the right religion

[islam abduallah]

Not necessarily. It means that all human paths are prone to error so should develop defenses through logical means. I don't find it necessary to argue against your specific belief in God. I only seek to emphasize that your experience is unique to your manifestation of being. You posess an inner dimension that resonates that which is divine. It supersedes all other dimensions. The absolute simply cannot be grasped by words. All religious disagreements are due to a communition problem. The god that can be named is not the One True God.

with my respect, how do you know that you are true?

 

[Straw Dog]

What do you think about Sufi approaches to God?

 

[Straw Dog]

with my respect, how do you know that you are true?

I'm not true. I merely recognize the limitations of language and concepts. In this manner, we are all wrong in so far as we believe we can capture the absolute with relative words. Those who are truly right cannot explain their state of being in words. They can only be identified through their silent non-action. The rest of us are dead wrong in our vain grasping of words.

 

[islam abduallah]

What do you think about Sufi approaches to God?

define it please to be able to judge it

 

[islam abduallah]

I'm not true. I merely recognize the limitations of language and concepts. In this manner, we are all wrong in so far as we believe we can capture the absolute with relative words. Those who are truly right cannot explain their state of being in words. They can only be identified through their silent non-action. The rest of us are dead wrong in our vain grasping of words.

well, so you have to learn and seek till you catch an evidence that makes your soul and spirit feel catching the reality

just my opinion

 

[1robin]

@ orbin will you start it in the one to one forum or you want me to start it

You are more than welome to create the thread but I am happy to do it if you wish. Your choice.

 

[islam abduallah]

You are more than welome to create the thread but I am happy to do it if you wish. Your choice.

thanks for kind words, as i'm leaving now, so please create it in the one to one debate and send the link to me here or as PM as you like

hope the best and guidance for me and all

 

[Astravalon]

This is the debate that will go on and on my friends. Yes, this debate will never end. Why is it important to possess the one true religion again? Why is it so difficult for the debate to reach a resolution?

Just going from my own experience, the felt need to be in the "right" religion is contingent upon the idea that being in the "wrong" religion could have eternal, painful consequences.

The notion of eternal painful consequences, in turn, is contingent upon notions of a severely limited deity who actually holds a grudge forever.

define it please to be able to judge it

Rumi is a good example of Sufism, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Muffled]

You are talking about something different than I was addressing. Someone made this comment:
To which I responded with this one:

I was discussing how God acts in opposition to sin. You are talking more about salvation than God's wrath. I am born again, and have been changed by God's love. I was saying above that normally God wishes to change us by his influence but in extreme cases he destroys the wicked. It was no longer an attempt to change them it was to destroy them. Many Christians only think of God in the role of the Lamb and forget he is the Lion of Judah as well. God is perfectly loving as well as perfectly just.

I don't believe this is the case; destruction is something the devil does. IMO death is not a destruction but an interruption. God uses death to remove evil so that there is not a culture of sin starting out. I believe people usually follow what they are taught and that the sinful spirit must struggle with the mind to commit sin. However a sinful spirit will remain a sinful spirit until it has a change of heart.

 

[Muffled]

Excuse my spelling error in my post above - I meant "they're" instead of "their".

I'm a man of science and very skeptical by nature, so if i can't see it for myself or if I can read about a well known and respected scientist who makes a very good, well-reasoned, and scientific or mathematical argument that cannot be refuted (i.e. theories that have stood the test of time), I generally cannot believe something. For instance, if a priest told me he spoke with god and that god told him to do something I would not believe it unless there was absolutely no other explanation for him hearing what he thinks he heard. I guess it's tough to explain. I simply like things to be proven rather than to simply accept because someone tells me to.

That reminds me of something my granddaughter said recently. She said "Don't tell me it is a placebo because then it won't work."

 

[Muffled]

how come, to worship Jesus isn't like worshiping Allah or Buddha
they are three different, Jesus isn't Allah and both are not Buddha, so if i worship one of them and he's not the god, then i'm not grateful to my real creator

What differences are you observing?

I believe there is enough evidence that Jesus is Allah in the flesh. I believe Buddha of course is just a somewhat enlightened man.

I believe that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Even if Jesus were not God, I believe the worship is ostensibly directed to God.

 

[1robin]

I don't believe this is the case; destruction is something the devil does. IMO death is not a destruction but an interruption.

Semantics. I did not mean to say that death is total destruction. It is a removal from mankind of the harmfull effects of what that person is doing. His body and there fore his influence is destroyed. That is not to say that the soul can't be destroyed, that was just not the context in which I was speaking. You seem to be having a lot of context issues concerning what I am saying but I guess this one was not perfectly obvious.

God uses death to remove evil so that there is not a culture of sin starting out. I believe people usually follow what they are taught and that the sinful spirit must struggle with the mind to commit sin.

Agreed with the exception that the Bible says that the sinfull nature is at war with the spirit but mind is close.

However a sinful spirit will remain a sinful spirit until it has a change of heart.

That is mostly accurate but I do not think a single human ever saved has went on to perfection. The amount of sin is reduced but never eliminated. Only the ultimate consequences are eliminated at salvation. We seem to agree more or less on everything here.

 

[islam abduallah]

What differences are you observing?

I believe there is enough evidence that Jesus is Allah in the flesh. I believe Buddha of course is just a somewhat enlightened man.

I believe that conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Even if Jesus were not God, I believe the worship is ostensibly directed to God.

i think this verse finishes your claim that Jesus is Allah
"They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent" 5:17

 

[URAVIP2ME]

i think this verse finishes your claim that Jesus is Allah
"They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent" 5:17

I notice in a Qur'anic commentary [ Surah 4:153-176,AYA ] stating that 'the people of the Book went wrong: The Jews in breaking their covenant and slandering Mary and Jesus....and the Christians in raising Jesus the Apostle [Hebrews 3:1] to equality with God' by means of the Trinity doctrine.

Note: by those 'Christian' in name only, not a first-century Christian teaching. The trinity doctrine of non-biblical origin was introduced by those who had fallen away from first-century teachings of Christ after Jesus and his apostles died.- Acts 20:29,30.

 

[islam abduallah]

I notice in a Qur'anic commentary [ Surah 4:153-176,AYA ] stating that 'the people of the Book went wrong: The Jews in breaking their covenant and slandering Mary and Jesus....and the Christians in raising Jesus the Apostle [Hebrews 3:1] to equality with God' by means of the Trinity doctrine.

Note: by those 'Christian' in name only, not a first-century Christian teaching. The trinity doctrine of non-biblical origin was introduced by those who had fallen away from first-century teachings of Christ after Jesus and his apostles died.- Acts 20:29,30.

i can agree about that

 

[1robin]

I notice in a Qur'anic commentary [ Surah 4:153-176,AYA ] stating that 'the people of the Book went wrong: The Jews in breaking their covenant and slandering Mary and Jesus....and the Christians in raising Jesus the Apostle [Hebrews 3:1] to equality with God' by means of the Trinity doctrine.

Note: by those 'Christian' in name only, not a first-century Christian teaching. The trinity doctrine of non-biblical origin was introduced by those who had fallen away from first-century teachings of Christ after Jesus and his apostles died.- Acts 20:29,30.

Why is the Quran viewed as authoritative concerning events that were recorded long before the religion even existed. In no category used to judge the reliability of historical claims apart from faith is the Quran more reliable or authoritative on Biblical matters. In fact while the Bible implies that Muhammad was not a prophet the Quran instructs people to judge his words by the Bible and affirms the Torah as well.

Sahih International
And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.
Surat Al-Ma'idah [5:47] - The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

There are only two possabilities here.
1. Muhammad screwed up and said to judge his book by the Bible because his unfamiliarity with it (demonstrated in many places) made him believe that he was consistent with it and in reality it does anything but affirm the Quran.
2. It meant to only use the parts that were pure and uncorrupted.

I think 1 is infinately more likely. Why in the world would anyone especially a prophet tell someone to use a corrupt text to judge his book by? If that was the case how in the world would poor mostly illiterate folks know what part is pure and what isn't (1500 years later and with computers the issue is still hotly contested). If the text you said to use to judge the Quran condems the Quran instead by it's being corrupted would not an actual prophet give strict details about what is and what is not corrupted? If so how can I judge a book by the one that it corrects. That makes no sense. It is like saying Isaac Newton's work was perfect and validates mine except where I say it does not.

The first possability is consistent with what is known about the Quran and Muhammad. The second is illogical, self serving, and inconsistent with what is known.

 

[Muffled]

i think this verse finishes your claim that Jesus is Allah
"They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent" 5:17

I have not said that Allah is Jesus but I believe I stated that Jesus is Allah. The distinction makes a difference. Saying Allah is Jesus is like saying that Jesus is greater than Allah but Jesus states the opposite that Allah is greater than Jesus. It makes a difference.

 

[Muffled]

Semantics. I did not mean to say that death is total destruction. It is a removal from mankind of the harmfull effects of what that person is doing. His body and there fore his influence is destroyed. That is not to say that the soul can't be destroyed, that was just not the context in which I was speaking. You seem to be having a lot of context issues concerning what I am saying but I guess this one was not perfectly obvious. [/b][/color]


Agreed with the exception that the Bible says that the sinfull nature is at war with the spirit but mind is close.

That is mostly accurate but I do not think a single human ever saved has went on to perfection. The amount of sin is reduced but never eliminated. Only the ultimate consequences are eliminated at salvation. We seem to agree more or less on everything here.

What is your verse for this? There is a war between flesh and mind as Paul talks about in Rom 7. Also there is an enmity between flesh and God Rom 8:7.

I believe there is no way to ascertaain whether perfection is achieved. I beleive it certainly is the goal.

I believe in salvation from sin not just forgiveness of sin. My life has exceedingly less sin in it because of this salvation. However I believe my spiritual state is still learning not to sin.

You have a great deal of education and I respect that. I walk with God so I believe my perspective may be different.

 

[1robin]

What is your verse for this? There is a war between flesh and mind as Paul talks about in Rom 7. Also there is an enmity between flesh and God Rom 8:7.

Actually I said that wrong. I meant to say between the mind (flesh) and the spirit.
International Version(©1984)
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
or
New International Version(©1984)
I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.
Our will at times and God's will are inconsistent.
Sorry about that.

I believe there is no way to ascertain whether perfection is achieved. I believe it certainly is the goal.

I agree and I also claim that the achievement of perfection is not what determines your destination only the rewards of that destination. Even the man with no works will be saved.

I believe in salvation from sin not just forgiveness of sin. My life has exceedingly less sin in it because of this salvation. However I believe my spiritual state is still learning not to sin.

I agree but want to add that heaven is guaranteed by the merits of Christ not ours. Even if we do not achieve sinlessness (I do not think it even possible but a worthy goal) we are still saved. I believe we have a possible potential to practically reduce the amount of sin in out lives to a minimal level but I do not believe that is a reality the moment we are saved.

You have a great deal of education and I respect that. I walk with God so I believe my perspective may be different.

How did you arrive at that conclusion concerning my education? Your views may be different but I as yet do not see where they are significantly diferent. I am a born again Christian who attempts to walk with God as well. The only issues I consider absolutely necessary are these:

1. That we must be born again to reach heaven by grace through faith in Christ.
2. That while we should strive to be as close to perfect as possible that heaven is guaranteed to everyone who is born again aside from the remote possibility of a conscious, willful, and absolute rejection of Christ after salvation.

If we can agree on these two the rest is commentary.

 

[Muffled]

Actually I said that wrong. I meant to say between the mind (flesh) and the spirit.
International Version(©1984)
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."
or
New International Version(©1984)
I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing.
Our will at times and God's will are inconsistent.
Sorry about that.
I agree and I also claim that the achievement of perfection is not what determines your destination only the rewards of that destination. Even the man with no works will be saved.
I agree but want to add that heaven is guaranteed by the merits of Christ not ours. Even if we do not achieve sinlessness (I do not think it even possible but a worthy goal) we are still saved. I believe we have a possible potential to practically reduce the amount of sin in out lives to a minimal level but I do not believe that is a reality the moment we are saved.
How did you arrive at that conclusion concerning my education? Your views may be different but I as yet do not see where they are significantly diferent. I am a born again Christian who attempts to walk with God as well. The only issues I consider absolutely necessary are these:

1. That we must be born again to reach heaven by grace through faith in Christ.
2. That while we should strive to be as close to perfect as possible that heaven is guaranteed to everyone who is born again aside from the remote possibility of a conscious, willful, and absolute rejection of Christ after salvation.

If we can agree on these two the rest is commentary.

I dont agree with #1. However it is difficult for me to envision anyone arriving at spiritual discernment without a spiritual rebirth. However the latter part I agree with.

#2 Man proposes but God disposes. Jesus is my Lord so I will go wherever He wants me to go. I firmly believe if God didn't want Christians to be here there wouldn't be any Christians left here.