The long nightmare has just begun: Inauguration of a fraud.
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
Did you also read the D&C and Pearl of great price? The D&C should prove to any mormon that its faith is a lie and its prophets all false along with the journal of discourses.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Islam - Religion of Peace?
Islam - Religion of Peace?
That Christianity is adversarial should not be in dispute. The conflict and opposition, that is, the adversarialism, between the views of the non-Christian and the Christian is perspicuous within Scripture. For that matter, Christianity goes beyond mere adversarialism, when it comes to anti-Christianity, for Christianity is exclusivity in all that it claims. Not all roads lead to God, rightly claims the Christian, for there is but one way and one way only, through Our Lord Jesus Christ. No other religion makes the exclusive claims that we Christians make. Our Lord drives home the point, too, "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." (Luke 21:51).
As to defense of Islam, I get that there are Muslims who are moderates and take different views of the over 100 sword verses in their book, despite the plain fact that these verses are not constrained to historical events, as are the sword wielding historical accounts found in Scripture. Rather these verses in the Quran form an integral part of the theology of Islam, a religious duty that demands opponents of Islam be ultimately overcome by the sword if they cannot be persuaded.
While the analogy is terribly strained, much like Christianity has groups that dilute the full force of Scripture, there are a great many Muslims that form the liberal spectrum of their belief system. Hence, you will often read a Muslim declaring, "No, those Muslim extremists have it all wrong, for this is what our book really teaches." The reality to me is that these objected to extremists are practicing what I believe from careful study to be the actual teachings of the Quran. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace, a peace that will be realized when all its opponents are dominated.
I do not like the word "defense" when it comes to a Christian speaking about Islam or any other anti-Christian worldview. Constructing straw men and setting about burning them down is not an unfamiliar practice in discussion sites. We see this every day at this site, no? Rather, the duty of the Christian is to accurately represent (not defend) what the opponent of any view holds to the best of their ability.
If a person wants to actually take up a study of these and many other issues related to Islam, the CARM page below is a very good launch pad into deeper study:
https://www.carm.org/islam
Afterwards, if one is so inclined, a detailed view of early historical developments revolving around Islam, this volume 1 of a three-volume set, not the abridged version now available, should be obtained at a local library and reviewed:
https://www.amazon.com/Muqaddimah-Introduction-History-Only/dp/B000MJ5FN6/
And just for fun, some things to know about Islam:
AMR
Islam - Religion of Peace?
I think that "equivalent" bit is a hyperbolic leap from the intended "adversarial" claim, versus your implied "part and parcel the same" that the word "equivalent" denotes. It makes for good appeal to the crowd, and I am confident you really must know this.
That Christianity is adversarial should not be in dispute. The conflict and opposition, that is, the adversarialism, between the views of the non-Christian and the Christian is perspicuous within Scripture. For that matter, Christianity goes beyond mere adversarialism, when it comes to anti-Christianity, for Christianity is exclusivity in all that it claims. Not all roads lead to God, rightly claims the Christian, for there is but one way and one way only, through Our Lord Jesus Christ. No other religion makes the exclusive claims that we Christians make. Our Lord drives home the point, too, "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." (Luke 21:51).
As to defense of Islam, I get that there are Muslims who are moderates and take different views of the over 100 sword verses in their book, despite the plain fact that these verses are not constrained to historical events, as are the sword wielding historical accounts found in Scripture. Rather these verses in the Quran form an integral part of the theology of Islam, a religious duty that demands opponents of Islam be ultimately overcome by the sword if they cannot be persuaded.
While the analogy is terribly strained, much like Christianity has groups that dilute the full force of Scripture, there are a great many Muslims that form the liberal spectrum of their belief system. Hence, you will often read a Muslim declaring, "No, those Muslim extremists have it all wrong, for this is what our book really teaches." The reality to me is that these objected to extremists are practicing what I believe from careful study to be the actual teachings of the Quran. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace, a peace that will be realized when all its opponents are dominated.
I do not like the word "defense" when it comes to a Christian speaking about Islam or any other anti-Christian worldview. Constructing straw men and setting about burning them down is not an unfamiliar practice in discussion sites. We see this every day at this site, no? Rather, the duty of the Christian is to accurately represent (not defend) what the opponent of any view holds to the best of their ability.
If a person wants to actually take up a study of these and many other issues related to Islam, the CARM page below is a very good launch pad into deeper study:
https://www.carm.org/islam
Afterwards, if one is so inclined, a detailed view of early historical developments revolving around Islam, this volume 1 of a three-volume set, not the abridged version now available, should be obtained at a local library and reviewed:
https://www.amazon.com/Muqaddimah-Introduction-History-Only/dp/B000MJ5FN6/
And just for fun, some things to know about Islam:
Spoiler
AMR
:chz4brnz:
These are yes or no questions. Are you a pro-abort? Do you defend homos? Do you defend Islam?
Which wasn't the point of entry. It's one of your goal post moves. It's dishonest, but why should that trouble you given the specious nonsense you tried with me.
I put more meat on the bone, though I'd agree they're questions that require an unambiguous answer. That's all yes or no give you. I'm giving you that and more.
Here's the relevant part of the post you should have read, again. Let's take it issue by issue.
Am I pro-abortion? It's hard for me to imagine anyone not knowing the answer to that. I've argued against it for years, won my first notice by Knight for a post on that very point which I believe made it to the POTY he compiled. But for the sake of the newbies about:
I can't imagine the educational lack that would produce the semblance of ambiguity in reading that answer. But if somehow the lack of "no" was really calling "never" into question (and God alone knows how) then what follows should help...assuming anything could:
Now I don't know your neighborhood, but in mine that's not how people who support a thing speak of it.
Or, even the best argument for an exception isn't without problem.
Next up, do you defend homosexuality?
Again, a real toss up. [/sarcasm] Or, try it this way. Read both of those opening sentences, but place a "Yes," or "No," before them. See what happens.
It's a sin. I'm a Christian. I'm not going to tell anyone that it's good to sin, that it doesn't work a harm, because all sin does, which is one reason we have grace and the need for it.
Beyond that, I note the thing that some have tried to use to dishonest effect.
There are all sorts of sin that in our compact are ultimately between the sinner and God, not the sinner and the state.
Last batter up. Do you defend Islam? Okay, this one isn't as direct in answer and people who have a problem with unsimplified answers might struggle. I can see that. So I'll help at the outset: the answer is that I'm a Christian and as such I'm an adversary of Islam, Judaism and any other opposing world view. I attempt to be a genial and open one, and always an honest one. So I can't support or defend their orthodoxy in comparison with my faith, but my own faith requires my opposition be above board. What I've done and would do for any religion that's slandered or libeled is what I've done here.
As Christians, we don't have to lie about Islam to oppose it's tenets and teachings. In fact, distorting or approaching any other faith dishonestly damages our witness. It is that I oppose in others. There's reason enough to differ honestly and strongly. Or, as I put it in my last:
Exactly what I'm not looking for.
Except I'm not moving a goal post- we were talking about Islam's orthodoxy and how they are still stuck in the Middle Ages :chuckle:
Well, I was.
You're trying to use the moderate's perspective, which is inherently heterodox, to call Islam a benign state.
And honest answer. Okay. That's on you and while I just wasted time and effort on you, I hope someone might have gotten an insight into both of us out of it. So thanks anyway.Exactly what I'm not looking for.
I should hope so (1 Co 2:1).
No, you really shouldn't.
You absolutely did. We weren't talking about Islam within limited states where the criminal portion is still enacted. That's where you ran to, which is why I brought up Turkey and the larger world. Look, you can try to make ISIS look like orthodoxy, but it's still not the case.
We were talking about your charges and their lack of specificity. So I asked you to distinguish, to cite and make a point that illustrated where you got your information and how you arrived at your conclusion.
Or, here's where those posts were to begin with:
Except for the fact that that's not part of their actual orthodoxy, which is why only a sliver of fanatics are trying to harm others, mostly other Muslims who disagree with them, but a lot of us too.
So what do you know about their book, how it's read and how passages are in relation to chronology?
Anyway, you should post the verses you're speaking to so people can understand that you're not just parroting a thing you heard or read without looking into it...you know, assuming that's the case.
Given the odds, here's a link to an actual Muslim answer from someone versed in his own faith (link).
Oh, he says you're full of (hopefully, but not likely) beans.oly:
Actually, what I did was demand you demonstrate something substantive. And you still haven't, though God knows you've had enough time to google someone's opinion with actual citations and support.
lain:
I never tried to make ISIS look like 'orthodoxy'. I've been trying to tell you that they simply aren't as far away from orthodoxy as you make them out to be.
If you study a bit of the Crusades, you will see pretty plainly that Islam was a state not much unlike the Levites. They would decimate women and children and call it the will of God.
They were fanatics, and ISIS is a remnant of that fanaticism. But even still, most of Islam aren't apologetic about it, because the Quran isn't a message of grace.
Orthodox islam IS violent, and demand conversion by the sword, one need only look at all the countries where its the predominate religion to know what it actually teaches.
How a liberal can claim they care about women and support islam, and hate christianity is mindblowing to me.
How a liberal can claim they care about women and support islam, and hate christianity is mindblowing to me.
True.
At the same time; if they insist on being Muslims, I'd prefer they subscribe to the version that views the sword aspect much like the Christian who is not an extremist views the sword aspect of the OT - as "that was then."
It is extremists within either of those two - that are ever the problem.
Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
How much is that?
Romans 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.
A christian, isnt under OT covenant. No Christian is ever commanded to advance the gospel by the sword and has never been. There was NEVER a that was then, for Christians.
Well, it's more complicated than that. There is a degree of tolerance in Islam, by an Old Testament standard anyway. Orthodox Islam doesn't hunt people out to force them into their belief, they just don't make peace with anyone not willing to convert.
Moderate Islam has it pretty well taught how women should be, if we went by the strictest standard of the Bible- the Apostles don't give women much liberation, but they don't make it law either. Christianity gives us a bit of leeway because, unlike Islam, the Apostles gave a message of grace.
I've read a lot of data on Islamic opinion and spoken to and posted it over the years here. I'm disinterested in unsupported generalizations ripped from Drudge or the latest anti-Islamic fear peddler.
Most of the people fighting the people you tend to characterize with a broad brush, most of the people dying at their hands are Muslims.
And I'll say again, what do you know about it? What authority can you suggest or cite or in some way distinguish your general comments from someone willing to say that without any support?
Why would we be looking at the Crusades again?
I'm also tired of the notion that most Muslims are okay with ISIS or should apologize for it, supra.
Here's a link to a synopsis of the Crusades from History.com.
I'm friendlier towards Muslims than I am Jews.
I'm not a 'fear peddler', I'm simply a realist- if you stop trying to revision history and just see it for what it is, you won't need to look into their holy book.
Islam began nearly 600 years after Christianity, and they rose to prominence very rapidly- they took on the rest of the Arabs and Rome dude
lain:And it's because Islam is a war horse. I'm sorry to say it, but Mohammad was a warlord and so his writings are going to reflect the nature of a ~warlord~
They aren't okay with their method
What part about "extremists within both" was not clear?
Your problem is you go by what you conclude the other person meant.
This is not the first time I have pointed this problem out to you.
The following is one of those "that was then" that THE EXTREMIST would assert "is still the case..."
Deuteronomy 20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 20:18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
The sound Believer knows "that was then..."
Duh-uh :chuckle: