Why Jews and Christians do not accept Islam?

[dybmh]

The purpose of Religious Laws in the Holy Books varies.

Too vague.

Why didn't you answer the question? I asked about two specific categories of laws. Those laws are just as important today as they were when they were first laid down in ink. You said that the need for the remedy has passed. But, you don't know Jewish law. That means you have no rational basis for the conclusion that there is no need for prohibiting shatnez and kilayim.

I'm trying to have a rational intelligent discussion with you. I hope you see that.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is... It is not being "open minded" to accept some of the other religions, or at least parts of them, and reject other religions or parts of some of the other religions.

So if Baha'is were open-minded we would accept all parts of all the other religions?
If we did that we would no longer be Baha'is because we don't believe everything that all the other religions teach.
It is logically impossible for anyone of any religion to accept all parts of all the other religions and still retain their own beliefs.

open-minded
willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own:

open-minded

1. willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your…

dictionary.cambridge.org

That does not equate to accepting all parts of all the other religions.

And accepting and rejecting parts of some of the other religions is all that Baha'is are doing. I wouldn't imagine any Baha'i being able to say that they accept any of the other religions completely.

Why should we? Why would we?
If we accepted any other religion completely we would be a member of that religion, not a Baha'i.

Now something I think is worth mentioning again is... Baha'is aren't expected to believe everything about the other religions, but I think they are expected to find the things they have in common with the other religions and focus on those. But, like so many of us, too many Baha'is seem to be focusing on the differences.

Baha'is have many beliefs in common with Christians and we focus on those as well as any differences we might have.
On a debate forum it is expected that differences will arise.
*****************************
By the way, I see many people arguing here and in case you haven't noticed I am not arguing with anyone.
I used to like to argue to try to prove I was right but I don't do that anymore. I try to look at what I agree with rather than what I disagree with.
If someone disagrees with me I just state what I believe. That is not arguing.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The speaker was identified as Moses then as Elohim and then as YHWH in the immediate context. Exodus 3 gives another example of YHWH speaking as Elohim, this relates to Exodus 19. Elohim has a plural nature relating to being and a singular nature relating to speech, Moses was part of that plural nature in Exodus 20:1.

YHWH is the name of their God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). Elohim is just a general name for the God/gods. Other people had their own gods. So Elohim can be used interchangeably with YHWH or other gods, whereas YHWH is used only for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Elohim - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In the story of Exodus when God wanted to speak with his people he spoke to Moses, Moses listened and then spoke what he heard to the people. So when Moses said "I Elohim" he was referring to God (not himself).

 

[dybmh]

Sorry to be a stickler but .. the 10 commands delivered by Lord YHVH to Moses .. and subsequent covenant of the people with that God .. is Broken .. the People then make a new Covenant .. with a new God .. by different name .. and 10 different commands .

It is the second set of 10 commands that goes into the Ark .. and this a big conundrum for the monotheist .. the twin God or diest perspective of a sort .. allows for a Jeckyl and Hyde kind of thing . .. in this case mostly Hyde

We have a similar twin God as the Patron God of Jerusalem for at least 800 years under Canaanites .. the name of this God is Zedek .. twin God of Justice and Righteousness .. Patron God of the City of Peace . who sits at the right hand of the God Most High / God Supreme El -- God of Abraham and the Patriarchs .. Father to 70 Sons of God Supreme .. YHWH one of these son's .. a son with a dark side.

It's perfectly valid alternative version, IF, certain key elements from the original text are overlooked. The problem with debating with you on this, is, if you still think that the original text was altered, then, no matter what I show you from the original text, I expect you will deny it, and argue that there was a cover-up.

I'll just give you the punch-line: Logically, YHVH cannot be a twin with a dark side in the way you are describing. If YHVH ever, for a single instant operated in a malicious manner, all of reality collapses back into itself in a rather anti-climactic, poof, of self-referential negation. YHVH must be absolutely benevolent, but it certainly has the capability for malicious behavior. That capability is always and forever being cursed. This is known as the first tzimtzum, the first "contraction", in ma-asheh b'reishies ( the work of creation ). Although "first" is not literal, because all of it is concurrent, omni-present, and on-going. Psalm 119:89 among other places.

 

[Sargonski]

It's perfectly valid alternative version, IF, certain key elements from the original text are overlooked. The problem with debating with you on this, is, if you still think that the original text was altered, then, no matter what I show you from the original text, I expect you will deny it, and argue that there was a cover-up.

I'll just give you the punch-line: Logically, YHVH cannot be a twin with a dark side in the way you are describing. If YHVH ever, for a single instant operated in a malicious manner, all of reality collapses back into itself in a rather anti-climactic, poof, of self-referential negation. YHVH must be absolutely benevolent, but it certainly has the capability for malicious beh avior. That capability is always and forever being cursed. This is known as the first tzimtzum, the first "contraction", in ma-asheh b'reishies ( the work of creation ). Although "first" is not literal, because all of it is concurrent, omni-present, and on-going. Psalm 119:89 among other places.

What on earth are you talking about .. who is overlooking key elements from the original text ? .. and who told you that I said the original text was altered ? and why are you making up all this fantasy nonsense and attributing it to me ..strawman fallacy.

What was overlooked ? something that would change the story .. what you call the "Alternate versioin" Alternative to what Brother Dyb ? .. There is no "alternative- Version"

A God named YHWH makes a covenant with the Israelites - which comes in the form of 10 commands - the Israelites break this covenant (Golden Calf - an event you clearly do not understand but that does not make it an alternative version .. Israelites break the covenant either way)
A God named Jealous makes a new covenant with the Israelites .. with a new set of 10 commands.

What is this "Alternate" version ?? and in which Bible is it written .. this supposedly original text you claim is the alternative version ?


Then - you speak total falsehoods about the nature of YHWH .. least according to the "Standard Version" of the Bible .. as opposed to this alternate version you are going to present .. YHWH not only has the ability to operate in a malicious manner but acts on that malice on numerous occasions. .. What on earth alternate version of the Bible are you referring to where YHWH is not described as a xenophobic genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics .. an anthropomorphic God .. a flip flopper and an irrational illogical God who makes mistakes often blaming others for his mistakes.

"Must be benevolent" you say ? Show me this alternative version where your claim is true. Let us see how your version compares with a modern Bible translation .. starting with "alternate version" of the above story and then showing Genesis 6 .. when "YHWH" makes a huge mistake .. a mistake which he regrets .. and maliciously wipes out all of humanity save one family.

 

[dybmh]

What on earth are you talking about

The twin dark-side hypothesis.

who is overlooking key elements from the original text ?

Not you. You'd need to read the original text in order to overlook key elements from it.

 

[dybmh]

you speak total falsehoods

No. I can read Hebrew and I can understand the story from multiple perspectives. That's all I have to say.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Too vague.

Why didn't you answer the question? I asked about two specific categories of laws. Those laws are just as important today as they were when they were first laid down in ink. You said that the need for the remedy has passed. But, you don't know Jewish law. That means you have no rational basis for the conclusion that there is no need for prohibiting shatnez and kilayim.

I'm trying to have a rational intelligent discussion with you. I hope you see that.

Are the examples you asked me, "Acts", "Works" or "Deeds"? What do you think?

 

[Muffled]

Firstly, did you know that, when Muhammad was among people of Arabia, many of Arab Jews and Christians believed in Him? (Right or wrong?l

Secondly, why the Jews and Christians,.now do not believe in Muhammad?

I believe it is due to a concept that it is a competing religion that leads to lost souls. Also some Christians misinterpret the Qur'an as opposing what God says in the Bible as some Muslims do as well.

 

[Muffled]

The fact that many of Arab Jews and Christians believed in something is no reason for me to do so. I suspect that "when Muhammad was among people of Arabia, many of Arab Jews and Christians believed in" all manner of baseless things.

I don't see what is baseless, that Mohammed existed; I believe that.

 

[Muffled]

Ok, those Arab Jews and Christians believed in many baseless things, but Muhammad guided them to the right path.
For example Christians believed Jesus is God or Son of God. Muhammad while confirmed that Jesus was a Messenger of God, yet, He was not Son of God or God.
He corrected many misinterpretations and false beliefs.

Why couldn't the One who revealed to Muhammad be the same God who revealed to Moses or Jesus?

I believe that is a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran and false.

 

[InChrist]

Firstly, did you know that, when Muhammad was among people of Arabia, many of Arab Jews and Christians believed in Him? (Right or wrong?l

Secondly, why the Jews and Christians,.now do not believe in Muhammad?

I consider Islam to be like every other religion where one must earn salvation by their works, unlike biblical Christianity where one receives the free gift of salvation through God’s love, grace and completed work on the cross.

 

[Link]

I consider Islam to be like every other religion where one must earn salvation by their works, unlike biblical Christianity where one receives the free gift of salvation through God’s love, grace and completed work on the cross.

This is not true. I will make a thread about it, it's rather by grace of God that we can do the works to defeat Satan, cleanse ourselves of his idolizing unclean breath, and without God's grace only some of God's elite servants would've made it. Without God's help we will fail and by justice we deserve hell, and it's God's grace that believers will be preserved from returning to evil deeds. There are a lot of Du'as to check out in this regard from the 4th Successor to Mohammad (s).

God has decided to forgive and have mercy on believers who rely on him and disable the authority of Satan over them due to their reliance on God out of his grace, it's not that they earned the protection of light from God and Imams (a).

That and their is intercession of Mohammad (s) and his family (a) which is a tranquility for believers per Quran.

 

[dybmh]

Are the examples you asked me, "Acts", "Works" or "Deeds"? What do you think?

I asked about 2 related categories of prohibitions. They are prohibiting an actions. The actions have consequences. Avoiding those actions, religiously has consequences. Anything else I say will compromise and or influence your answer. If you know the law, and have a rational case for claiming these laws are no longer needed, you should be able to answer my questions.

1) Rationally, if God's law is a remedy, what is the malady which is being addressed by the prohibitions on shatnez and kilayim?
2) What changed between the time when those laws were written and now, such that the malady is no longer relevant or significant?

If you don't know the law, then you cannot answer these questions. If you don't know the law, you have no rational argument in support of your position. It's all faith. Right?

 

[Link]

Here is the thread: In Islam, is salvation by works or grace of God or mix of both?

@InChrist

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I asked about 2 related categories of prohibitions. They are prohibiting an actions. The actions have consequences. Avoiding those actions, religiously has consequences. Anything else I say will compromise and or influence your answer. If you know the law, and have a rational case for claiming these laws are no longer needed, you should be able to answer my questions.

1) Rationally, if God's law is a remedy, what is the malady which is being addressed by the prohibitions on shatnez and kilayim?
2) What changed between the time when those laws were written and now, such that the malady is no longer relevant or significant?

If you don't know the law, then you cannot answer these questions. If you don't know the law, you have no rational argument in support of your position. It's all faith. Right?

I think I gave you my response. You may have a different opinion or belief, or maybe you just don't like my response.

Shatnez - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bible scholars have different interpretation about this. And I don't need to know every little thing in Torah. Torah was revealed long ago, and to understand it, one should realy know the details of life of people 3500 years ago.

But, from a Baha'i perspective, the Laws are not forever. It is upto God to change them when He wants to.

The Laws came from God, and according to His wisdom, thus, He has the authority to change them.

I don't see why today we shouldn't wear Wool and Linen together. Whether 3000 years ago had a reason or not, is not relevant to us any more.
If you know a scientific reason, for this law, please tell.

In our view, God from time to time, renews His covenant with humanity.
He did this through Noah, later through Abraham, and later through Moses.

Why He did not just leave it at the Noah's covenant? Whatever the reason was, for that same reason, I don't believe He stopped it at Moses.

He could've simply kept the covenant of the Noah. But, He gave another covenant to Abraham, according to Jewish Bible. So, in our view, there is no reason God does not continue with renewing His covenant in every Age, as He did before.
For example in Jewish Bible it is written:

"This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "When I bring them back from captivity, the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: 'The LORD bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain…..The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.” Jerm. 31:23-31

In the Bahai view, that the Jews returned to Isreal is the fulfillment of this Prophecy. And as the scriptures say, this happens at the same time when God gives a new covenant. This exactly happened when God gave a new covenant through the Bab in 1844. The Jews started moving back to Isreal from this year if you refer to history.

 

[dybmh]

I think I gave you my response.

It was too vague.

maybe you just don't like my response.

It was too vague.

should realy know the details of life of people 3500 years ago.

If you don't know the law, then you cannot rationally argue that it is irrelevant or insignificant.

The age of the law is irrelevant. Does the law prohibiting murder expire?

from a Baha'i perspective, the Laws are not forever

Does the law prohibiting murder expire?

It is upto God

^^ FAITH ^^

I don't see why

You don't know why.

Whether 3000 years ago had a reason or not, is not relevant to us any more.

The age of the law is irrelevant. Does the law prohibiting murder expire?

In our view, God from time to time, renews His covenant with humanity.

^^ FAITH ^^

Why He did not just leave it at the Noah's covenant?

Noah's covenant is eternal.

He could've simply kept the covenant of the Noah

Noah's covenant is eternal.

Whatever the reason was, for that same reason, I don't believe He stopped it at Moses.

Moses' covenant is eternal.

He could've simply kept the covenant of the Noah

Noah's covenant is eternal.

But, He gave another covenant to Abraham

Abraham's covenant is eternal.

in our view, there is no reason God does not continue with renewing His covenant in every Age, as He did before

God's covenants are eternal. Past, present, future.

"When I bring them back from captivity,... I will make a new covenant

God's covenants are eternal. Past, present, future.

---

Blessings to you, your family, and your community. Sincerely,

 

[Ebionite]

YHWH is the name of their God

"God'" is ambiguous, using that name obscures the relationship between Moses, Elohim, and YHWH on Exodus 19-20.

 

[dybmh]

"God'" is ambiguous

Each of the names when it is referring to God are describing the manner in which God is revealing itself to that individual, at that time and place in the story.

The key-word is: Revelation.

Atmospheric moisture reveals itself as:

1. rain
2. humidity
3. snow
4. hail
5. freezing rain
6. clouds
7. lack of static electric build-up and discharge

Atmospheric moisture can reveal itself in 7 different ways.

"God" in the Hebrew Torah reveals itself in around 7 different ways, I think, depending on how they're counted. Those ways aren't ambiguous to those who know. For those who don't, they're confused. And they struggle to understand what's written in the story as it's being read.

 

[Ebionite]

Each of the names when it is referring to God

Elohim is a word, not a name. The name of Elohim is I AM. Exodus 3. 'God' conflates singular words like El with the plural word Elohim.