Who am I to Allah and Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redeemed
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 157
  • Views Views 19K
This is really funny, LOL, you accuse me of giving you a one liner then you start giving me one liners, and I respond with one word. Pretty soon you will give me one word and I'll respond in syllables
 
http://www.islamicboard.com/734482-post132.html

alapiana1 said:
This is really funny, LOL, you accuse me of giving you a one liner then you start giving me one liners, and I respond with one word. Pretty soon you will give me one word and I'll respond in syllables
Click to expand...

The thing was that I posted about 30 lines which composed of about 4 points and you just said 3 words or so in reply lol.
 
i'm sure this has been asked before but i can't seem to find it.

so what proof do muslims have that the quran is the word of God?

i think its a good point that just because the quran has remained unchanged that that means it is more reputable than the bible. i can write a book in english today and claim it is the word of God and in 1000 years it will remain unchanged and people will still be reading it.....this doesn't mean it is the word of God.

so that argument about the bible being wrong because it was translated is really a poor one.....
 
Al Habeshi said:
OK, all right, You know as well as I not everything can be proved. We both believe in a Creator, but we cannot prove that to the unbelieving world. I take it by faith that it is not necessary to defend the Bible, because I believe it is tantamount to defending a roaring lion from a small goat.

So if you cant prove it why make that statement, also if you cant prove it and you dont have logical reasons then why do you follow it, why not another religion?



I have tried to address it. :)
Click to expand...

I follow it for the same reason you follow what you believe partly, but mostly, I go by faith. I do not depend on reason and logic or lean to my own understanding. I do not trust myself that way. I trust God in Jesus name. There is a way that seems right to a man, but that is the way that leads to death. That way is broad like the road to hell and many go that way, but the way to life is narrow and few find it. Jesus said, 'Blessed are those who believe and have not seen..." in relationship to who He is. The just shall live by faith. It is better than a known logical way.
 
Last edited:
cooloonka said:
i'm sure this has been asked before but i can't seem to find it.

so what proof do muslims have that the quran is the word of God?

i think its a good point that just because the quran has remained unchanged that that means it is more reputable than the bible. i can write a book in english today and claim it is the word of God and in 1000 years it will remain unchanged and people will still be reading it.....this doesn't mean it is the word of God.

so that argument about the bible being wrong because it was translated is really a poor one.....
Click to expand...

I for one do not claim that translation means curroption.

Neither do I claim that preservation on it's own means it's God's word, but rather, preservation in my eyes is a prerequisite for God's Message to us.

If you like please create another thread about the Qu'ran.

I really would like not to diviate from the topic at hand.
 
alapiana1 said:
I follow it for the same reason you follow what you believe partly, but mostly, I go by faith. I do not depend on reason and logic or lean to my own understanding. I do not trust myself that way.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand, there's a difference between using our understanding as a tool to help us find the path and using it to understand God.


alapiana1 said:
I trust God in Jesus name.
Click to expand...

Why? Why in Jesus' name? Why not believe in Hinduism or Buddism or Islam?
 
cooloonka said:
i'm sure this has been asked before but i can't seem to find it.

so what proof do muslims have that the quran is the word of God?

i think its a good point that just because the quran has remained unchanged that that means it is more reputable than the bible. i can write a book in english today and claim it is the word of God and in 1000 years it will remain unchanged and people will still be reading it.....this doesn't mean it is the word of God.

so that argument about the bible being wrong because it was translated is really a poor one.....
Click to expand...


I believe many of us will agree with you. As a Muslim we are obligated to look for verification in all we read. Although we do accept the Qur'an on faith, we also have knowldge that it is true based on what we verify on our own.

that gets to be very individual as the amount and/or types of proof need to convince any of us will vary.

Some people the validation of the Scientific miracles is sufficient. For myself the Qur'anic challange is sufficient.

I will agree that the fact the Bible was translated is not proof that the Bible is in error, but it is evidence that it is not the same as the original and the differences between the different variations can be shocking.
 
Al Habeshi said:
I for one do not claim that translation means curroption.

Neither do I claim that preservation on it's own means it's God's word, but rather, preservation in my eyes is a prerequisite for God's Message to us.

If you like please create another thread about the Qu'ran.

I really would like not to diviate from the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
I had already started a thread on it that was waiting for an OK
 
Woodrow said:
I believe many of us will agree with you. As a Muslim we are obligated to look for verification in all we read. Although we do accept the Qur'an on faith, we also have knowldge that it is true based on what we verify on our own.

that gets to be very individual as the amount and/or types of proof need to convince any of us will vary.

Some people the validation of the Scientific miracles is sufficient. For myself the Qur'anic challange is sufficient.

I will agree that the fact the Bible was translated is not proof that the Bible is in error, but it is evidence that it is not the same as the original and the differences between the different variations can be shocking.
Click to expand...

What would be so shocking for example?
 
alapiana1 said:
What would be so shocking for example?
Click to expand...

The 10 commandments for starters.

Q: What are the “Ten Commandments?

A: The Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) contains lots of rules which developed over a millennium. Most of these were borrowed from earlier Near Eastern law codes, known to the Hebrews through cultural contact with Egypt and Babylonian civilization. Because of the complexity, redundancy, and inconsistency of these laws, early Judaism singled out a number of “statements”— called Aseret ha-Dvarîm, “the ten injunctions”— as a kind of summary. In the Greek translation of the Bible, used by Christians, the term employed is dekalogoi or “the ten words.”

There is no place in the Bible where the statements are called “commandments.” The phrase originates with God (in Exodus 34.11) “commanding” Moses to write them down.

There is only one place in the Bible where the number ten is given. In the single passage where the “ten words” are referred to (Exodus 34.28-29), the reference is to God “replacing” the original commandments, following Moses’ smashing the stone tablets ( in Exodus 32.19).

Literally, the Ten Commandments are the following:



I. Do not make deals with the Hivites, or other strange people: Demolish their altars.
II. Don’t marry their daughters or you’ll be encouraged to accept their gods. (34.11-16).
III. Don’t make gods out of cast metal (the way they do): 34.17
IV. Observe the feast of unleavened bread in the month of Abib to commemorate when you were taken out of Egypt (34.18)
V. Don’t come before me empty-handed, because the first born cattle, sheep, and even your firstborn sons belong to me. (34.19-20)
VI. Keep the seventh day for rest, even during harvest and ploughing time. Whoever works on the sabbath will be put to death (34.21; 35.2)
VII. Your males must keep the feast of “weeks” (Shavuot or Pentecost, originally a harvest festival) as a thanksgiving for God’s driving the inhabitants out of Canaan (Exodus 34.22-34)
VIII. Don’t offer leavened bread with the Passover lamb (34.25)
IX. Give God the best portion when you sacrifice. (34.26)
X. Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk (34.26)
Click to expand...


Source: http://www.tenamendmentsday.org/10cfaq.php
 
alapiana1 said:
Somehow I can't believe that you find this shocking. It doesn't shock me. What would shock me is finding out Islam is what God intended for Christians:skeleton:
Click to expand...

Islam means to serve God(swt) that is what the religion is. Isn't that what the Bible tries to teach Christians to do?

So yes, if followed correctly the intention of Christianity is to be Muslim.
 
Woodrow said:
Islam means to serve God(swt) that is what the religion is. Isn't that what the Bible tries to teach Christians to do?

So yes, if followed correctly the intention of Christianity is to be Muslim.
Click to expand...
And then you woke up:blind:
 
Woodrow said:
yep, I woke up. Many former Christians will tell you that Christ led them to Islam.

We have a number of them here on this forum.
Click to expand...
From what your saying, it sounds like this forum is winning more Christians than the other way around.
I can only thank God up till now it didn't happen to me, and I do.:statisfie
Here is a little write up on the influences on Christianity.
So what? We celebrate birthdays on days that are convenient rather than the
specific date because nobody will come on the real day. Here's an article
that spells out the history pretty accurately.

Why December 25?
For the church's first three centuries, Christmas wasn't in December—or on
the calendar at all.

Elesha Coffman

It's very tough for us North Americans to imagine Mary and Joseph trudging
to Bethlehem in anything but, as Christina Rosetti memorably described it,
"the bleak mid-winter," surrounded by "snow on snow on snow." To us,
Christmas and December are inseparable. But for the first three centuries of
Christianity, Christmas wasn't in December—or on the calendar anywhere.

If observed at all, the celebration of Christ's birth was usually lumped in
with Epiphany (January 6), one of the church's earliest established feasts.
Some church leaders even opposed the idea of a birth celebration. Origen
(c.185-c.254) preached that it would be wrong to honor Christ in the same
way Pharaoh and Herod were honored. Birthdays were for pagan gods.

Not all of Origen's contemporaries agreed that Christ's birthday shouldn't
be celebrated, and some began to speculate on the date (actual records were
apparently long lost). Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) favored May 20
but noted that others had argued for April 18, April 19, and May 28.
Hippolytus (c.170-c.236) championed January 2. November 17, November 20, and
March 25 all had backers as well. A Latin treatise written around 243 pegged
March 21, because that was believed to be the date on which God created the
sun. Polycarp (c.69-c.155) had followed the same line of reasoning to
conclude that Christ's birth and baptism most likely occurred on Wednesday,
because the sun was created on the fourth day.

The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a
convergence of Origen's concern about pagan gods and the church's
identification of God's son with the celestial sun. December 25 already
hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth
of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of
Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter
solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier.
Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the
true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a
new festival.

Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after
Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire's favored religion.
Eastern churches, however, held on to January 6 as the date for Christ's
birth and his baptism. Most easterners eventually adopted December 25,
celebrating Christ's birth on the earlier date and his baptism on the
latter, but the Armenian church celebrates his birth on January 6.
Incidentally, the Western church does celebrate Epiphany on January 6, but
as the arrival date of the Magi rather than as the date of Christ's baptism.

Another wrinkle was added in the sixteenth century when Pope Gregory devised
a new calendar, which was unevenly adopted. The Eastern Orthodox and some
Protestants retained the Julian calendar, which meant they celebrated
Christmas 13 days later than their Gregorian counterparts. Most—but not
all—of the Christian world now agrees on the Gregorian calendar and the
December 25 date.

The pagan origins of the Christmas date, as well as pagan origins for many
Christmas customs (gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia;
greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various
foods from Teutonic feasts), have always fueled arguments against the
holiday. "It's just paganism wrapped with a Christian bow," naysayers argue.
But while kowtowing to worldliness must always be a concern for Christians,
the church has generally viewed efforts to reshape culture—including
holidays—positively. As a theologian asserted in 320, "We hold this day
holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of
him who made it."

Elesha can be reached at [email protected].
 
alapiana1 said:
From what your saying, it sounds like this forum is winning more Christians than the other way around.
I can only thank God up till now it didn't happen to me, and I do.:statisfie
Here is a little write up on the influences on Christianity.
So what? We celebrate birthdays on days that are convenient rather than the
specific date because nobody will come on the real day. Here's an article
that spells out the history pretty accurately.

Why December 25?
For the church's first three centuries, Christmas wasn't in December—or on
the calendar at all.

Elesha Coffman

It's very tough for us North Americans to imagine Mary and Joseph trudging
to Bethlehem in anything but, as Christina Rosetti memorably described it,
"the bleak mid-winter," surrounded by "snow on snow on snow." To us,
Christmas and December are inseparable. But for the first three centuries of
Christianity, Christmas wasn't in December—or on the calendar anywhere.

If observed at all, the celebration of Christ's birth was usually lumped in
with Epiphany (January 6), one of the church's earliest established feasts.
Some church leaders even opposed the idea of a birth celebration. Origen
(c.185-c.254) preached that it would be wrong to honor Christ in the same
way Pharaoh and Herod were honored. Birthdays were for pagan gods.

Not all of Origen's contemporaries agreed that Christ's birthday shouldn't
be celebrated, and some began to speculate on the date (actual records were
apparently long lost). Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) favored May 20
but noted that others had argued for April 18, April 19, and May 28.
Hippolytus (c.170-c.236) championed January 2. November 17, November 20, and
March 25 all had backers as well. A Latin treatise written around 243 pegged
March 21, because that was believed to be the date on which God created the
sun. Polycarp (c.69-c.155) had followed the same line of reasoning to
conclude that Christ's birth and baptism most likely occurred on Wednesday,
because the sun was created on the fourth day.

The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a
convergence of Origen's concern about pagan gods and the church's
identification of God's son with the celestial sun. December 25 already
hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth
of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of
Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter
solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier.
Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the
true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a
new festival.

Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after
Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire's favored religion.
Eastern churches, however, held on to January 6 as the date for Christ's
birth and his baptism. Most easterners eventually adopted December 25,
celebrating Christ's birth on the earlier date and his baptism on the
latter, but the Armenian church celebrates his birth on January 6.
Incidentally, the Western church does celebrate Epiphany on January 6, but
as the arrival date of the Magi rather than as the date of Christ's baptism.

Another wrinkle was added in the sixteenth century when Pope Gregory devised
a new calendar, which was unevenly adopted. The Eastern Orthodox and some
Protestants retained the Julian calendar, which meant they celebrated
Christmas 13 days later than their Gregorian counterparts. Most—but not
all—of the Christian world now agrees on the Gregorian calendar and the
December 25 date.

The pagan origins of the Christmas date, as well as pagan origins for many
Christmas customs (gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia;
greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various
foods from Teutonic feasts), have always fueled arguments against the
holiday. "It's just paganism wrapped with a Christian bow," naysayers argue.
But while kowtowing to worldliness must always be a concern for Christians,
the church has generally viewed efforts to reshape culture—including
holidays—positively. As a theologian asserted in 320, "We hold this day
holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of
him who made it."

Elesha can be reached at [email protected].
Click to expand...

In spite of my obvious enjoyment of arguing I really do believe there is no compulsion in religion. It is up to each of us to learn what we can and to have our decisions based upon our own findings.

Perhaps like with some others here the closest we will come in agreement is to agree to disagree, with respect.
 
Woodrow said:
yep, I woke up. Many former Christians will tell you that Christ led them to Islam.

We have a number of them here on this forum.
Click to expand...
Yes, I woke up too. Each person's reversion to Islam is unique. For me it was more of what is called a "paradigm shift".

Wikipedia
"Paradigm shift is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. ... A scientist, however, once a paradigm shift is complete, is not allowed the luxury, for example, of positing the possibility that miasma causes the flu or that ether carries light ... Thus, paradigms, in the sense that Kuhn used them, do not exist in Humanities or social sciences. Nonetheless, the term has been adopted since the 1960s and applied in non-scientific contexts."

Just as I can no longer believe that the earth is flat, I can't return to believing that Jesus is either the Son of God or God. My basic underlying assumptions have changed away from what Christianity teaches.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top