Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interfaith-oriented Muslim

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interfaith-oriented Muslim

    Shalom, fellow believers in God. I am here to dialogue and perhaps debate theology from an Islamic perspective. I believe that interfaith dialogue is a step towards peace about all people, and this is why I am taking this step. I was raised by Christian missionaries of an interdenominational Protestant persuasion of the Baptist strain, and have studied the Bible extensively on personal basis. Although I expect and welcome high-intensity debate in such a forum, it is my goal to maintain an awareness of our brotherhood in humanity and as believers in God.

    Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

  • #2
    Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
    Shalom, fellow believers in God. I am here to dialogue and perhaps debate theology from an Islamic perspective. I believe that interfaith dialogue is a step towards peace about all people, and this is why I am taking this step. I was raised by Christian missionaries of an interdenominational Protestant persuasion of the Baptist strain, and have studied the Bible extensively on personal basis. Although I expect and welcome high-intensity debate in such a forum, it is my goal to maintain an awareness of our brotherhood in humanity and as believers in God.

    Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
    We're not here to bring peace.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      We're not here to bring peace.
      Why not?

      Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
        Why not?

        Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
        The truth is more important.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          The truth is more important.
          Yes, it is. Yet, one would have a hard time pursuing the sublime spiritual truths about God in the middle of a war zone, because he'd be too busy trying to survive. Truth is more important than peace, but peace is conducive to truth's attainment. Likewise, the attainment of truth engenders an inner peace that radiates out into the world.

          Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
            Shalom, fellow believers in God. I am here to dialogue and perhaps debate theology from an Islamic perspective. I believe that interfaith dialogue is a step towards peace about all people, and this is why I am taking this step. I was raised by Christian missionaries of an interdenominational Protestant persuasion of the Baptist strain, and have studied the Bible extensively on personal basis. Although I expect and welcome high-intensity debate in such a forum, it is my goal to maintain an awareness of our brotherhood in humanity and as believers in God.
            Christians are a thing because of the Resurrection of Christ. If that didn't really happen, then our Scripture tells us that this whole thing is a total sham and fraud.
            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

            @Nee_Nihilo

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Idolater View Post
              Christians are a thing because of the Resurrection of Christ. If that didn't really happen, then our Scripture tells us that this whole thing is a total sham and fraud.
              This was St. Paul's view (1 Cor. 15:17). When speaking of Christianity we are really referring to the philosophy of Paul--although prior to Christianity's official standardization and politicization in the Council of Nicea there were a plethora of discordant views about the nature of Christ, the events surrounding his life and death, and his teachings. Theologically speaking, what constitutes Christianity today is only a small slice of the pie compared to the rich variety and diversity that existed in the original movement immediately following Christ's disappearance from the world.

              Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                This was St. Paul's view (1 Cor. 15:17).
                That's what I said. "Scripture." 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV
                Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                When speaking of Christianity we are really referring to the philosophy of Paul
                In as much as Paul was one of the Apostles, and all the Apostles believed and taught the same faith, sure. I don't think that's what you mean though.
                Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                --although prior to Christianity's official standardization and politicization in the Council of Nicea there were a plethora of discordant views about the nature of Christ, the events surrounding his life and death, and his teachings.
                No there weren't.
                Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                Theologically speaking, what constitutes Christianity today is only a small slice of the pie compared to the rich variety and diversity that existed in the original movement
                lol.
                Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                immediately following Christ's disappearance from the world.
                You mean "following Christ's Ascension, which followed His Resurrection."
                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                @Nee_Nihilo

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                  Yes, it is. Yet, one would have a hard time pursuing the sublime spiritual truths about God in the middle of a war zone, because he'd be too busy trying to survive. Truth is more important than peace, but peace is conducive to truth's attainment. Likewise, the attainment of truth engenders an inner peace that radiates out into the world.

                  Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
                  Unfortunately, people would rather go to war than hear the truth.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                    That's what I said. "Scripture." 2nd Peter 3:16 KJV
                    In as much as Paul was one of the Apostles, and all the Apostles believed and taught the same faith, sure. I don't think that's what you mean though.
                    No there weren't.
                    lol.
                    You mean "following Christ's Ascension, which followed His Resurrection."
                    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. 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.

                    Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                      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.
                      I'm afraid that whoever taught you this is a revisionist historian.



                      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.
                      Sorry, but Paul's writings are considered Scripture according to Peter. Peter, the basket case that he was, was chosen by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is God.

                      So by claiming what you claim above, you're not only presenting a false account of history, but you're calling God a liar, or at the very least, saying that God is not the author of scripture.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        I'm afraid that whoever taught you this is a revisionist historian.





                        Sorry, but Paul's writings are considered Scripture according to Peter. Peter, the basket case that he was, was chosen by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is God.

                        So by claiming what you claim above, you're not only presenting a false account of history, but you're calling God a liar, or at the very least, saying that God is not the author of scripture.
                        It seems you misunderstood me to claim Paul's philosophy was incorrect, when I only claimed that his was one among an assortment of interpretations. Can you provide the reference from the Bible that Peter viewed Paul's writings as scripture? If disagreeing with Peter equates to calling God a liar (God cannot lie) then what does calling Peter a basket case equate to? Jesus himself called Peter the devil, who is "the father of lies."

                        Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                          It seems you misunderstood me to claim Paul's philosophy was incorrect,
                          Not what I said nor meant.

                          when I only claimed that his was one among an assortment of interpretations.
                          Which is what I was addressing.

                          Can you provide the reference from the Bible that Peter viewed Paul's writings as scripture?
                          Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:14-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV

                          If disagreeing with Peter equates to calling God a liar (God cannot lie)
                          Also not what I said.

                          I said that by saying Paul's doctrines were just "one of many," you're calling God a liar, because He is the author of the Bible, using men to write it, Peter being one of them, which makes both Peter's writings, and Paul's due to the above passage, authoritative, not just "one of many interpretations."

                          then what does calling Peter a basket case equate to?
                          Having a good understanding of scripture.

                          Jesus himself called Peter the devil, who is "the father of lies."
                          Jesus was rebuking Peter, again, because Peter was being a basket case.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                            Not what I said nor meant.



                            Which is what I was addressing.



                            Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:14-16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...16&version=NIV



                            Also not what I said.

                            I said that by saying Paul's doctrines were just "one of many," you're calling God a liar, because He is the author of the Bible, using men to write it, Peter being one of them, which makes both Peter's writings, and Paul's due to the above passage, authoritative, not just "one of many interpretations."



                            Having a good understanding of scripture.



                            Jesus was rebuking Peter, again, because Peter was being a basket case.
                            Thanks for the reference. Paul himself specifically states repeatedly in his writings he is speaking from his own opinion, not dictating messages of God (1 Cor. 7:12, 1 Cor. 7:25, 2 Cor. 11:17). Which is what I said essentially, and what Peter says (no mention of scripture in the verse you quoted--that's something you interpreted into it of your own initiative). So is Paul calling God a liar too, or contradicting himself? I think not, he is more quick to suggest he himself is a liar (Romans 3:7)--with noble intentions albeit.

                            Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                              Thanks for the reference. Paul himself specifically states repeatedly in his writings he is speaking from his own opinion, not dictating messages of God (1 Cor. 7:12, 1 Cor. 7:25, 2 Cor. 11:17).
                              This is called special pleading.

                              Paul does both, claiming revelation from God AND his own opinion.

                              Which is what I said essentially, and what Peter says (no mention of scripture in the verse you quoted--that's something you interpreted into it of your own initiative).
                              In what way was my quote of scripture something that was my own interpretation?

                              You seem to be denying what the passage clearly says...

                              "Rest of the scriptures" inherently implies that there's more than what they had (which would have been the Torah and whatever other writings were available). So apart from "the rest of the scriptures," what else is there that Peter is talking about but what he's talking about, which is Paul's epistles?

                              So is Paul calling God a liar too, or contradicting himself?
                              Neither. God gave Paul the authority to make such statements.

                              I think not, he is more quick to suggest he himself is a liar (Romans 3:7)--with noble intentions albeit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X