it's the difference (in my mind) between a religion that simply wants to spread both its faith and its morals... and one that wants to simultaneously destroy mine even while suggesting we can all be friends.

and i'm certain i'm not the only person frustrated by this entire situation... but if this conversation is more uncomfortable for everyone than i thought it would be, i'll just back out and continue this as an internal monologue. despite my candor, speaking openly, asking your thoughts and opinions when i'm trying to understand something and challenging you to qualify some of the things taken for granted (ie why should we listen to you about christianity?) is how i take people seriously... instead of smiling, thanking you for sharing your opinion but mentally reviewing my grocery list for the day.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[MustafaMc]

.. at the expense of my continued... i'm looking for a softer word than irritation, but it is a word in that vein. but perhaps it's as simple as mustafa's response... you believe that the quran says you must say these things. in which case i'm beginning to question what the point of talking to muslims is at all... because if it's a commandment from God you are naturally going to turn away from introspection over the things you say.

Perhaps, you misunderstood me, the Quran doesn't tell us to tear down Christianity in order to build up Islam. The Quran tells us that they disbelieve who say Jesus is the Son of God and we don't entertain "introspection" to allow any compromise on the oneness of Allah.

and without introspection anything i tell you about the irrationality of the things you seem to believe about Christianity, the lack of authority you have in saying them, and the (objectively) biased slant from which you approach the issue, will simply roll off my tongue onto deaf ears. and i understand that... but it poses a problem for me since it seems to mean i will never get to really discuss islam with you unless i either ignore the things you say (which is difficult) or, which you would prefer, accept them... which completely defeats the point.

The irrationality that you speak of is rational to us from our perspective of looking through the lens of Islam. Yes, our points of view are clearly biased toward Islam being the Truth.

added to this is the significant fact these are not conversations on points we disagree that just 'come up' as mustafa suggested, they are usually conversations we (christians) did not invite, and were pushed upon us. take this thread as an example of numerous 'refutation threads' in which an article by some unknown muslim theologian rehashes 'points' which despite their lack of credit on their face are insisted upon us as worthy of consideration and a response is demanded (demands which are often rude or dismissive). we didn't invite this... you insisted upon it. we don't trust or respect the source... if anything it's an irritating distraction from the questions and conversations we came here to have.

I guess I would feel the same way if you quoted Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, or Franklin Graham.

and it leaves me with the question why. a question until now i've basically kept to myself and not really discussed with muslims since the number of uninvited terribly ignorant conversations about Christianity has drastically altered the way i view muslims' theological opinions (outside of islam, obviously). but returning to the question, again, i think the answer is, to build up islam. the attacks are necessary to make islam necessary.

No, this is not true. Islam is necessary as the proper worship of the One God. The initial struggle was against polytheism and idol worship. We see Christianity as polytheistic with the worship of a man as an equal to Allah.

and whether it is because the quran tells you or because of internal insecurities (which i also think plays a part) i can see why that would be necessary. there is no foundation for islam in christianity... and the scriptures are very clear that we must follow the message that confirms the messages of God. the quran testifies against the scriptures, calling them corrupt, and against the good news, saying it is a perversion.

... and what was Jesus' response to the question of the greatest commandment? Yes, the teachings of the Quran are at odds with a lot of the NT.

as far as i can determine, without attacking Christianity, it would be impossible to establish a need for islam. and without any kind of need for islam, our questions about the religion remain purely esoteric... but for most of us that's all we were interested in to begin with. and for those of us who joined these websites or read books about the religion, it was largely out of a secular invitation from the muslim community at large to get to know islam better in light of present world circumstances. when that turns into an attack on our own religions... one we had not counted on, it feels a bit dishonest.

Even if Christianity had never existed, there would still be a need for Islam. To establish proper belief about Allah and our relationship to Him as one of servant to Master.

but my conclusion about islam needing christianity to be torn down is one that i've come to on my own... not so much through conversations with you but on account of them. i always tend to keep my final thoughts to myself since at some point a person simply must make a determination and when it's voiced people feel the need to 'correct it' with their own.

i'm not certain i agree with mustafa that it's possible to 'tip toe' around muslims' thoughts about Christianity, to the contrary it seems on the tips of muslims (collectively) lips before we ever arrive. no matter if it is here, or on CF, the board from which i originally came (i was invited here to ask questions by skillganon) it seems like my islam focused agenda (what do muslims believe about prayer, why do you fast, what is a jinn...etc) is ignored and muslims are more interested in discussing their strange conspiracy beliefs about christianity first... a topic i had no intention of discussing since, i don't think i conceal this, i don't believe i'm receiving an honest conversation most of the time.

What I was referring to tip-toe around was the claims of Jesus being at the same time God and the Son of God - which ALWAYS eventually comes up. If you have started a thread with questions about Islam, point me towards it. As long as you are not attacking my religion, but rather seeking to learn, then I will be glad to answer your questions.

que Dios te bendiga

(to answer your question mustafa that means, may God bless you)

Thank you, and the same to you.

 

[Keltoi]

Well, I think it is obvious for most unbiased observers that the article posted in this thread was full of misconceptions and falsehoods, so this thread has probably run its course.

Till the next, and the next...

 

[MustafaMc]

I am well aware of that. Just as I am sure that I can never accept the following and yet remain a Christian:

Yes, were are at an impasse.

He was so much more than just a prophet.

John 20:30-31 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Yes, others are quoted in the NT as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but also as other than that.

Matthew 12:17-18 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. and 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.

We know from logic and the parable of the Prodigal Son that the servant is not equal to the Son.

Matthew 13:55-57 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Matthew 21:10-11 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.

How can God (Jesus in the Wilderness) be tempted by Satan with the world and all it contains when it is already His? Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he 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. How can God possibly worship anyone or anything as being greater than Him? We Muslims strive toward this same goal to worship and to serve the One God as Jesus indicated.