jesus knows no bible

[جوري]

I don't find much to disagree with here as the basic rules of morality seem unchanged and I think are unchallengeable. However, circumstances have changed so I cannot feel the same about some of the laws about ritual or what I might call cultural. It seems slightly absurd to me to bring into morality as some do say the prohibition on music or whether a woman should cover her head.

It doesn't make you a criminal nor is it punishable under Islamic laws as far as I know to not cover your hair or listen to Music.. it is a question of what matters to you as a human being (pleasing God and following his injunction or pleasing your ears) many Muslims go on to make music and listen to it, without great ill befalling them and I don't know the weightiness of it as a sin.

If we are to debate the issue of the trinity you can it least state it in the way that it is understood by Christian not invent your own definition - we speak of ONE god, three in one and one in three. One does not have to fully understand how this can be to believe it believe it. Try to be a little more open-minded, you I assume believe that Prophet Mohammed's heart was washed with snow - was this real or imaginary but to me either way it sounds an absurdity.

I don't see One god, when there is a god suckling and a god annunciating and a god forsaking.. it is not a question of open-mindedness.. rather a question of dismissing all logic.. for even greek myth, when their god zeus had an affair with a mortal woman, the son born wasn't one in the same with zeus

The NT sets out rules for divorce and essentially they are based on the occurrence of infidelity. However, the best path is one woman and one man for life but of course I understand that sadly this is often or even mostly not the case. As far as divorce rates are concerned try looking at the for instance the UAE and I think you will find that bit is as bad as if not worse than any where in the West.

Perhaps because only a portion of the UAE are actually native and the degenerate morality is akin to western one!

You may be right but you also seem to have a peculiar notion that Christians don't see the law as something to follow. This is quite wrong and you have to understand that one is not a Christian because of where you were born or who your parents are but because at some point you have made a definite commitment.

The definition of being a christian apparently run the gamut.. I don't see what law they can actually follow, whatever remnants of the old laws were abrogated and Jesus (p) didn't hang around long enough to establish a christian state and his wants for it.. he was an ineffectual god... the Render unto Caesar type which isn't really a surprise given the rest!


(sorry I forgot about this thread/unsubscribed from it a while back)

all the best

 

[Hugo]

I don't see One god, when there is a god suckling and a god annunciating and a god forsaking.. it is not a question of open-mindedness.. rather a question of dismissing all logic.. for even greek myth, when their god zeus had an affair with a mortal woman, the son born wasn't one in the same with zeus

I cannot quite see what logic you are talking about here - can you explain. At the same time I gave you Islamic examples, which to me are nothing but legend but you presumably take them uncritically and avoid giving an answer - is that because you also see them as nonsense or that you simply accept without necessarily understanding what it all might mean?

Perhaps because only a portion of the UAE are actually native and the degenerate morality is akin to western one!

No this is not the case and most commentators see it as being caused by the men who neglect their families. That is they go to work and go from work to coffee shops and talk with other men until late evening - that kind of thing.

The definition of being a christian apparently run the gamut.. I don't see what law they can actually follow, whatever remnants of the old laws were abrogated and Jesus (p) didn't hang around long enough to establish a christian state and his wants for it.. he was an ineffectual god... the Render unto Caesar type which isn't really a surprise given the rest!

The definition is that you accept God's way of redemption affected by the sacrificial work of Jesus. So repentance and faith brings about change in ones life and that change means that the law is not just a written code that one has in a book or in the memory but is as the Bible puts it 'written on our hearts' that is it is part of our very being and Christians hate sin and work hard to be worthy of that privileged of redemption.

 

[جوري]

I cannot quite see what logic you are talking about here - can you explain. At the same time I gave you Islamic examples, which to me are nothing but legend but you presumably take them uncritically and avoid giving an answer - is that because you also see them as nonsense or that you simply accept without necessarily understanding what it all might mean?

This doesn't really address my question on how a three headed god is one.. nonetheless, to address your queries:

How is this a question of logic? Just because you can't accept that folks live a different style than you doesn't mean that there is a lack of logic!
Do people still cover their head in the west?
is there any logic when head covering is fashioned on the runway?


It is a symbol of modesty (non-looseness) to some.. to someone else it might be a shelter from rain or cold or even the latest trend.. I hardly see an issue to avoid or address or turn into a reasoned argument . .. Some people are born deaf

is there logic or lack of in this when they don't listen to music?

I find you absurd at times really. If you can't conceive of life outside your upbringing and popular culture then I suggest you keep to christian folk in some distant bubble!
further what I have stated is of utmost relevance. Listening to music isn't a cardinal sin, I don't know how it is tabulated, we will be asked of how we've spent our time in this world..It is no different than whiling away your hours in a nonconstructive fashion whether backbiting or rapping (or whatever is popular now a days)

No this is not the case and most commentators see it as being caused by the men who neglect their families. That is they go to work and go from work to coffee shops and talk with other men until late evening - that kind of thing.

Judging by their effete lifestyle and money which they spend on american hooke rs like paris hilton whom they have invited to their 7 star hotel which has recently burned down, I'd say my point of them living a hedonistic western like lifestyle is right on target!

The definition is that you accept God's way of redemption affected by the sacrificial work of Jesus. So repentance and faith brings about change in ones life and that change means that the law is not just a written code that one has in a book or in the memory but is as the Bible puts it 'written on our hearts' that is it is part of our very being and Christians hate sin and work hard to be worthy of that privileged of redemption.

This is a non-answer, and it is a funny thing, how you resort to this ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving us that your dogma is other than what it is or that it is valid when it fails the simple logic litmus test, yet have the audacity to ask me about lack of logic in covering ones head or not wasting ones time seeking idle tunes?!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

This doesn't really address my question on how a three headed god is one.. nonetheless, to address your queries: How is this a question of logic? Just because you can't accept that folks live a different style than you doesn't mean that there is a lack of logic!
Do people still cover their head in the west? is there any logic when head covering is fashioned on the runway?

Again you miss the point. One assumes that you cannot see how God can be one and three and three and one - neither can I but I am able to accept it in faith. My question was that if we take say Prophet Mohammed's heart being removed and washed in snow or al-Sirat this long and narrow bridge that everyone will have pass over or through before entering Heaven - do you believe in these as physical realities or are they metaphors and is it faith or logic that allows you to believe in them? If its faith then say so if its logic then tell me what it is

I find you absurd at times really. If you can't conceive of life outside your upbringing and popular culture then I suggest you keep to Christian folk in some distant bubble!

This seems to be your whole outlook - if someone has a different view they are absurd or illogical or idiotic. Are you just programmed to always say in an Orwellian and dystopian manner "Islam good, everything else bad"

Judging by their effete lifestyle and money which they spend on american hooke rs like paris hilton whom they have invited to their 7 star hotel which has recently burned down, I'd say my point of them living a hedonistic western like lifestyle is right on target!

It is simply fashionable to blame the West for everything and as is usual you automatically make grand generalisations. Going to work and then a coffee shop or Majlis is NOT a western life style as far as I know and although I am not entirely sure what you are talking about it seems to be about a hotel that caught fire in its lobby area during building in 2008.

This is a non-answer, and it is a funny thing, how you resort to this ingenuity in reasoning in the hopes of deceiving us that your dogma is other than what it is or that it is valid when it fails the simple logic litmus test, yet have the audacity to ask me about lack of logic in covering ones head or not wasting ones time seeking idle tunes?!

I am simply stating the logic of God's redemption from a Christian perspective. I do not know what 'simple logic litmus test' you are talking about so please enlighten us because if it is a test we should be able to apply it to the Islamic view of how God redeems.

Whether something is logical or not might be relatively easy to work out though it may be nothing more that sophistry. Every one needs idle time, we cannot be working or thinking or even praying all the time. God has designed us like that and I see nothing at all wrong with spending time say with friends or walking in the park or listening to a Mozart sonata or looking at great art and for me anyway these often bring us closer to God.

 

[جوري]

Again you miss the point. One assumes that you cannot see how God can be one and three and three and one - neither can I but I am able to accept it in faith. My question was that if we take say Prophet Mohammed's heart being removed and washed in snow or al-Sirat this long and narrow bridge that everyone will have pass over or through before entering Heaven - do you believe in these as physical realities or are they metaphors and is it faith or logic that allows you to believe in them? If its faith then say so if its logic then tell me what it is

It really doesn't matter whether his heart was washed out with snow, or whether the sirat to heaven is a narrow bridge, that isn't what faith or the tenet of the religion or Islamic dogma centers around. Like I had stated previously and repeatedly they are ancillary finds... Your faith focuses on a three headed god who died and you want to compare that to high sofa or having a heart free of ill? Where do you draw the similarities?

This seems to be your whole outlook - if someone has a different view they are absurd or illogical or idiotic. Are you just programmed to always say in an Orwellian and dystopian manner "Islam good, everything else bad"

I am not going to down the ante just so we'd all be standing on the same platform for you to be appeased about your beliefs. I never said christianity was bad, surely as any Abrahamic religion has some truths preserved in it (if it evolved along the way to be more in concert with accepted western pagan practices, it doesn't mean that somewhere in the marrow is some semblance of truths (you should contrast that with your approach to Islam) I don't have to malign Jesus to accept Islam, in fact he is profoundly honored with at least twenty mentions in the Quran.. you should question yourself when you spend so much time scheming and ridiculing Islamic principles the sincerity of your own approach. Notice, I wasn't the one who started either thread, in fact in the former thread, one might question your grounds... I believe when you are so insincere you can only be met with constant doubt as it is your own doing!

It is simply fashionable to blame the West for everything and as is usual you automatically make grand generalisations. Going to work and then a coffee shop or Majlis is NOT a western life style as far as I know and although I am not entirely sure what you are talking about it seems to be about a hotel that caught fire in its lobby area during building in 2008.

You have taken an insular middle eastern country (surprisingly one most westernized) as an example of high divorce rate to make a point, I am only pointing out the obvious, aside from that I have already stated that the natives are an actual minority there .. the question by the way which you've synthesized to something I don't recognize was about abrogation of marriage by christians laws (when surprisingly the highest divorce rate is more prevalent in the west) do you find facts offensive?

I am simply stating the logic of God's redemption from a Christian perspective. I do not know what 'simple logic litmus test' you are talking about so please enlighten us because if it is a test we should be able to apply it to the Islamic view of how God redeems.

I don't know how God judges or delivers (I think it is a job delegated to him) I have faith as he stated to have delegated to himself the law of grace and mercy, certainly not because a bunch of jews decided he was a heretic took him to the cross and I bought into that whole charade... that isn't a reason for god to redeem as far as I am concerned. As for ow christianity fails.. it is a question of Math. You can't be a god annunciating, a god suckling and reaching childhood milestones neglecting the universe as a child, and a god forsaking and be one in the same person.. and then decide after you've died to enlighten your enemy to abrogate your commandments! That is it in a nutshell and I believe I have so stated and repeatedly, again, I fail to understand why you keep asking the same question in a thousand different ways.. each post we have seem to have the same replies by both our persons.. Can you not accept the answer given you without re-asking it after having tweaked your end of things a bit?

Whether something is logical or not might be relatively easy to work out though it may be nothing more that sophistry. Every one needs idle time, we cannot be working or thinking or even praying all the time. God has designed us like that and I see nothing at all wrong with spending time say with friends or walking in the park or listening to a Mozart sonata or looking at great art and for me anyway these often bring us closer to God.

Indeed time for leisure is a must .. hence the Hadith [SIZE=3.5]حديث ( روحوا القلوب ساعة وساعة ) [/SIZE]

it is good to take time to unburden the heart.. Mozart might bring you closer to God, and Suret Ar'rahman by sheikh luhaidan might bring someone else closer to God.. it is not for you to impose how that time is to be spent!

The Prophet said: 'The religion (of Islam) is easy. No one ever made it difficult without it becoming too much for him. So avoid extremes and strike a balance, do the best you can and be cheerful, and seek Allah's help (through prayer) in the morning, and evening, and part of the night.' (Sahîh Bukhârî)


all the best

 

[Hugo]

It really doesn't matter whether his heart was washed out with snow, or whether the sirat to heaven is a narrow bridge, that isn't what faith or the tenet of the religion or Islamic dogma centers around. Like I had stated previously and repeatedly they are ancillary finds... Your faith focuses on a three headed god who died and you want to compare that to high sofa or having a heart free of ill? Where do you draw the similarities?

My point which you seem repeatedly miss is that in every religion there are elements which others find odd, illogical, silly but that is where faith takes its place and so you banging on about a 3-headed God is becoming tiresome and simply shows you have no awareness that others might not think as you do.

I am not going to down the ante just so we'd all be standing on the same platform for you to be appeased about your beliefs. I never said christianity was bad, surely as any Abrahamic religion has some truths preserved in it (if it evolved along the way to be more in concert with accepted western pagan practices, it doesn't mean that somewhere in the marrow is some semblance of truths (you should contrast that with your approach to Islam) I don't have to malign Jesus to accept Islam, in fact he is profoundly honored with at least twenty mentions in the Quran.. you should question yourself when you spend so much time scheming and ridiculing Islamic principles the sincerity of your own approach. Notice, I wasn't the one who started either thread, in fact in the former thread, one might question your grounds... I believe when you are so insincere you can only be met with constant doubt as it is your own doing!

I don't think you can find anywhere where I have ridiculed Islamic principles but I can find hundreds were you have maligned Jesus and the Christian faith as well as any in the Board whom make fair comments. If you look at threads created by me I think you will find that I more often than not I requested permission to open the thread or the moderators suggested another thread - if that is scheming then it would be a rather funny way to do it.

If your think I am insincere that is just your opinion and I don't think you can find a single post by me that points to the truth of your allegation and you should therefore withdraw it.

You have taken an insular middle eastern country (surprisingly one most westernized) as an example of high divorce rate to make a point, I am only pointing out the obvious, aside from that I have already stated that the natives are an actual minority there .. the question by the way which you've synthesized to something I don't recognize was about abrogation of marriage by christians laws (when surprisingly the highest divorce rate is more prevalent in the west) do you find facts offensive?

It seems something of a muddle is in your mind to say the UAE is both insular and Westernised. My information such as it was related to nationals and it is no secret that the rulers have set up what might be called marriage guidance units in malls because they recognise there is a problem just as it is recognised as problematic in the West.

As far as I know, I said nothing about the abrogation of marriage laws only that the NT permits divorces/re-marriage in cases where infidelity is involved. I don't find facts offensive but they can be uncomfortable and this is why you make such a fuss because they can of course point to failings is Islamic societies just as there are failings elsewhere. These are not failings in Islam or Christianity but failings in our sinful natures.

I don't know how God judges or delivers (I think it is a job delegated to him) I have faith as he stated to have delegated to himself the law of grace and mercy, certainly not because a bunch of jews decided he was a heretic took him to the cross and I bought into that whole charade... that isn't a reason for god to redeem as far as I am concerned. As for ow christianity fails.. it is a question of Math. You can't be a god annunciating, a god suckling and reaching childhood milestones neglecting the universe as a child, and a god forsaking and be one in the same person.. and then decide after you've died to enlighten your enemy to abrogate your commandments! That is it in a nutshell and I believe I have so stated and repeatedly, again, I fail to understand why you keep asking the same question in a thousand different ways.. each post we have seem to have the same replies by both our persons.. Can you not accept the answer given you without re-asking it after having tweaked your end of things a bit?

I assume this question that you say I keep asking is 'how does God redeem or forgive a Muslim, how does he/she get to heaven"? I think that if you look at the posts then it is you that repeatedly tell the same story about your lopsided view of the Christian Gospel. Would it be right in this board to do an exegesis of the book of Romans and explain it to you in detail?

it is good to take time to unburden the heart.. Mozart might bring you closer to God, and Suret Ar'rahman by sheikh luhaidan might bring someone else closer to God.. it is not for you to impose how that time is to be spent![/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

For once we can agree. Mozart vis good, the Qu'ran is good if they bring us closer to God

The Prophet said: 'The religion (of Islam) is easy. No one ever made it difficult without it becoming too much for him. So avoid extremes and strike a balance, do the best you can and be cheerful, and seek Allah's help (through prayer) in the morning, and evening, and part of the night.'

I will add two further thoughts to the excellent one above:

Matthew 11:28-32 (NIV). "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Isaiah 55:1-5 (Amplified Bible) WAIT and listen, everyone who is thirsty! Come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Yes, come, buy [priceless, spiritual] wine and milk without money and without price [simply for the self-surrender that accepts the blessing].Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your earnings for what does not satisfy? Hearken diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness [the profuseness of spiritual joy]. Incline your ear [submit and consent to the divine will] and come to Me; hear, and your soul will revive; and I will make an everlasting covenant or league with you, even the sure mercy (kindness, goodwill, and compassion) promised to David.

 

[جوري]

My point which you seem repeatedly miss is that in every religion there are elements which others find odd, illogical, silly but that is where faith takes its place and so you banging on about a 3-headed God is becoming tiresome and simply shows you have no awareness that others might not think as you do.

And my point is, there is a limit to what one will accept on blind faith, especially when comes to the very nature of the divine! I am sorry you find the three headed god tiresome, I can't imagine why if that is in fact your belief...

I don't think you can find anywhere where I have ridiculed Islamic principles but I can find hundreds were you have maligned Jesus and the Christian faith as well as any in the Board whom make fair comments. If you look at threads created by me I think you will find that I more often than not I requested permission to open the thread or the moderators suggested another thread - if that is scheming then it would be a rather funny way to do it.

No one has maligned Jesus (p)

[SIZE=-1]Pickthal 2:285] The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.[/SIZE]


but a three headed god isn't something that we recognize as holy and we believe Jesus (p) to be innocent of the grievous things you ascribe to him!

If your think I am insincere that is just your opinion and I don't think you can find a single post by me that points to the truth of your allegation and you should therefore withdraw it.

It is an opinion based on what I read.. I try to be as objective as possible. I bear you no ill will and have no reason to...

It seems something of a muddle is in your mind to say the UAE is both insular and Westernised. My information such as it was related to nationals and it is no secret that the rulers have set up what might be called marriage guidance units in malls because they recognise there is a problem just as it is recognised as problematic in the West.

OK!

As far as I know, I said nothing about the abrogation of marriage laws only that the NT permits divorces/re-marriage in cases where infidelity is involved. I don't find facts offensive but they can be uncomfortable and this is why you make such a fuss because they can of course point to failings is Islamic societies just as there are failings elsewhere. These are not failings in Islam or Christianity but failings in our sinful natures.

I believe divorce is a necessary evil at times, and no particular party is singularly at fault. I don't think religion should enforce anti-marriage laws, even though it is the most abominable of allowances that God has given us!

I assume this question that you say I keep asking is 'how does God redeem or forgive a Muslim, how does he/she get to heaven"? I think that if you look at the posts then it is you that repeatedly tell the same story about your lopsided view of the Christian Gospel. Would it be right in this board to do an exegesis of the book of Romans and explain it to you in detail?

It wouldn't make a difference but if you must.. I don't believe in intercessions (in the regard you describe) and I don't believe we can scope how God redeems people..

For once we can agree. Mozart vis good, the Qu'ran is good if they bring us closer to God

Some Muslims hold the view that Music is not Haram..
however,


Abû `Abd Allah al-Nu`mân b. Bashîr relates that he heard Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) say: “That which is lawful is clear and that which is unlawful is clear. Between the two are doubtful matters that few people have knowledge about. Whoever avoids these doubtful matters absolves himself of blame with respect to his religion and his honor. Whoever falls into doubtful things will fall into what is unlawful, just like the shepherd who grazes his flock too close to a private pasture is liable to have some of his flock stray into it. Every king has a private pasture, and Allah’s private pasture is what he has prohibited. Verily, in the body is a small piece of flesh that if it is healthy, the whole body is healthy and if it is sick, the whole body is sick. This small piece of flesh is the heart.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

in other words best to err on the side of caution!

I will add two further thoughts to the excellent one above:

Matthew 11:28-32 (NIV). "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."



Isaiah 55:1-5 (Amplified Bible) WAIT and listen, everyone who is thirsty! Come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Yes, come, buy [priceless, spiritual] wine and milk without money and without price [simply for the self-surrender that accepts the blessing].Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your earnings for what does not satisfy? Hearken diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness [the profuseness of spiritual joy]. Incline your ear [submit and consent to the divine will] and come to Me; hear, and your soul will revive; and I will make an everlasting covenant or league with you, even the sure mercy (kindness, goodwill, and compassion) promised to David.

very nice thanks...

I am as My servant thinks of Me. I am with him when he remembers Me. If he mentions Me within himself, I mention him within Myself. If he mentions Me in an assembly, I mention him in a better assembly. If he comes near to Me a hand-span, I come near to him the distance of a cubit. If he comes near to Me the distance of a cubit, I come near to him the distance of two outspread arms. If he comes to Me walking, I come to him running. (Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

all the best

 

[Hugo]

but a three headed god isn't something that we recognize as holy and we believe Jesus (p) to be innocent of the grievous things you ascribe to him! It is an opinion based on what I read.. I try to be as objective as possible. I bear you no ill will and have no reason to...

I accept that you have no ill-will but neither have I. But you must understand that when you talk of a three headed God or a self-immolating saviour etc that Christians see that as insulting Jesus and God.

I believe divorce is a necessary evil at times, and no particular party is singularly at fault. I don't think religion should enforce anti-marriage laws, even though it is the most abominable of allowances that God has given us!

I think we agree!!! In evangelical Christian circles divorce is relatively rare but it does happen for all sorts of reasons no matter sometime what help is at hand. So the Church cannot enforce marriage laws and the only thing you see is that some ministers may refuse the marriage ceremony to those divorced based on the NT principles I mentioned but of course they can use a civil ceremony. I like you think divorce is often necessary but is also destructive and sadly one side always seems to suffer disproportionally. What I dislike is when divorced people are ostracised and this simply often just multiplies their misery.

It wouldn't make a difference but if you must.. I don't believe in intercessions (in the regard you describe) and I don't believe we can scope how God redeems people..

Yes I thought that might be your answer and perhaps this is where we would differ. There is a sense where I might agree that we cannot scope God but for us the plan is very clear and typified or pre-figured by the sacrifices we find in the OT - perhaps the fullest explanation is that found in Romans though it is not an easy read as the arguments are quite long though I would say essentially simple - but that is another story.

On the music front I would agree that caution is need because there are some situations where it can lead to bad things but so can many other activities. Music is a huge part of my life and my home is a country that says that music is in every cell - its a bit like Art in a way, one finds colours and themes that touch you deeply or composers that just say the right thing. Mostly, my staff would be called classical though I do like what is called Soul.

I am as My servant thinks of Me. I am with him when he remembers Me. If he mentions Me within himself, I mention him within Myself. If he mentions Me in an assembly, I mention him in a better assembly. If he comes near to Me a hand-span, I come near to him the distance of a cubit. If he comes near to Me the distance of a cubit, I come near to him the distance of two outspread arms. If he comes to Me walking, I come to him running. (Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

I don't know the above quote but it reminds me of something Paul said to the Athenians who had a god at every street corner. Is it a similar idea?

Acts 17:25-30 (NIV) And he [God] is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill.

 

[kidcanman]

in order for christians to be able to state that the NT writings are inspired by god, they must first cite where the church received the authority to make that decision.

John 14:17
the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

etc.

you suggested that the writings of the NT have no faults (will guide you without mistakes) because they are the inspired writings of the apostles.

i.e. the spirit of truth guided the apostles and the church into all things and lives in them.

However the church cannot claim that an apostles' writings' or his actions' are faultless unless the apostle specifically states that his writings or actions are directly inspired by god (or jesus or the holy spirity).

here is why:

#1: after jesus was raised up, paul wrote,"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong...The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray".

an apostle of god (peter) was in the wrong and acted hypocritically even though he had the holy spirit in him guiding him to all truth.

having the holy spirit living in you does not mean that everything you do or say is faultless and inspired by god.

#2: a number of times in Acts paul stated when something he did was directly inspired by the holy spirit. this indicates that certain things he did where not.

in corinthians paul wrote,"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord) ...To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord).

paul in corinthians: "In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast."

peter was guided by the holy spirit but he made a wrong decision. we cant be sure that when paul speaks "as a fool", that what he says is "rightly guided"; even though he is guided by the holy spirit, in light of peter's actions.

having the holy spirit living in you does not mean that everything you do or say is faultless and inspired by god.

Further, based on Acts 1:2 we know that Jesus gave instructions to his disciples through the Holy Spirit -- that means by the agency of the Holy Spirit. In other words, what Jesus' disciples know they know directly from God

jesus gave specific instructions; those instructions were inspired by god. peter's hypocracy showed that not everything that the apostles do is inspired by god.

when jesus gave specific instructions, or if an apostle stated that the holy spirit is directly telling him something, then that thing is faultless and inspired by god.

According to Acts 15, this gift of the Holy Spirit is evidence from God of one's acceptance by God for his fulfilling God's purposes. Now, if you believe that God's purposes are to spread disinformation, then fine. But I find such a view incredulous.

claiming that every action of a person who is fulfilling god's puproses and has the holy spirit in them is faultless and inspired by god is spreading disinformation.

you have the holy spirit in you.

can i take all the post you have written and claim they are faultless and the inspired words of god?

no

I also acknowledge that this same Spirit was present in the church (which I accept to be the body of Christ in the world today), so that by this Spirit of Christ present in the Church the Church is able to speak with the authority of Christ in declaratory statements such as declaring which of the writings of the early Christian Church would be classified as fit for determining the rule of faith and practice (i.e., canon) and which would not be so classified.

the decisions of jesus are faultless and inspired by god and his judgement is faultless.

this is what paul wrote about the church of his time. people that were guided by the holy spirit and had the holy spirty living in them. he can say the same about the churches of any time:

-"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans"

having the holy spirit living in you does not mean that your actions, nor your judgement nor your writings are faultless and inspired by god.

-"My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided?... Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?"

having the holy spirit living in you does not mean that your actions, nor your judgement nor your writings are faultless and inspired by god.

-"The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers"

having the holy spirit living in you does not mean that your actions, nor your judgement nor your writings are faultless and inspired by god.

the rest of the testimony for their being led by the Spirit follows as being true as well. That being true, then the testimony they provide in written form becomes something I am willing to accept.

it is reasonable to accept their testimony as historical accounts.

they did not specifically state that their testimony is inspired by god.

we cannot claim that their accounts are faultless unless they specifically make that claim.

Those who wrote the NT were not just inspired authors, they lived inspired lives. I'm not claiming that God wrote through them (certainly not the dication of word for word form of authorship), I'm claiming that God lived in them, and from that relationship I trust what they have written as being valuable for me to learn how to live in a similar relationship with God as well. That's what it means to say that the Bible is inspired, that God's spirit has directed other men to share out of their own life experience of striving to live holy lives how I might do so as well.

my refutation of your argument is based upon peter's actions, paul's words, and the actions of the members of the early church (and there are more examples).

the holy spirit is in you and im sure you have lied and committed sin.

having the holy spirit living in you simply means that you believe in god. and you are god conscious. it does not mean that your actions are faultless and directly inspired by god.

 

[kidcanman]

if there is a writing in which an apostle precedes it with a devine qulification (meaning he states that the holy ghost specifically told me to say this), than the church can legitimately assert that this writing is faultless and inspired by god.

however the church cannot collect "unqualified" writings from the apostles and assert that they are faultless and inspired by god.

That is unless somebody in the church claims that the holy spirit directly and specifically instructed them as to the inspired nature of the particular writings.

The reason is because although the church and the apostles are "guided by the holy spirit". I have shown that such a guidence does not mean that they are saved from errors in their judgement and in their actions.

 

[kidcanman]

maybee you should write how you define "inspired", and how you expect it to be "proven"?
Because I have this feeling that we see it a bit differently...

- everything in this world is flawed. that's the trick

by inspired i mean that god approves of it.

im not challenging the devinity of jesus' words and asking for proof of their inspiration, in the way that some might challenge the devinity of mohammed's words in terms of how can they be from god.

my position is that if jesus said it, than god approves of it.

the writers of the NT do not assert that what they are writing are the words of jesus nor of god.
the NT contains the words of jesus, but it is not the words of jesus.
it contains the words of god, but it is not the words of god. its the words of men.

i don't presume to be able to break down the content of the NT writings in order to judge weather or not it can be proven the're from god from a textual standpoint.

we are not privy to the level of inspiration that jesus or mohammed have, so it is very difficult to make that determination with our limited reasoning.

on the other hand it is immpossible to assert that actions or writings which were never claimed to be from god, are approved by god.

that is unless one is given direct inspirational advice on the matter.

my assertion is that the the writers of the NT did not claim that the writings are approved by god, and the church was not given direct inspirational advice on the matter. and so it is impossible for the church to determine that the writings are approved by god.

i grant the historical veracity of the documents.

i need not look into the writings and attempt to decipher inspiration myself, because i accept that if jesus said it or gave the authority, then jesus' words are approved by god.

there is no devine authority by which to claim that the NT is inspired. so its not.

 

[kidcanman]

You cannot really be serious here - just because a book 'says' it is from God YOU would take it as proof?

its not that if the book says its from god i will take that as proof. if the book says its from god then i have to prove it wrong. but in the case of the NT the writters do not say that their writtings are approved by god, and so nobody can make that claim. so if the book says its from god then at least i will have to disprove it.

Look at your second point, 'Jesus prophesied..' well we would ONLY know that if some one recorded it in a book ... your standards of proof are frankly unthoughtful to say the least.

i am not challenging the assertion by christians that the NT writings are historically accurate. so if somebody recorded that jesus prophesied, then i will grant that that actually happened. to me the person's recording of jesus is simply their personal diary, unless their recording is that jesus prophecied that their recording is inspired by god. in that case i might accept that until i can disprove it.

This does not make sense - in what way would he cite divine authority except by stating it and if he did such a thing how can we check on his claim for authority.

in the case of the NT there is no legitimate authority cited, therfore it is not possible to assert that it is inspired. if the church cited devine authority(for example if it stated that god spoke to one of us directly), then it is possible that i would beleive it, unless i can disprove it.

If your refutations are of the same quality as your proofs there would be nothing to say as their falsity would be self-evident.

tsk tsk

This is absurd and circular - according to you all that is needed to be inspired is to be inspired? If there is another source of collaboration then one supposes that also must be inspired so IT would need collaboration and so on an infinitum

if the claim of insperation is made then i am obliged to disprove it. in the case of the church they claim to be inspired but their false assertions are very easily dismantled because they are based upon the authority of jesus. there is no legitimate evidence that jesus gave them that authority.

without any authority the church cannot decide which writings are inspired and which are not.

Perhaps you may find the famous Thomas Paine conjecture will allow you to see why this is all difficult and why faith is central.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, [so] it is a revelation only to that person. [It follows it is] hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe. ​

in the case of the NT the writers did not claim that their writings are approved by god, nor does the church cite any reason for us to believe that they are particularly inspired, so this quote does not apply to our argument.

 

[Hugo]

if there is a writing in which an apostle precedes it with a devine qulification (meaning he states that the holy ghost specifically told me to say this), than the church can legitimately assert that this writing is faultless and inspired by god.

however the church cannot collect "unqualified" writings from the apostles and assert that they are faultless and inspired by god.

That is unless somebody in the church claims that the holy spirit directly and specifically instructed them as to the inspired nature of the particular writings.

The reason is because although the church and the apostles are "guided by the holy spirit". I have shown that such a guidence does not mean that they are saved from errors in their judgement and in their actions.

This of course is a circular argument - a writing according to you cannot be inspired by God unless it is qualified and so one assumes that it can only be qualified by someone who is inspired?

The Church has never said as you seem to assert that apostles are perfect in every action and judgement so you have show only what is patently obvious and must one suppose apply to prophets in Islam also. The Holy Spirit prompts you to do right but that does not mean one follows that prompting does it?

 

[Hugo]

its not that if the book says its from god i will take that as proof. if the book says its from god then i have to prove it wrong.

But this cannot be done because whatever argument you construct in your proof must contain explicitly or implicitly (a hidden premiss) a premiss that states God exists. In logical terms this will always be a fallacious argument because it has a questionable premiss because it is unfalsifiable.

In the case of the NT there is no legitimate authority cited, therfore it is not possible to assert that it is inspired. if the church cited devine authority(for example if it stated that god spoke to one of us directly), then it is possible that i would beleive it, unless i can disprove it.

Anything can be asserted it is the question of proof that is difficult and as I sated above there is always a hidden unprovable premiss

If the claim of inspiration is made then i am obliged to disprove it. in the case of the church they claim to be inspired but their false assertions are very easily dismantled because they are based upon the authority of jesus. there is no legitimate evidence that jesus gave them that authority.

It cannot be disproved as shown above and you are muddling up believing based on whatever evidence you have with proving.

in the case of the NT the writers did not claim that their writings are approved by god, nor does the church cite any reason for us to believe that they are particularly inspired, so this quote does not apply to our argument

When you speak of the 'church' here you seem to assume there is some body of people, a sort of parliament that sits in judgement but no such body exists and no Christian would understand it like that. Every Christian is part of the Church and every Christian is free to accept the scriptures for themselves

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

.... in every religion there are elements which others find odd, illogical, silly ................... .

I agree but if someone's belief goes against his/her own holy book , then s/he should give a serious thought about this particular belief.

 

[kidcanman]

But this cannot be done because whatever argument you construct in your proof must contain explicitly or implicitly (a hidden premiss) a premiss that states God exists. In logical terms this will always be a fallacious argument because it has a questionable premiss because it is unfalsifiable.

you might be missing the point im trying to make.

for other books (the quran; the OT etc.) we have to prove if god exist because muhammad/moses claim to be inspired.

the writers of the NT did not claim that their writings are approved by god; proving god exist is irrelevent when speaking of ordinary books. first we have to prove that the writers claim that the books are not ordinary books.

does a person have to prove that god exist before they conclude that the dictionary is not approved by god? no. the writers of the ditionary didn't make that claim so just like that we know the answer. no need to go into further proofs.

if one shows where the writers of the dictionary did make that claim, then we would have to question, well does god exist in order for them to make that claim, or did god actually speak to the dictionary writers?

but we can conclude that the dictionary is not approved by god because no claim of devinity is made. the writers did not claim it, nor is the claim made in the dictionary of itself. proving god exist would be a step taken after a claim is made. if no claim is made then we don't need to go into those sorts of proofs. we already know the answer: no.


if a book does not claim to be devine how can a normal man determine that it is devine with certainty. he cannot because he cannot be absolutely sure about what god approves and what god does not approve using his "normal man" intellect.

the writers of the bible didnt make the claim.

we dont have to worry about what proofs would be neccessary if the writers did make the claim. because if the claim is not made then we already know the answer: we who have normal intellects cannot make the claim.

christians need to show where the claim of the NT's devinity is made

(if there is no claim we don't care about proving god becasue if there is no claim then the books don't claim to be from a god),

or else they need to explain how they (people that are not given explicit direction from god) are able to determine, with limited intellect, what writings god approves, and what writings he dose not approve.

 

[kidcanman]

This of course is a circular argument - a writing according to you cannot be inspired by God unless it is qualified and so one assumes that it can only be qualified by someone who is inspired?

this is not an assumption. a man without inspiration has a limited intellect. he is prone to make mistakes. with our reasoning we can look at something and point out its imperfection: we can show that something is not perfect if a claim is made. but because our reasoning is imperfect, it is clear that an unispired man cannot take something that does not claim to be perfect and definitively assert that i know that this is perfect.

if there is a claim, a man can disprove it, but if there is no claim, then because people have limited intellects, a normal human cannot determine that something is perfect.

if a person asserts that there reasoning is perfect, then the implication is that their reasoning is no longer mortal reasoning.

 

[Hugo]

I agree but if someone's belief goes against his/her own holy book , then s/he should give a serious thought about this particular belief.

Interesting thought and if my experience is like most people there will always be things that make you doubt or feel uncertain from time to time but we hold on by faith. If a person has no doubts at all, ever I would wonder if they think about what they believe at all. I thinki it was Imam Ghazali who said "the person who has never doubted has never believed either".

The way God has made the world is that life is itself uncertain, we cannot know what tomorrow will bring and its only faith can keep us moving on. I don't know about you but my feeling is that its good to be on the edge of certainty. One can often get into a position of certainty over your own knowledge; a kind of assurance that you have finally got there. The trouble is it can shut your mind down so reflecting from the standpoint of certitude allows no new meaning, no deeper understanding no surprises to emerge, indeed if you are certain you will implicitly tell yourself more or less that reflection is pointless because there is nothing new for you to learn.

It is tempting to avoid the idea of doubt because it can have negative connotations. But it is a way of thinking that is to be cherished because doubt, when you are not sure, drives you on to seek information and struggle until that doubt is removed – that is creative doubt. Doubt therefore is what brings you eventually to the truth as I think you will find Prophet Mohammed once said and many other before him. One might usefully recall what Dostoevsky in the Brothers Karamazov said “.. man cannot live by Hosannas alone, those Hosannas have to be tempered in the crucible of doubt..”

Do you agree or find the whole idea of doubt as something to be avoided.

 

[Hugo]

you might be missing the point im trying to make. for other books (the quran; the OT etc.) we have to prove if god exist because muhammad/moses claim to be inspired.

But how can you prove that God or angels or Jinns exist - you can believe it of course but that is not the same as proof is it? If I were in a court of law it would not matter a hoot what I or someone else claims, it would only matter what I could prove.

does a person have to prove that god exist before they conclude that the dictionary is not approved by god? no. the writers of the dictionary didn't make that claim so just like that we know the answer. no need to go into further proofs.

But to take this example, suppose I write a dictionary and claim it was inspired by God, I can do that but it is unfalsifiable because you cannot find a way to show that what I have said is untrue so my claim amounts to a fallacy so there is nothing further to prove - in other words it does not matter what I claim if God is part of the claim because it will always be in strict logical terms false.

if a book does not claim to be devine how can a normal man determine that it is devine with certainty. he cannot because he cannot be absolutely sure about what god approves and what god does not approve using his "normal man" intellect.

Here you wander into sophistry but introducing a concept called 'normal man' and one now supposes there is also some kind of 'superman' and we are now in fairly land.

Consider Abraham, he was not given any book and did not write any and all we know about him is that he acted in faith on God's call. He needed no other proof than finding and acting on God's call and its is the same for us now.


.[/QUOTE]

 

[جوري]

But how can you prove that God or angels or Jinns exist - you can believe it of course but that is not the same as proof is it? If I were in a court of law it would not matter a hoot what I or someone else claims, it would only matter what I could prove.

You have heard of circumstantial evidence used in a court of law?
You can present a can of honey in court without the bee being present as proof!


a note on Abraham (p) directly from the Quran:

[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 2:260] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord): My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.[/SIZE]

One can't function on blind faith!


all the best