Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interfaith-oriented Muslim

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    This is called special pleading.

    Paul does both, claiming revelation from God AND his own opinion.
    And where exactly would I find Paul claiming to be revealing original messages from God? How would one distinguish when he's giving revelation vs. personal opinion? Is it clearly documented each time or kind of mishmashed all together?

    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    In what way was my quote of scripture something that was my own interpretation?
    By using a very superficial reading of the passage. If in your recognition Paul's writings are a mix of revelation and personal opinion, Peter could not have been referring to the entire body of Paul's writings as scriptures, in fact he found much of it difficult to understand so probably didn't read all or even most of it. He could only with certainty be showing of The specific scriptures he himself was referencing, as also referenced by Paul. In other words, as quoted by them both, not in the sense that he or Paul considered themselves to be revelators of scripture. In any case, Peter is a basket case so it's only prudent to take his statements with a grain of salt.

    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    Neither. God gave Paul the authority to make such statements.

    If then Paul is revealing scripture when he admits his entire philosophy is a lie (Romans 3:7), my only logical conclusion is to assume his writings to be false until independently verified--or at the very best, flights of conjecture.

    Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
      If then Paul is revealing scripture when he admits his entire philosophy is a lie (Romans 3:7), my only logical conclusion is to assume his writings to be false until independently verified--or at the very best, flights of conjecture.
      That's fine. Just don't expect to get very far with your interfaith stuff when you reject the foundational body of work of Christianity.
      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        That's fine. Just don't expect to get very far with your interfaith stuff when you reject the foundational body of work of Christianity.
        "That's fine" ? Don't you have a theological solution to this conundrum? How can Christians follow Paul knowing he's an admitted liar? My perspective is that his lie is somewhat a well-intended lie of necessity---and also of utility, accomplishing a just goal. Not that I agree with his choice yet I understand it. And it is important also to be aware of it if one is a seeker of truth. Are Christians not seeking truth?

        Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
          How can Christians follow Paul knowing he's an admitted liar?
          Easy. He wasn't lying.

          You don't seem to be very "interfaith" if you're going to call the man who wrote the foundational Christian doctrines a liar.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Easy. He wasn't lying.

            You don't seem to be very "interfaith" if you're going to call the man who wrote the foundational Christian doctrines a liar.
            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

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                      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.
                      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


                      • #26
                        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.
                        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.
                        Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                        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.
                        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                        @Nee_Nihilo

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Welcome to TOL, Absolute Agent.
                            TRUST
                            is a fragile thing.

                            Easy to break, Easy to lose
                            and one of the hardest things to
                            ever get back.







                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Absolute_Agent View Post
                              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.
                              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                              @Nee_Nihilo

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X