Indiana church's sign viewed as knock on Allah

[dburkhead]

Seriously. I just thought maybe it could have been a translation error. I haven't been through my Quran completely so I have no idea. Buddism is confusing enough... I never did completely understand it either.

And, didn't Arabic's keep the Hebrew's as slaves, or was that the Persians?

Babylon, Persia, some other folk. It was a popular pastime in the Middle East, "Let's go conquer and enslave the Hebrews."

One thing to remember is that "Semitic" is a language family, not a racial group. Members of the family include Hebrew, Arabic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Assyrian, and many others, most of them now extinct as languages.

The Arabic people are actually rather a latecomer to the region. The Arabian peninsula wasn't really settled until the late second early first millennium BC (largely coinciding with the domestication of the camel) giving the Hebrews a few hundred years "lead" on them with their arrival in Canaan (historical sources are kind of sketchy making details hard to pin down).

 

[BloodEclipse]

Sure, if you ignore logic and reason. It's no acrobatic feat to compare the two beings as described and see they aren't the same.

It's quite simple:

A. First you have Christianity, which says no one can add or take away from it. (Anything added to it is false.) Christianity proclaims Christ as God.
B. Then you have Islam, which starts off with Christianity as a partial (and I mean partial) framework; denies the basic Christian concepts (Christ is not God), and does some preemptive damage control: saying "now I'm the final word, and now one can add to it FOR REALS this time."
C. The two religions are mutually exclusive. Meaning, unable to be both true at the same time.
D. Allah and God are mutually exclusive- both cannot be real at the same time, by their "own definitions."

1 Corinthians 9:19-23


For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

So if Islam and The Latter Day Saints came after, God can't possibly be the same God?

 

[henktermaat]

So if Islam and The Latter Day Saints came after, (their) God can't possibly be the same God?

Exactly. I believe you are getting it. (Scripture pulled out of context notwithstanding.)

Let's say I create a counterfeit dollar, and give it as many similarities as I can to the real dollar; it's still not the same as a real dollar. Many folks would still call it a dollar, some would still use it, but it would still not be the real deal.

If you get a new puppy to match the one you had before, that does not make it the same puppy.

Allah and God have many dissimilarities, more that a matching set of puppies and far more than money and counterfeit money. By their very definition, they are not the same.

If something new "comes after" then it's just that: something new, coming after, (as you said.)

I can address why your scripture is pulled out of context if you care to hear it. It's a threadjack so I won't go there unbidden.

Cheers

 

[snojet]

It seems to me that a person can not say anything remotely negitive about the Islam religion. If a person or group does it raises the roof. But I see people say negitive things about Christianity and it doesn't get a lot of attention.

Anyway, I want to share with this group a couple of great web sites.

First one is call, Clicky ---> Religion, World Religions, Comparative Religion - Just the facts on the world's religions. This site has a wealth of info on nearly every world religions. Check it out.

For some reading about how Christians are treated throughout the world check out. Clicky---> - Persecution.com This site is very intense.

For an intense book get... "Jesus Freaks" Clicky ---> [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Freaks-Stories-Those-Ultimate/dp/1577780728"]Amazon.com: Jesus Freaks: Stories of Those Who Stood for Jesus, the Ultimate Jesus Freaks (0807728223250): DC Talk and the Voice of the Martyrs: Books[/ame]

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Nice try, but you could not be farther off.

Distinctions are based on scripture. Choose to believe it or not, but feelings have no place in deciding something that is layed out in black and white.

I could make up a new religion, throw in some of the old characters, define God as someone new and different, then say he's the same guy, using your logic. That's exactly what Mohammed did.

Like I said, just because it offends your seemingly-delicate sensibilities doesn't make it untrue.

There is only one 'God' - and either you're wrong in your beliefs or they are wrong in theirs...

There can be only one, hm?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Exactly. I believe you are getting it. Scripture horribly pulled out of context notwithstanding.

Let's say I create a counterfeit dollar, and give it as many similarities as I can to the real dollar; it's still not the same as a real dollar. Many folks would still call it a dollar, some would still use it, but it would still not be the real deal.

If you get a new puppy to match the one you had before, that does not make it the same puppy.

Allah and God have many dissimilarities, more that a matching set of puppies and far more than money and counterfeit money. By their very definition, they are not the same.

If something new "comes after" then it's just that: something new, coming after, (as you said.)

I can address why your scripture is pulled out of context if you care to hear it. It's a threadjack so I won't go there unbidden.

Cheers

umm Christianity came after Judaism did it not?
So not the same God? Or the same God with some changes?
See the deal is, the something that came after was an add-on. Not a completely new product. Lets take your dollar for example. Same dollar but now we have added color and "New" signatures to it. Is it not a dollar?

 

[dburkhead]

umm Christianity came after Judaism did it not?
So not the same God? Or the same God with some changes?
See the deal is, the something that came after was an add-on. Not a completely new product. Lets take your dollar for example. Same dollar but now we have added color and "New" signatures to it. Is it not a dollar?

It's not even a matter of before/after. It's a matter of ascribing different characteristics to their "God." We use the same word to describe members of the order chiroptera and wooden clubs used to strike a ball in a particular game but that doesn't mean they are the same. Nor is a cricket bat the same as a baseball bat even though baseball and cricket both evolved from the same earlier ball and bat games.

When a Catholic, for example, uses the word "God" they have a specific "image" in mind, that image consisting of all the traits that the catholic religion, or that practitioner thereof, attributes to God. Same with a Latter Day Saint. Even though there may be points of similarity, there are also some pretty significant differences, critical differences. For one thing, Latter Day Saints have a completely different belief in the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost than do Catholics. Most Christian religions consider God to be a spirit, with no physical body. Latter Day Saints differ there as well. So even though Latter Day Saints believe "The Bible is the word of God so long as it is translated correctly" that does not make the God they worship the "same God" as that of (continuing the example) Catholics.

It is the same with Islam. Although they may use the same word (in Arabic) as Christians would use, and even though they claim connection to earlier scripture (although from a practical matter, I fail to see what any such connection actually means), the "image" they have of God is generally different from that of either Christians or Jews. And that different image, regardless of any labels attached or any textual connections claimed, makes it not the same God.

 

[henktermaat]

Like I said, just because it offends your seemingly-delicate sensibilities doesn't make it untrue.

There is only one 'God' - and either you're wrong in your beliefs or they are wrong in theirs...

There can be only one, hm?

You are either spoiling for an argument, you're purposely trying to offend, or your momma never taught you any manners. You're looking for an argument that just isn't there, as my "delicate sensibilities" never came into this. I've presented the facts with logic and reason, devoid of emotion.

Yes, I am saying there can only be one true God. Personal beliefs aside, it's just logic.

 

[henktermaat]

umm Christianity came after Judaism did it not?
So not the same God? Or the same God with some changes?
See the deal is, the something that came after was an add-on. Not a completely new product. Lets take your dollar for example. Same dollar but now we have added color and "New" signatures to it. Is it not a dollar?

Listen, I understand you are unwilling to let go of your opinion, or you don't understand logical definitions... and that's cool. I feel that I have stated clearly why the Islamic and Christian Gods cannot be one and the same...

that's all I can do.

 

[JetGirl]

There is only one 'God' - and either you're wrong in your beliefs or they are wrong in theirs...

Exactly...and I'm so glad I'm right.

 

[cce1302]

umm Christianity came after Judaism did it not?
So not the same God? Or the same God with some changes?
See the deal is, the something that came after was an add-on. Not a completely new product. Lets take your dollar for example. Same dollar but now we have added color and "New" signatures to it. Is it not a dollar?

umm no. Christ was promised immediately following the fall of man, in the book of Genesis. Judaism looked forward to the Messiah (Jesus) who was revealed in the New Testament. Old Testament believers were saved by faith in Christ's future death & resurrection, as modern believers are saved by faith in what He did on the cross.
It's kind of like saying I'm going to give you a dollar tomorrow. I'll take it out of my wallet today and show it to you today, then put it back. Tomorrow, when I give you the dollar it's the same dollar.

 

[Bruenor]

Exactly...and I'm so glad I'm right.

Me too!

By the way, I'm very surprised that this thread hasn't been locked yet. Not that it should, just that there haven't been any posts to cause it to be locked. It is nice to see that we can have good discussion here about religion.

Now, get someone talking about XD vs Glock or 9mm vs .45, and we throw civilized talk out the window.

 

[redneckmedic]

Not if your dogma teaches Trinity. I'm just sayin'.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Listen, I understand you are unwilling to let go of your opinion, or you don't understand logical definitions... and that's cool. I feel that I have stated clearly why the Islamic and Christian Gods cannot be one and the same...

that's all I can do.

Christianity didn't invent a new God. They updated Him.
Same thing goes for the religions of Islam and Mormon.

Looking at things logically, only God himself was created from nothing.

Jews have God V1.0
Christians have God V2.0
ETC......

Even within each religion there are several versions of God but the root being is the same.

 

[redneckmedic]

Christianity didn't invent a new God. They updated Him.
Same thing goes for the religions of Islam and Mormon.

Looking at things logically, only God himself was created from nothing.

Jews have God V1.0
Christians have God V2.0
ETC......

Even within each religion there are several versions of God but the root being is the same.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Hard to respond to that.

 

[jpo117]

When a Catholic, for example, uses the word "God" they have a specific "image" in mind, that image consisting of all the traits that the catholic religion, or that practitioner thereof, attributes to God. Same with a Latter Day Saint. Even though there may be points of similarity, there are also some pretty significant differences, critical differences. For one thing, Latter Day Saints have a completely different belief in the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost than do Catholics. Most Christian religions consider God to be a spirit, with no physical body. Latter Day Saints differ there as well. So even though Latter Day Saints believe "The Bible is the word of God so long as it is translated correctly" that does not make the God they worship the "same God" as that of (continuing the example) Catholics.

It is the same with Islam. Although they may use the same word (in Arabic) as Christians would use, and even though they claim connection to earlier scripture (although from a practical matter, I fail to see what any such connection actually means), the "image" they have of God is generally different from that of either Christians or Jews. And that different image, regardless of any labels attached or any textual connections claimed, makes it not the same God.

But aren't you then stating that the God of each religion (and perhaps each person) depends not on the essence of God but rather on each group's understanding of God? To say that the God worshipped by Roman Catholics is different than the God worshipped by Latter Day Saints seems to imply that the being of each God is defined by Catholic understanding or LDS understanding and not the inherent characteristics of the God itself. You've just made God imaginary, because the "reality" of the God that is worshiped is defined in the imaginations (inspired or not) of the faithful rather than God's true nature. In other words, surely the "image" of God created by a Catholic in her mind is different than the "image" of God created by a LDS in hers, but unless the existence and state of God necessarily depends on the human understanding of that God, then the only difference between the God of the Catholics and the God of the LDS is the human understanding and not God. So, it's the humans that are different, not the God.

Think of it like this: I think the Beatles are the greatest band ever and Paul was the creative engine that drove their greatness. You think the Beatles are the greatest band ever and if it weren't for John they would have been nothing. Somebody else thinks the Beatles were the greatest band ever but wishes they would have played more of George's songs. (Sorry, no love for Ringo.) We have different understandings of the nature of the Beatles, but that doesn't mean that we're fans of different bands.

Isn't it more accurate to say that if there is only one God that we (at least, those of us that proclaim to do so) worship the same God but each have conflicting, possibly incorrect beliefs regarding the nature of that God?

 

[dburkhead]

But aren't you then stating that the God of each religion (and perhaps each person) depends not on the essence of God but rather on each group's understanding of God? To say that the God worshipped by Roman Catholics is different than the God worshipped by Latter Day Saints seems to imply that the being of each God is defined by Catholic understanding or LDS understanding and not the inherent characteristics of the God itself. You've just made God imaginary, because the "reality" of the God that is worshiped is defined in the imaginations (inspired or not) of the faithful rather than God's true nature. In other words, surely the "image" of God created by a Catholic in her mind is different than the "image" of God created by a LDS in hers, but unless the existence and state of God necessarily depends on the human understanding of that God, then the only difference between the God of the Catholics and the God of the LDS is the human understanding and not God. So, it's the humans that are different, not the God.

Think of it like this: I think the Beatles are the greatest band ever and Paul was the creative engine that drove their greatness. You think the Beatles are the greatest band ever and if it weren't for John they would have been nothing. Somebody else thinks the Beatles were the greatest band ever but wishes they would have played more of George's songs. (Sorry, no love for Ringo.) We have different understandings of the nature of the Beatles, but that doesn't mean that we're fans of different bands.

Isn't it more accurate to say that if there is only one God that we (at least, those of us that proclaim to do so) worship the same God but each have conflicting, possibly incorrect beliefs regarding the nature of that God?

I am saying that if there is "one god" then most (if not all--I do not eliminate that possibility) of the beliefs about said God are, to put it bluntly, wrong.

Your Beatles analogy misses the point. If I say I am a fan of the Beatles and that there is only one Beatles band, but then go on and say that the makeup of said Beatles band is Fred, Irving, Tom, and Ringo am I talking about the same band you are? They both have Ringo and I call them both the Beatles so that makes them the same band, right? Or, to use a more "real" example: if someone likes "Wings" you can say that's the same band as the Beatles?

If the Latter Day Saint view of the Godhead is right then the Catholic Trinity is wrong, pure and simple and what the Catholics are worshiping based on that belief is a "false God." (And vice versa, of course--if the Catholic Trinity is correct than the LDS Godhead is wrong.) These are core beliefs about the nature of God, not items at the periphery.

If there is a God, and if that God is singular, then there is only one "true" God to worship. But there are no end of "false Gods" that can be worshipped.

 

[henktermaat]

 

[SavageEagle]

If the Latter Day Saint view of the Godhead is right then the Catholic Trinity is wrong, pure and simple and what the Catholics are worshiping based on that belief is a "false God." (And vice versa, of course--if the Catholic Trinity is correct than the LDS Godhead is wrong.) These are core beliefs about the nature of God, not items at the periphery.

If there is a God, and if that God is singular, then there is only one "true" God to worship. But there are no end of "false Gods" that can be worshipped.

This is my only problem with religion. If there are so many false God's how do we know who is wrong? This is why I don't go to church anymore. I believe in God, but how am I to know his real commands of me if I'm told it's this set, that set, AND those sets. But only one set is the real set of commands and now I have to blindly choose because each thinks the other is the right set.

I'm not even sure if the New Testament is real. It was written by men and the Vatican has withheld entire books from the Bible. Why should I trust the Vatican?

It's hard to know where to turn because each Preacher, Priest, Father, what-have-you all believe they know best. All I can do is pray to God, accept that Jesus was the son of God, and hope they lead me in the right direction. Until the moment when I finally hear God speak to me I am going to stay undecided on who is right and who is wrong and take it all with a grain of salt because everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is wrong.