-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christians: Why aren't you Muslim?
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
Wombat
Active Member
Dear sojourner
If it was not such a frequent occurance I would not make an issue out of it...but...I ask 2-3 questions seeking to explore/understand your pov...you ignore them...then turn arround and ask a question in return...seemingly in expectation of an answer.
Please, there is nothing personal in this, nor am I seeking to insult you personaly... but I have been on the Net for some time and I am begining to stongly suspect there is something 'cultural' going on. Do Americans find direct pertinant questions insulting in some way? Or is there some dynamic of control and empowerment in denying/witholding answer?
I ask, in all honesty and curiosity, because it is often difficult to get a straight answer to a straight pertinant question from the American cousins.
The answer to your question resides, in large part, in the answer to (one of) the questions I put to you-
"Is 'Christ' the surname of an individual called Jesus?
Or is 'Christ' a station ordained by God?"
'Christos'- The 'Annointed One' of God.
To follow the 'Christ' is to follow the one God 'annoints' or appoints....it is a title that denotes >station< and authority....>not< "identity".
Christ is not the surname of Jesus.
I am yet to see anything put forward that suggests Islam rejects the authority of Christ or that Moslems are not in accord with "following" Christs instructions- just as Christians may claim and be seen to be "following" the instructions of Moses in recognising He who is entitled and in authority to renew the faith and change the law (Even unto the direction faced in prayer).
As Christ the Messiah is predicted in Hebrew scripture and "followed" by those who recognise him...so too Mohammed is predicted and "followed" by those who recognise him. The scriptural authority for both is solid.
If it was not such a frequent occurance I would not make an issue out of it...but...I ask 2-3 questions seeking to explore/understand your pov...you ignore them...then turn arround and ask a question in return...seemingly in expectation of an answer.
Please, there is nothing personal in this, nor am I seeking to insult you personaly... but I have been on the Net for some time and I am begining to stongly suspect there is something 'cultural' going on. Do Americans find direct pertinant questions insulting in some way? Or is there some dynamic of control and empowerment in denying/witholding answer?
I ask, in all honesty and curiosity, because it is often difficult to get a straight answer to a straight pertinant question from the American cousins.
The answer to your question resides, in large part, in the answer to (one of) the questions I put to you-
"Is 'Christ' the surname of an individual called Jesus?
Or is 'Christ' a station ordained by God?"
'Christos'- The 'Annointed One' of God.
To follow the 'Christ' is to follow the one God 'annoints' or appoints....it is a title that denotes >station< and authority....>not< "identity".
Christ is not the surname of Jesus.
I am yet to see anything put forward that suggests Islam rejects the authority of Christ or that Moslems are not in accord with "following" Christs instructions- just as Christians may claim and be seen to be "following" the instructions of Moses in recognising He who is entitled and in authority to renew the faith and change the law (Even unto the direction faced in prayer).
As Christ the Messiah is predicted in Hebrew scripture and "followed" by those who recognise him...so too Mohammed is predicted and "followed" by those who recognise him. The scriptural authority for both is solid.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out where you asked me a question here. Did I miss something?
Only if the questions are frivolous, deliberately provocative, or intentionally demeaning.
It's a bad way to try to control a debate. But asking bad questions is also a bad way to do that...
Ask a good question and I'll give you the best answer I can.
See, this is what I'm talking about. No one except for the Gumpiest Xians think that Jesus' last name is "Christ." The question is demeaning and provocative, because it has nothing to do with the real issue.
Christians are only Christians because that became a name given to us by detractors. Early Christians called themselves "followers." And they followed Jesus specifically -- not "any and all 'anointed' persons."
the overwhelming majority of Xians have, for most of the history of Xy, believed that Jesus is God Incarnate. Muslims don't believe that. That fact constitutes a rejection of the authority of Christ as Very God.
They certainly don't baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Christians don't follow Moses.
Not so. Muhammed isn't mentioned in the Hebrew texts, nor is Jesus alluded to in the Hebrew texts. The Messiah is pophesied, and Xians believe Jesus to be the Messiah. I fail to see any scriptural or church authority for Muhammed.
Wombat
Active Member
Yes..you missed quoting with attribution when answering a question put to another.
There are many Christians to be encountered who believe and or treat the term "Christ' as a surname...I do not presume them to be "Grumpy" nor do I presume/intend a pertinent question seeking clarification of their understanding of the term to be "deliberately provocative, or intentionally demeaning"...such an assesment is baseless and unwarranted projection.
The question has everything "to do with the real issue" because it serves to identify who and what Christians believe they are following. And when you complain that others have "have not taken on his identity" this compounds the impression that the focus is being placed (and confused) on the man 'Jesus' rather than on the station/position- Christ.
That is circular arguement (back to "followers" of who/what) and makes no sense.
The "followers" of Jesus recognised him as the 'annointed one of God'- The Christos and followed him for >that< reason...if Jesus was not seen as The Christ they would not have followed him and not subsequently been called Christians by detractors.
LOL!
Read- When the detractors and enemies of Christianity (Roman) could no longer hope to eliminate the movement they took it over (Constantine) and took a Christion following with longstanding broad and diverse understanding as to the station of Jesus to the First Council of Nicaea. " Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom."Wiki
Thus ended the hope/life of any Christian who was among those who held the longstanding and accepted belief that Jesus was not Divine but the voice/authority with which he spoke was.
That's right...Muslims, like thousands of >pre Nicaean< Christians (and many Christians today) do not believe >Jesus< to be "Very God".
No...and again your language betrays you and confuses the issue...The man Jesus may well be the 'Christ' without being God or even the Son of God. Such was the belief of many early Christians and remains the belief of some contemporary Christians and is shared by Moslems in respect to Christ- a man annointed by God- not God incarnate.
No they don't...attempting to divide the one and indivisable God into three (even conceptual) components is seen as blasphemy.
Sure they do, the follow Mosaic law in adhering to the Ten Commandments...a far more important set of laws/understandings to be followed than babtizm in the name of the trinity.
And you are certain of this on the basis of research/study?
What does the name Mohammed mean?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But that's not what you're accusing me of doing.
There are some. But there are ignorant and uninformed people in any human endeavor. You can't hold all of us accountable to the weakest link.
The very act of an outsider (you) asking a question about what Christians think of Jesus, to which you jolly well know the answer, is deliberately provocative and demeaning.
We know who and what we're following. Christians don't need a not-Christian to tell us that information. If you would like to know who and what we follow, may I invite you to come to your local church this Sunday and find out?
And no -- it has not the slightest thing to do with the issue at hand, which was "why Muslims are, by definition, not Christians."
It's a circular argument to relate history??? We were first called "Xians" at Antioch, by detractors of the faith. That's fact. Not circular reasoning. We don't call ourselves "Xian" because "we follow (first name) Jesus (last name) Christ."
That's my point! Jesus was the Anointed One -- not an anointed one. Added to that is the fact that even his disciples noted that there was something Divine about him, that was different than any other holy man. Thomas identified him as "my Lord and my God."
I have 6 undergraduate hours and 12 graduate hours of church history. I don't need Wiki to "tell me how it was." First of all, It was the church leaders -- not the Romans -- who debated doctrine at Nicea. Constantine set the time and place. Secondly, the creed thus developed was not the "first uniform Christian doctrine." Nor did the Romans "take over" Xy. That's nothing more than biased opinion.
I don't know what to say to your last paragraph. It's so biased and wrong it's sad. There was always some kind of idea that Jesus was, in some way, Divine.
What's your point, Skeezix? That muslims, along with "thousands of pre-Nicene Xians" are right and we're just wrong? It's just this kind of nonsensical finger-pointing that the council of Nicea hoped to squash, because it doesn't do any justice to anyone or anything. If Christ is not Divine, the council wouldn't have come up with what they did.
That's hilarious: hey, Kids! The muslims are right about Jesus and thousands upon thousands of Xians over the centuries are just wrong! It doesn't confuse the issue. The Body of Christ has stated unequivocably that Jesus is God Incarnate. Period. A bunch of disgruntled Bedouins don't get to come along later and tell us we're wrong about God. What the statement does is shed light on the insidiousness (not to mention lunacy) of (once again) outsiders telling us what to believe and what not to believe. if you don't want to believe, then, by all means, don't! But don't proselytize the rest of us who do.
That's your opinion. I can assure you that it is not shared by the Church, which is the Body of Christ, with the authority given by him to make those kinds of theological calls.
None of which changes the fact that Jesus is God Incarnate.
Well... That's what the Bible says. But since muslims have no respect for the Bible, I'm not in the least surprised. That's why they're not Xians.
Damn it! Will you puleeze stop telling us what we do and do not believe and follow! It's not your call to make. You are soooo far off base here, it would be funny, if it weren't so sad.
Yes. It takes a whole lot of eisegesis to read muhammed into Biblical text.
I'm sure you'll "enlighten" me, no matter what I say. But not before you spank me for "evading the question," (which I've already mentioned that I won't answer, when it's obviously provocative.) I'm not playing your stupid game.
I'm a Christian, not a muslim. Couldn't care less about what muhammed means, although I'm sure there are lots of people who do care, and more power to them. why don't you waste bandwidth by asking someone who cares, instead of hoping to trap me?
Wombat
Active Member
No...When you respond to questions put to another and quote without attribution it becomes impossible to keep track of who is responding to what without constantly backtracking through thread.
At what point did I suggest I held anyone "accountable to the weakest link"?
Well excuse you...1/ You think that calling yourself a Christian entitles you to determine and deem who is an "outsider" to the teachings and following of The Christ? Do tell and project some more of your "provocative and demeaning"...for you have no such entitlement.
2/ I did not ask "what Christians think of Jesus"...I asked if the distinction between the man Jesus and the station Christos was understood. Your misrepresentation is only exceeded by your "provocative and demeaning" exclusion and propensity to project your intent on others.
Now you have assumed psychic powers to ascertain what I "know" in regard a question I did not ask?
That claim can only be verified through examination/discussion of history and scripture and the changes in understanding therein. You do not get to exclude me via assumption that I am not a follower of and believer in The Christ and his teachings nor through the arogant assumption that you represent "we" (Christians) and have some uniform understanding of "who and what we're following"...to the exclusion of those you (alone) deem "outside" His teaching.
1/ Again...You don't get to arbitrate and determine who is Christian/not-Christian. You are not Pope nor do you have power to excomunicate nor would I recognise such assumed authority.
2/ "Don't need" me " to tell us" WHAT "information"?
The meaning of Christos? The First Council of Nicaea?
No thanks. I'm getting a fine understanding of your concept of Christian hospitality right here in your determination to assume, project and deploy the ""deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" in respose to legitimate questions.
Ah huh...And for that to be the case you will need to convince me/history that Jesus (the first and most orthoritative 'Christian') was "by definition, not also a Jew.
Good luck with that
Nice but failed attempted fudge.
You claimed- "And they followed Jesus specifically -- not "any and all 'anointed' persons."
And ignored the rebbutal that pointed out Jesus >was< "specifically" The 'anointed' person...the Christ.
(Perhaps you do need someone to clarify what you believe and who you follow and why?
)Then you need to be more careful in the language you choose to express your point..for "they followed Jesus specifically -- not "any and all 'anointed' persons." places emphasis (yet again) on the identity/man Jesus to the exclusion of "any and all" annointment by God.
Yes..."something Divine about him"...the authority of the voice of God, the persuasion of living example in deeds of God made manifest. But there is nothing in the NT or early Christain teachings that necessitates Jesus be considered God or the literal Son of God nor that such belief is essential to being a "follower" of His teachings.
I am overwhellmed by your 18 hours
First of all, It was the church leaders -- not the Romans -- who debated doctrine at Nicea.
I never suggested otherwise.
But to Nicea-
"It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I). In order to expedite the assembling of the Council, the emperor placed at the disposal of the bishops the public conveyances and posts of the empire; moreover, while the Council lasted he provided abundantly for the maintenance of the members".
The opening of the Creed-
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri],..."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea
And thus arises the issue-
"The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
"It must be concluded, then, that the controversy was between a great majority who held the belief that the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed was ancient and Apostolic, and a minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct ."
The Council of Nicea
"some kind of idea that Jesus was, in some way, Divine"?...Yes, conceeded and agreed from the outset- reflective of the Divine, representative of the Divive, speaking with the power and authority of the Divine, the Divine made Mannifest in and through, ANNOINTED by the Divine as the Christ......but none of the preceeding necessitates the belief in "the authority of Christ as Very God" as you previously stated. To not believe in 'Christ as Very God' is not to "reject" Jesus as the Christ nor reject his teachings nor to be a non Christian non follower.
That you or millions of Christians may hold belief in Jesus Christ "as Very God" does not make it so nor debar others from following Him.
Wombat
Active Member
Gee sojourner..."What's your point, Skeezix? That Christians, are right and millions of Jews are just wrong"?
You see....once you get past the argumentum ad populum and the argumentum ad verecundiam (arguements based on popularity or assumed authority) you are confronted with the Jewish population and Scribes and Pharasies getting it "just wrong" from the Christian perspective.
And that recognition, if you are prepared to face it, leaves the door wide open to the consideration that Christians may be in >exactly the same< "getting it wrong" position.
That's hilarious: hey, Kids! The Christians are right about Jesus and millions upon millions of Jews over the centuries are just wrong.
It is an impossible consideration in >both< instances? Or just the one upon which you wish to stand? The Jews could be collectively in error....but not the Christians?
Are you referring to the physical Body of Christ and the testimony of the Reserection? Or to the 'Church' as The Body of Christ?
LOL! Listen to yourself and the echo of first century Jerusalem!- "No Carpenter from the hick town of Nazareth is going to ride in here on a donkey and pretend he's the expected Messiah on the expected white charger to smite the three Roman legions at the gates with his lame "Love thine enemy" instead of the expected Divine sword of righteous fire.....don't "tell us we're wrong about God" and what He will deliver to his chosen people"!!!
Once again your Christian hospitalitity and openess to discussion is displayed...you open with projection of "deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" and now stoop to ad hom "insidiousness" and "lunacy".
Are you at all familiar with the early Christian view that non Jews ("outsiders") could not become Christians? I believe Jesus and the Disciples sorted that out.
Good, I wont believe "them" whoever "them" be...I will believe in and on the Scriptures and the Messangers and Manifestations of God who reavealed them.
Have not said a single word to attempt to convert you to anything. This is discussion....if you are so threatened by it that you must resort to falsification/ad hom I suggest you do not engage therein.
That's right...my "opinion" (shared by many others including many Christians) based on Scripture, History, Meditation and Reasoning and not based on the authority of any "theological calls" that could be just as wrong as those of the authoritative Scribes and Pharasisies.
And that is "your opinion" not an established "fact" and wide open to Scriptural interpretation.
"deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning"...you do it so well...but it's no stand in for reasoned argument.
Sure....Just as soon as you can show me a single point at which I have been telling you "what we do and do not believe and follow!"
You're right...Your allegation of telling you what to believe/not believe...your ball, your court.....substantiate away.
"What does the name Mohammed mean? "
Yet another "sure" certainty on your behalf that is unfounded.
You have a full 18 hours of theological research, you are convinced without foundation or example that I'm out to be ""deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning", playing my "stupid game", engaged in "insidious" "lunacy" and all the while telling you what to believe/not believe and seeking to convert you.
You have a lot going on there...but sadly not a single substantiating/verifying example.........but to expect such would be part of my "stupid game"...would it not?
You will require another partner for such "provocative" "spank me" fantasy.:slap:
Clearly.....and thereon I rest my case and need say nothing as to what being a Christian means to you.
"stupid game" Set and Match at the point at which you "Couldn't care less..:foot:..."
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No, I don't. But I note that you place yourself solidly outside the Xian camp yourself by your religious affiliation. By calling yourself Baha'i, you are asserting that you do not believe yourself to be Xian, and thus an outsider to the Body. Your call; your foul.
And who do you think has had nearly 2000 years of dealing effectively with that question? Therefore, it's a non-question.
Nope. Not psychic. Just aware of cheap shots. You prove that you already knew the answer here:
So, why did you bother to ask, unless it was either to trap someone, or to try to "teach us something?"
Again: You assume that position yourself when you list yourself as a follower of a religion outside Xy. I can't help what you are. If you want to be one of us, the door is always open for you. Until such time, you stand outside that community -- whether the door is open or not.
Again... I didn't do that. You did that by aligning yourself with a religion that is decidedly not Christian.
No. Who and what Christians believe and follow. We've been doing well on our own for quite some time now, thanks.
Except that they're not "legitimate questions," if you already know (or think you know) the answers to them. Hospitality does not include walking into traps.
Don't be silly. I've never made such a claim. Well, actually, I have. Jesus was Jewish. Jesus was not a Christian. So Jesus was not also a Jew.
Yeah, but it's more than obvious that you're making the claim that Muhammed is also "anointed," which is clearly not the case for Christians.
Millions of Xians -- living and dead -- disagree with you. Which, again, is why the Council arrived at the decision it did. Despite what you think, which is probably one reason why you're not a Xian.
You should be...
But it's "overwhelmed," not "overwhellmed." ;-)
You did here:
well...
So much for your claim of "projection" on my part. I've never made such claims.
The difference is, though, O Best Beloved, that the Christians who "got it right were part of the group of Jews who "got it wrong." The same relationship is not true of muslims. The muslims were never Christian, who claimed that "we got it wrong." They stand outside the Faith; it is more than clear that they do not understand the Faith, so they have no business making such judgments. Christian, OTOH, were Jews, understood Judaism, lived Judaism, and so were immanently qualified to make that call.
See above. Same situation.
What's the difference? The Church is the Body of Christ. It is physical; it exists in space.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well, let's just turn this one right around on you:
What about the way the Jews treated the Samaritans? (BTW -- the muslims call us "infidels.") This isn't the snobbery of the Jewish religious authorities. It's about setting boundaries between us and other religions that would seek to tell us how we ought to be.
so... to place this outside religious clothing: I suppose it would be horribly inhospitable of the USA to disallow the Chinese to come into Congress and tell us how we ought to run our country?
Once again, hospitality does not include being a doormat.
Outsiders becoming Christian is a completely different animal than outsiders forcing their opinions on Christians.
You, of course, are smart enough to be aware that Christian theology is likewise based on Scripture, history, Tradition, reason, and discernment. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. What you're not entitled to do with it is tell us with any degree of authority what we ought to believe.
I believe the Church settled that a long time ago. ;-)
Calling it as it is is neither provocative nor demeaning. Read any muslim opinions on the Bible, just in this thread and you'll see.
You sure have a way of twisting things around, don't you? Looks like my call was accurate, after all.
happy to oblige! here you are:
Thanks for playing!
Jordan St. Francis
Well-Known Member
Even if we were to posit that the earliest Christians had no concept of Christ's divinity, it is still quite ludicrous to imply they thought any delegate bearing God's authority would come after him. All Christian writings testify very clearly that Jesus is both Christ (Annointed) and LORD. Further, that Jesus, Nicea aside, was not just a prophet but the very point of access to God's grace and salvation. It is impossible to reconcile even the earliest strata of Christianity with Islam.
Wombat
Active Member
Strange...I have made no attempt whatsoever to tell you what Christians believe other than to point out the obvious in that Christians adhere to the law of Moses in regard the Ten Commandments. And this fact (alone) has you all up in arms protesting- "Damn it! Will you puleeze stop telling us what we do and do not believe and follow".
And yet you are quite comfortable attempting to falsefy what it is to be a Baha'i and tell me point blank what I am supposed to believe-"By calling yourself Baha'i, you are asserting that you do not believe yourself to be Xian".
Wrong, false and out of order...To be a Baha'i is to believe in Christ and be a Christian, to believe in Mohammed and be a Moslem. They are not incompatible they are One stemming from another. You don't have to believe that or respect that.
But you don't get to falsify what it is to be a Baha'i without challenge.
And you don't get to repeatedly falsely accuse me of setting traps, insidious, lunacy cheap shots, stupid game, "deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" without being challenged to provide example, substantiation, justification.
And who do you think has had nearly 2000 years of dealing effectively with that question?
The question was put to >you< to ascertain your understanding. And you certainly do not demonstrate the wisdom of someone 2000 years old.
Nope. Not psychic. Just aware of cheap shots. You prove that you already knew the answer here:
So, why did you bother to ask, unless it was either to trap someone, or to try to "teach us something?"
Brilliant...Because I know the answer to a question I put to you it can >only< be a "cheap shot" "trap" or to try to "teach" "proselytise" "or tell you what to believe not believe".
Do you know what disingenuous extrapolation is?
It's taking your own nasty mindset and outlook and without basis or foundation projecting ill intent onto others.
I "bothered to ask" you the question because I sought to ascertain your understanding....nothing more, nothing less.
Again: You assume that position yourself when you list yourself as a follower of a religion outside Xy.
Not a decision >you< get to make. You do not get to locate my faith and my religion for me.
You are not the arbiter of who is a Christian and who is not.
I can't help what you are. If you want to be one of us, the door is always open for you. Until such time, you stand outside that community -- whether the door is open or not.
The problem (downfall) of your cosmology is that you clearly believe who stands inside or outside the "community" of Christ is dependent upon a 'label' or 'title' they pin upon themselves. I hold the community of Christ to be those who display deeds reflective of His teachings. And would gladly stand outside any community professing His name...but hell bent on seeing traps, insidious, lunacy cheap shots, stupid game, "deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" when there is no basis or justification thereof.
Again... I didn't do that. You did that by aligning yourself with a religion that is decidedly not Christian.
And by what knowledge/authority do you think you are entitled to >decide< for others what is "decidedly not Christian"?
No. Who and what Christians believe and follow.
You keep repeating that you are being told "Who and what Christians believe and follow" and yet the >only< example you can provide is that of Christians following the law of Moses in the Ten Commandments.
What, pray tell, is your problem with >that< obvious 'following'.?
Except that they're not "legitimate questions," if you already know (or think you know) the answers to them. Hospitality does not include walking into traps.
So if I understand something and ask you a question to determine/ascertain your understanding...that must be a "trap"?
Don't be silly. I've never made such a claim. Well, actually, I have. Jesus was Jewish. Jesus was not a Christian. So Jesus was not also a Jew.
The Christ was not a Christian? Jesus did not follow and adhere to Christian teachings? Jesus did not believe he was the Christ?
I'm being "silly" in suggesting Jesus, the first Christian, was also a Jew...but you're not being silly in stating- "Jesus was not a Christian"?
Yeah, but it's more than obvious that you're making the claim that Muhammed is also "anointed," which is clearly not the case for Christians.
So when I am speaking directly to the point-"Jesus >was< "specifically" The 'anointed' person...the Christ"...with no referance to or mention of Mohammed...you are projecting forward and responding to an unseen and unstated claim?
How often and for how long has your mind been set to see "insidious" "traps" in all things?
The difference is, though, O Best Beloved, that the Christians who "got it right were part of the group of Jews who "got it wrong."
Ahhhh I see...to get it "right" you have to be "part of the group" who "got it wrong"...it's not possible to get it right without being part of the group who got it wrong...because the group that got it wrong "understood" and "lived" getting it wrong "and so were immanently qualified" to get it right.
See above. Same situation.
No. That's a cheap dodge...the point/question stands unanswered unrebuked-
It is an impossible consideration in >both< instances? Or just the one upon which you wish to stand? The Jews could be collectively in error....but not the Christians?
Wombat
Active Member
No. Not untill you at least >try< answering the point made.
so... to place this outside religious clothing: I suppose it would be horribly inhospitable of the USA to disallow the Chinese to come into Congress and tell us how we ought to run our country?
Your response would have some meaning/pertinence if you could show >any point< at which I have attempted to "tell you/Christians how to run your religion".
But despite the fact that nothing of the kind has transpired...you continue to excuse your ad hom with the falsification that I have been telling you what Christians ought believe/follow.
Once again, hospitality does not include being a doormat.
And every time I ask a "doormat" to what? or what "trap", or what cheap shot, stupid game "deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" you sidestep, evade and provide >nothing< of substance.
In your example of "hospitality" one does not even get to stand on the doormat without being falsely accused.
Here...Watch yourself repeat the baseless unsubstantiated allegation of "forcing opinions on Christians"-
Outsiders becoming Christian is a completely different animal than outsiders forcing their opinions on Christians.
And again...and again-
. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. What you're not entitled to do with it is tell us with any degree of authority what we ought to believe.
At what point have I sought to "tell us with any degree of authority what we ought to believe." ????
And why do you keep repeating the allegation devoid of any quote, justification, substantiation?
Do you honestly believe that if you keep repeating that someone is " forcing their opinions on Christians" or telling you/Christains with "authority what we ought to believe"
Your >only< example so far is my pointing out that Christians follow the law of Moses in the Ten Commandments........>THIS< is "forcing opinion" on you? >THIS< makes you feel like a doormat???
Calling it as it is is neither provocative nor demeaning. Read any muslim opinions on the Bible, just in this thread and you'll see.
No...You made the baseless provocative and demeaning claim-"muslims have no respect for the Bible" you go right ahead and back it up....
Or let it stand with the rest of your unfounded inhospitable emotive allegations devoid of substance or merrit.
"Sure....Just as soon as you can show me a single point at which I have been telling you "what we do and do not believe and follow!" Wombat
happy to oblige! here you are:
"Sure they do, the follow Mosaic law in adhering to the Ten Commandments" Wombat
And >that's< your evidence of me " telling you "what we do and do not believe and follow!"????
Sure they do, the follow Mosaic law in adhering to the Ten Commandments
Thanks for playing!
Yea....................it was a real insight into Christian ethics and morality.
Thank you linesmen.....thank you ballboys.
Wombat
Active Member
No one, to my knowledge, has said or suggested that- "the earliest Christians had no concept of Christ's divinity".
But it is absurd to think or claim that, then or now, there is any kind of uniformity or agreement among Christians as to the nature of "Christ's divinity".
it is still quite ludicrous to imply they thought any delegate bearing God's authority would come after him.
Oh?...Really?...."they" (Christians) have a firm and complete handle on and understanding of the "delegate bearing God's authority" anticipated as 'The Second Comming"?
It is known of a certainty who and what has been 'delegated' by God?
It is "ludicrous" that they/anyone might expect other than >the man- Jesus< and that the 'Return'/'Second Comming' may not be a reference to the 'Christos'...the annointment and "delegate bearing God's authority" itself?
Please remember....it was, at the time, "quite ludicrous to imply they thought any delegate bearing God's authority would come" riding on a donkey and preaching love thine enemy when what was needed, expected and clearly predicted was a Messiah on a white horse with a sword of fire.
All Christian writings testify very clearly that Jesus is both Christ (Annointed) and LORD.
That's right...and so he was...of all the mirriad claimants and wannabie messiahs and desperate to be rid of the Romans contenders for the title....there was only one
Christ (Annointed) and LORD. And his New Testament made many referances to what was to follow and what would transpire before "any delegate bearing God's authority would come".
Care to list the signs, portents and prophecies that must preceed the Second Comming?
Further, that Jesus, Nicea aside, was not just a prophet but the very point of access to God's grace and salvation.
I have no inclination/intent to argue or suggest "that Jesus was just a prophet" .
Only to propose that He need not be 'God' to be 'God made mannifest'.
From my perspective >all< titles and descriptors- Prophet, Manifestation, Christos, Messiah, Messanger of God.....are beyond human ability to pin down and put in a box marked 'understood'.
I have but one duty and purpose as a human being in this regard...to ascertain, to the best of my ability, if the claimant (whatever His rank or title) >is< a "delegate bearing God's authority".
If a General or Field Marshal brings me instructions from the Supreme Commander/God...my responsibility is to determine that he is a "delegate bearing God's authority".
If a mere Private >subsequently< brings me instructions from the Supreme Commander/God...my responsibility is to determine that he is a "delegate bearing God's authority".
It is impossible to reconcile even the earliest strata of Christianity with Islam.
So you claim...and yet...there are millions living who in their faith and daily lives "reconcile" "Christianity with Islam"...just as easily, truthfully, gracefully as Christians reconcile the Old and New Testament.
Wombat
Active Member
Given the emotive language and baseless allegations..."doormat" "trap", cheap shot, "insidious", "lunacy, stupid game ,"deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" ....yea-"Someone's awfully worked up".
What a pity you cannot identify or articulate what over
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Your definition of "baseless" is as baseless as your claim to Xy...Given the emotive language and baseless allegations..."doormat" "trap", cheap shot, "insidious", "lunacy, stupid game ,"deliberately provocative/intentionally demeaning" ....yea-"Someone's awfully worked up".
What a pity you cannot identify or articulate what over
Great post ...
That's why the Shiites are called the twelvers (having 12 imams).
Last edited:
I suspect the answer is most likely "Not born in the middle east".
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Well, there are pros and cons going both ways IMO, it depends mostly on the denominations of Christianity and Islam, though generally I would say the liberalism and tolerance of Christianity.
Now, obviously there are instances anf history that show that Christianity is not always liberal & tolerant, however the doctrine allows for it quite readily, and liberal communities that I'm aware of, my religious heritage to some extent, shows this.