Interfaith-oriented Muslim

[JudgeRightly]

I only quote his own words--you blame me for this?

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" Romans 3:7

Clearly Paul's philosophy was that white lies are ok if they result in the glorification of God. This is a flawed way of thinking. He also admits this is his own "wisdom," not divine revelation:

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)" Romans 3:5

Clearly, in his opinion (typical of Pharasaical tradition of which he was a part), lying and sinning could accomplish God's purposes. Someone who thinks this way cannot be trusted, as they are in delusion. Earlier JudgeRightly flatly called St. Peter a "basket case". At least Peter was honest though.

Either Paul was telling the truth about lying or lying about lying. In either case, "Not lying" is not a possible conclusion. You don't seem very interested in the truth, which is what you claimed Christians were supposed to be all about... Either you aren't really a Christian or Christians don't really follow Paul's teachings and aren't really interested in the truth.

Interfaith dialogue doesn't mean pretending to agree on everything. What it does mean is openness, honesty and respect about our beliefs, and this is what I strive for.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Well for one thing, you're stripping those verses of their context.

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever read the entire Bible, cover to cover?

 

[Absolute_Agent]

Well for one thing, you're stripping those verses of their context.

Let me ask you this:

Have you ever read the entire Bible, cover to cover?

I've read the Bible three times cover to cover and multiple additional portional reading and practiced Christianity for 22 years. If I am stripping the verses of their context then what am I missing?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've read the Bible three times cover to cover and multiple additional portional reading and practiced Christianity for 22 years. If I am stripping the verses of their context then what am I missing?

Did you ever notice, when you read it all the way through, if there was a storyline that it seemed to follow?

 

[Absolute_Agent]

Did you ever notice, when you read it all the way through, if there was a storyline that it seemed to follow?

There are certain interweaving themes yes--but on the other hand it's not entirely cohesive as there seem to be a number of significant contradictions, which I am not here to list--I'm interested in the heart of things.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Paul's philosophy was that white lies are ok if they result in the glorification of God.

This is what you get out of that passage?

Seriously?

OK. :idunno:

 

[Idolater]

I'm afraid that your idea that Christianity was a uniform set of beliefs and ideas from day one is a myopic fantasy enforced by the political agenda which adopted this movement as a military expedient.

Absolutely none of that was true. But even stripping away any possible minutiae, "Christianity" was absolutely unified in believing in the Resurrection of Christ. If you didn't believe that, then you weren't in any real way a Christian; and so it is today.

No doubt there were core common threads linking the divergent interpretations, but St. Paul's version just happened to be the one that won, and thus gets to claim itself as the singular authentic interpretation without much challenge because the others, well, they were killed off. I did mean to say "ascended" though, you got that right.

He is risen from the dead. Whatever else you want to take issue with, there is no doubt that the whole entire Church absolutely believed that Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact---it really happened.

How can there be "interfaith" with Islam when we believe in Christ's Resurrection, and you all don't? It's the central and crowning tenet of what you call "Christianity" (what was referred to simply as "the Church," for a thousand years).

It would be like the Church denying that Muhammad (PBUH&HH /SAW) is a prophet of Allah.

 

[Absolute_Agent]

Absolutely none of that was true. But even stripping away any possible minutiae, "Christianity" was absolutely unified in believing in the Resurrection of Christ. If you didn't believe that, then you weren't in any real way a Christian; and so it is today.
He is risen from the dead. Whatever else you want to take issue with, there is no doubt that the whole entire Church absolutely believed that Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction historical fact---it really happened.

How can there be "interfaith" with Islam when we believe in Christ's Resurrection, and you all don't? It's the central and crowning tenet of what you call "Christianity" (what was referred to simply as "the Church," for a thousand years).

It would be like the Church denying that Muhammad (PBUH&HH /SAW) is a prophet of Allah.

Interfaith dialogue means appreciating the common ground and understanding our differences. We need not agree to have a civil discussion. Why interfaith? Because I always learn things.

How can we hurdle the resurrection issue? Easy, it's not a core doctrine of Islam that Jesus (AS) didn't die. It's an incidental fact used in the larger criticism of some of the Jews taking a very antagonistic stance towards the Messiah. So when Christians are adamant about this we are not offended in the same way as a denial of Muhammad (SAW).

On the other hand, Muslims agree that Jesus ascended and will return to Earth at the last day. We agree that he was sent by God.

Christians have much in common with Muslims, which is fertile ground for mutually beneficial dialogue.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[Rusha]

Welcome to TOL, Absolute Agent.

 

[Idolater]

Interfaith dialogue means appreciating the common ground and understanding our differences. We need not agree to have a civil discussion. Why interfaith? Because I always learn things.

How can we hurdle the resurrection issue? Easy, it's not a core doctrine of Islam that Jesus (AS) didn't die. It's an incidental fact used in the larger criticism of some of the Jews taking a very antagonistic stance towards the Messiah. So when Christians are adamant about this we are not offended in the same way as a denial of Muhammad (SAW).

On the other hand, Muslims agree that Jesus ascended and will return to Earth at the last day. We agree that he was sent by God.

Christians have much in common with Muslims, which is fertile ground for mutually beneficial dialogue.

You have nothing in common with people who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead. Nothing.

The only possibility here is that we agree to the inalienable human right to religious liberty. Islam cannot suffer this, and Catholicism (original "Christianity") can and does. In America it's also called the right to the pursuit of happiness. It means that people possess the inalienable, inherent, natural right to choose themselves how they will pursue their own happiness, no matter what anybody else says.

It is therefore always unjust and evil to make laws that force people to pursue happiness in one way among many possible ways. Islam cannot suffer that. Islam forces people to pursue happiness one way, through Islam. This directly violates the right to religious liberty.

So unless Muslims generally (there are many Muslims who do already, but it is an exception or at least not a super majority of them) can come around to recognizing, affirming, protecting, and defending the inalienable human right to the pursuit of happiness, there is no way that Islam and Catholicism can have anything in common. Or, unless Islam decides to believe in the Resurrection of Christ. That could work too.

 

[Absolute_Agent]

You have nothing in common with people who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead. Nothing.

The only possibility here is that we agree to the inalienable human right to religious liberty. Islam cannot suffer this, and Catholicism (original "Christianity") can and does. In America it's also called the right to the pursuit of happiness. It means that people possess the inalienable, inherent, natural right to choose themselves how they will pursue their own happiness, no matter what anybody else says.

It is therefore always unjust and evil to make laws that force people to pursue happiness in one way among many possible ways. Islam cannot suffer that. Islam forces people to pursue happiness one way, through Islam. This directly violates the right to religious liberty.

So unless Muslims generally (there are many Muslims who do already, but it is an exception or at least not a super majority of them) can come around to recognizing, affirming, protecting, and defending the inalienable human right to the pursuit of happiness, there is no way that Islam and Catholicism can have anything in common. Or, unless Islam decides to believe in the Resurrection of Christ. That could work too.

Apparently you are misinformed about Islam. I'm interested though, why the belief that Jesus (AS) died and resurrected is such an all-consuming tenet of your faith, such that it obliterates all other considerations?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Apparently you are misinformed about Islam. I'm interested though, why the belief that Jesus (AS) died and resurrected is such an all-consuming tenet of your faith, such that it obliterates all other considerations?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NIV

 

[Idolater]

Apparently you are misinformed about Islam.

In what way.

I'm interested though, why the belief that Jesus (AS) died and resurrected is such an all-consuming tenet of your faith, such that it obliterates all other considerations?

Because if the Resurrection of Christ is nonfiction historical fact, as authentic Christians (Catholic or not) believe, then the Christian faith is irresistibly true.

And 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV.

So it's either 'yea' or 'nay;' no third option.

 

[Absolute_Agent]

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. - 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians15:12-19&version=NIV

So, on the assumed authority of St. Paul? Modern Christianity stands out falls on the word of Paul, Pharisee, self-proclaimed liar and conflicted braggart, am I correct?

"And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, on the assumed authority of St. Paul?

Note that I made no appeal to authority.

I simply quoted what he said.

Was what Paul said true or false in the above passage?

Modern Christianity stands out falls on the word of Paul, Pharisee, self-proclaimed liar and conflicted braggart, am I correct?

"And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2

 

[Absolute_Agent]

In what way.

We'll get to that inshallah; right now it wouldn't matter to you since belief in a historical resurrection of Jesus (AS) is your only consideration.

Because if the Resurrection of Christ is nonfiction historical fact, as authentic Christians (Catholic or not) believe, then the Christian faith is irresistibly true.

So it is a matter of political utility. A necessary truth? Christianity needs this doctrine for it to be an irresistible force--or as I previously said, a "military expedient"?

And 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV.

(The verifiability of it being an afterthought)

So it's either 'yea' or 'nay;' no third option.

--What matters is that there is no room for debate, no discussion and no intelligent inquiry, no grey areas. A useful doctrine indeed, allowing for quick, mechanistic "convert or perish" decisions on the battle field and fail-safe political litmus tests in key power struggles. Because you see, the fear of death is the greatest of all human fears, and this doctrine allows you to masterfully manipulate all but the most resolute of heart.

--Right?



Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

We'll get to that inshallah

What I said was that Muslims do not believe in the Resurrection of Christ, and that Muslims do not generally believe in the inalienable human right to religious liberty, or to the pursuit of happiness. What part don't I understand about Islam.

; right now it wouldn't matter to you since belief in a historical resurrection of Jesus (AS) is your only consideration.

Because I'm . . . a Christian.

And you are a Muslim. Is Muhammad (SAW) being a prophet of Allah "your only consideration?" Meaning, if we insist that he was not a prophet, would you "consider" anything else? Wouldn't that leave your faith empty, if Muhammad (PPUH&HH) were not a prophet of Allah?

Same with Christ's Resurrection, for Catholics.

So it is a matter of political utility. A necessary truth? Christianity needs this doctrine for it to be an irresistible force--or as I previously said, a "military expedient"?

I said what I meant and I said it clearly, and I did not invoke anything like this "political utility" or "military expedient." Those are your imported thoughts.

(The verifiability of it being an afterthought)

What?

--What matters is that there is no room for debate, no discussion and no intelligent inquiry, no grey areas.

Not on the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth is risen from the dead, no there is no grey area on that one. You either believe in His Resurrection, and you're a Christian, or you reject His Resurrection as fictional, and you're not a Christian. No third option.

A useful doctrine indeed, allowing for quick, mechanistic "convert or perish" decisions on the battle field and fail-safe political litmus tests in key power struggles. Because you see, the fear of death is the greatest of all human fears, and this doctrine allows you to masterfully manipulate all but the most resolute of heart.

--Right?

What?

Fact remains that He is risen from the dead, or He is not risen from the dead. No third option, no matter what all your obscure post here means.

 

[Absolute_Agent]

Note that I made no appeal to authority.

I simply quoted what he said.

Was what Paul said true or false in the above passage?

An appeal to authority is strongly implied when you provide a quote as an answer devoid of qualification, explanation or context within a logical argument.

In the aforementioned passage, Paul seems to imply that belief in the resurrection of the dead is inextricably looked to the belief in a alleged historical event, namely the resurrection of Christ three odd days after crucifixion. If you don't believe I've you can't believe the other, and if you believe in one you MUST believe in the other. Yet Lazarus was resurrected from the dead and Moses and Elijah ahead alive during the known lifetime of Christ. Yet Muslims believe in the resurrection; Job and many OT prophets believed in the resurrection. The disciples believed in the resurrection prior to believing Christ had resurrected. Paul also blends the ascension of Christ with his alled death and resurrection, whereas Muslims would affirm Christ ascended into heaven in bodily form. Like much of Paul's writings it's a humble of half-truths, half-baked logic and confusing assertions. We can't be sure exactly what he believes or is trying to get across. In my assessment this behavior fits the typical description of a dishonest individual.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[Absolute_Agent]

Note that I made no appeal to authority.

I simply quoted what he said.

Was what Paul said true or false in the above passage?

Lots of spelling errors so here is a repost.

An appeal to authority is strongly implied when you provide a quote as an answer devoid of qualification, explanation or context within a logical argument.

In the aforementioned passage, Paul seems to imply that belief in the resurrection of the dead is inextricably linked to the belief in an alleged historical event, namely the resurrection of Christ three odd days after crucifixion. If you don't believe one you can't believe the other, and if you believe in one you MUST believe in the other. Yet Lazarus was resurrected from the dead and Moses and Elijah appeared alive during the known lifetime of Christ. Yet Muslims believe in the resurrection; Job and many OT prophets believed in the resurrection. The disciples believed in the resurrection prior to believing Christ had resurrected. Paul also blends the ascension of Christ with his alleged death and resurrection, whereas Muslims would affirm Christ ascended into heaven in bodily form. Like much of Paul's writings it's a jumble of half-truths, half-baked logic and confusing assertions. We can't be sure exactly what he believes or is trying to get across. In my assessment this behavior matches the typical description of a dishonest individual.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[Absolute_Agent]

And you are a Muslim. Is Muhammad (SAW) being a prophet of Allah "your only consideration?" Meaning, if we insist that he was not a prophet, would you "consider" anything else? Wouldn't that leave your faith empty, if Muhammad (PPUH&HH) were not a prophet of Allah?

I AM a Muslim. I already knew Christendom rejected Muhammad (SAW) as a prophet, yet I'm still interested in understanding your beliefs. What does that tell you?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

...I'm still interested in understanding your beliefs.

The Resurrection of Christ is the central and crowning truth of authentic Christian faith.

I also believe that Islam does not accept that human beings possess the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.