TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

The Religion Discussion

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 26th, 2012, 9:41 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
megadoc1 wrote: all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"
why is God concerned about that?

GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 26th, 2012, 9:44 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
d spike wrote:Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
I have an issue with that regarding religion

Fundamentalism is defined as "strict adherence".

I cannot understand though how someone can follow only some of the rules of a religion. It's either you are Christian 100% or Muslim 100% or Hindu 100% or you aren't. I don't think there is a 50% Hindu or 73% Muslim etc

So technically each religion teaches that every follower should strive to be a fundamentalist.
Not so?

Does any religious text for any religion say "follow these words in moderation or according to your own comfort level"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSf5BFJbeZo

Check out the above link wrt fundamentalist / extremist / terrorist by Dr Zakir Naik.

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 26th, 2012, 9:54 pm

Bizzare wrote:
AdamB wrote:The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins, so that by seeking GOD's forgiveness and asking for HIM to accept our repentance, GOD's PERFECT ATTRIBUTES would be made manifest.

You couldn't have read that in the Holy Bible !!
If so, please tell us what scripture and also where you bought your bible.

http://abdurrahman.org/qurantafseer/muhsinkhan.pdf

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 26th, 2012, 11:26 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
megadoc1 wrote: all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"
why is God concerned about that?

because
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

this is how God chose to show his love for us, our destiny is dependent on how we respond to it



AdamB wrote:GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".

so then the God in the quran is responsible for deceiving millions of christians thru Jesus' disciples by fooling them into thinking Christ was crucified before their very eyes ent?

Surah 4:157

And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him.

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 27th, 2012, 6:35 am

megadoc1 wrote:
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
megadoc1 wrote: all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"
why is God concerned about that?

because
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

this is how God chose to show his love for us, our destiny is dependent on how we respond to it



AdamB wrote:GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".

so then the God in the quran is responsible for deceiving millions of christians thru Jesus' disciples by fooling them into thinking Christ was crucified before their very eyes ent?

Surah 4:157

And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him.

That's correct, thanks for reading the Quran, it is a book and books we are supposed to read. Also, thanks for being open as to subscribing to Catholicism. I don't see what is the big secret that people have to hide that.

You see to really believe in something is not mere acceptance but rather acceptance and submission. This means that you act in accordance to what you accept as your belief. So if someone says they believe in the Bible but don't follow its laws / commands or follow some things and don't follow others, THEN THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE. This is how true faith is define in Islam, acceptance and submission.

Jesus said it himself in Matthew 12:39, can you explain what it means to you:

{12:38}Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees
answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
{12:39} But he answered and said unto them, An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
{12:40} For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


What it means to me is that Jonas was alive in the belly of the whale (for 3 days and 3 nights), so Jesus would be "just as" Jonas ie 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Since it is not physically possible for Jonas to survive, then GOD would have "made it possible" or made it appear to be so but he would not have really been in the whale.
If Jonas was dead in the whale and then GOD "resurrected" him, then what is the big deal about Jesus' resurrection since it is possible for a man to die and for GOD to bring him back to life. Or Jonas would then be on equal standing with Jesus in terms of claiming to be the SON of GOD because of resurrection (if resurrection is the proof or claim to sonship of GOD). I think Jesus also brought someone back to life as well in one of his miracles / ability given to him by GOD's leave.

About the 3 days and 3 nights thing, how is it possible that he died on (Good) Friday and resurrected on easter Sunday, the maths. Shouldn't it be Monday?

dnoah
Riding on 13's
Posts: 11
Joined: May 18th, 2012, 3:32 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby dnoah » May 27th, 2012, 8:48 am

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)

according to the bible does this mean's that god had a beginning


just asking

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 27th, 2012, 9:27 am

megadoc1 wrote:

AdamB wrote:GOD has made it clear in the Quran that "they killed him (Jesus) not neither did they crucify him".

so then the God in the quran is responsible for deceiving millions of christians thru Jesus' disciples by fooling them into thinking Christ was crucified before their very eyes ent?

Surah 4:157

And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him.

AdamB wrote:That's correct, thanks for reading the Quran, it is a book and books we are supposed to read. Also,
so you agree that the god in the quran is a deceiver ?

AdamB wrote:thanks for being open as to subscribing to Catholicism. I don't see what is the big secret that people have to hide that.
I never said I subscribe to Catholicism I just said that I am catholic, don't mix the two

AdamB wrote:You see to really believe in something is not mere acceptance but rather acceptance and submission. This means that you act in accordance to what you accept as your belief. So if someone says they believe in the Bible but don't follow its laws / commands or follow some things and don't follow others, THEN THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE. This is how true faith is define in Islam, acceptance and submission.
my faith is not in the bible ,its in the person of Jesus Christ ..the bible tells me about him ,its his words so If I claim to follow Jesus I would abide by his words and I act on what I believe,its all about faith I cannot act on what I don't believe.

AdamB wrote:Jesus said it himself in Matthew 12:39, can you explain what it means to you:

{12:38}Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees
answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
{12:39} But he answered and said unto them, An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
{12:40} For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


What it means to me is that Jonas was alive in the belly of the whale (for 3 days and 3 nights), so Jesus would be "just as" Jonas ie 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Since it is not physically possible for Jonas to survive, then GOD would have "made it possible" or made it appear to be so but he would not have really been in the whale.
If Jonas was dead in the whale and then GOD "resurrected" him, then what is the big deal about Jesus' resurrection since it is possible for a man to die and for GOD to bring him back to life. Or Jonas would then be on equal standing with Jesus in terms of claiming to be the SON of GOD because of resurrection (if resurrection is the proof or claim to sonship of GOD). I think Jesus also brought someone back to life as well in one of his miracles / ability given to him by GOD's leave.[/color]
adam, adam, adam, why not focus on one issue at a time you are all over the place man ,how do you expect to understand what Christians believe if you keep clustering yourself with arguments? work on them one at a time........first, the resurrection is not proof of sonship to God so your whole argument falls here.second, Jesus never had to prove his sonship ,was he not looking for faith? ...Jesus gave a sign and both of them are based on faith
if you want to speculate on how God went about it good luck!


AdamB wrote:About the 3 days and 3 nights thing, how is it possible that he died on (Good) Friday and resurrected on easter Sunday, the maths. Shouldn't it be Monday?

well the bible said he rose on the third day after his crucifixion or the first day of the week (Sunday) how you came up with Monday? if the bible says the first day of the week, why are you arguing for Monday? do you not think its logical to argue backwards?
Last edited by megadoc1 on May 27th, 2012, 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 27th, 2012, 9:43 am

dnoah wrote:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)

according to the bible does this mean's that god had a beginning


just asking
no it means that in the beginning God was

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 27th, 2012, 9:47 am

If that is what is meant in the Bible, then it is a concept not befitting of GOD. This is like the saying that GOD created the Earth and then "rested", also in the Bible.
The Muslim concept is that GOD neither has a beginning nor an end. HE always was and always will be. HE has no difficiency or weakness in any of HIS attributes for they are ALL PERFECT!!
HE does not need rest.

I will try to explain from muslim doctrine:
In the beginning was the WORD - The word in arabic is "kun" meaning "be". That is all GOD has to say to create.
And the word was with GOD - it is HIS speech before HE spoke it and after.
And the word was GOD - GOD was not created and the attributes of GOD are also not created. So HIS speech "be" is HIS attribute, is HIM. So the word is GO
D. I am not saying that HE ceases to be anything else but this "word", not at all.
HIS execution of any of HIS divine attributes, does not affect any other or HIS "ESSENCE".

In fact, the entire Quran is the speech of GOD, HE spoke it , truly. It is not created.

User avatar
chasemeifyoucan
3NE 2NR for life
Posts: 137
Joined: July 23rd, 2008, 12:00 am
Location: on a chase run
Contact:

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby chasemeifyoucan » May 27th, 2012, 9:54 am

AdamB wrote:

In fact, the entire Quran is the speech of GOD, HE spoke it , truly. It is not created.


Prove it, without quoting from the Quran.

Otherwise, the Quran was written by man, to be interpreted by man, to control man.

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 27th, 2012, 10:05 am

AdamB wrote:If that is what is meant in the Bible, then it is a concept not befitting of GOD. This is like the saying that GOD created the Earth and then "rested", also in the Bible.
The Muslim concept is that GOD neither has a beginning nor an end. HE always was and always will be. HE has no difficiency or weakness in any of HIS attributes for they are ALL PERFECT!!
HE does not need rest.
cool but the muslim concept of God is not the Christian concept of God, but what I am saying is in the beginning God was always there

AdamB wrote:I will try to explain from muslim doctrine:
In the beginning was the WORD - The word in arabic is "kun" meaning "be". That is all GOD has to say to create.
And the word was with GOD - it is HIS speech before HE spoke it and after.
And the word was GOD - GOD was not created and the attributes of GOD are also not created. So HIS speech "be" is HIS attribute, is HIM. So the word is GO
D. I am not saying that HE ceases to be anything else but this "word", not at all.
HIS execution of any of HIS divine attributes, does not affect any other or HIS "ESSENCE".

In fact, the entire Quran is the speech of GOD, HE spoke it , truly. It is not created.
. check this out how would you explian this
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?

dtp
Trinituner Peong
Posts: 402
Joined: April 3rd, 2006, 9:34 pm
Location: trinidad

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby dtp » May 27th, 2012, 12:16 pm

u all are so confuse
looking 4 d superior religion
by comparing words and phases of old texts lol


for those who live on d bible words so much
god does consider himself more superior to other gods

dnoah
Riding on 13's
Posts: 11
Joined: May 18th, 2012, 3:32 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby dnoah » May 27th, 2012, 6:14 pm

ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)

after that this happoned
megadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?


so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god

can someone help me out here???

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 27th, 2012, 11:08 pm

dnoah wrote:ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)

after that this happoned
megadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?


so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god

can someone help me out here???
it is very true to say that if Jesus was created he is not God but Jesus is the logos (the word ) that existed with God from the beginning, begotten not made...... He then added humanity to himself

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby d spike » May 28th, 2012, 1:06 am

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
d spike wrote:Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.

I have an issue with that regarding religion

Fundamentalism is defined as "strict adherence".

I cannot understand though how someone can follow only some of the rules of a religion. It's either you are Christian 100% or Muslim 100% or Hindu 100% or you aren't. I don't think there is a 50% Hindu or 73% Muslim etc

So technically each religion teaches that every follower should strive to be a fundamentalist.
Not so?

Does any religious text for any religion say "follow these words in moderation or according to your own comfort level"?


You are quite right with your definition of the word “fundamentalism” (megadoc tried this slant a good time ago) but “Fundamentalism”, where religion is concerned, encompasses something quite different in the long run.
Fundamentalism requires rigid acceptance of the literal translation of the scriptures. Hence the reason why in my earliest posts I used to refer to them as "Literalists" - only later using the more commonly accepted term “Fundamentalists”.
Due to their striving to maintain adherence to literal translation combined with major tenets, they run into problems when scripture clashes with their "fundamentals"... this causes them to have to choose, which they do by either ignoring the one of less importance or twisting its meaning - examples of which I have dealt with before in this thread.
sMASH wrote:it may be defined as 'strict adherence' but the popular recent interpretation of intolerant fanboyism is what i presume is meant.
probably fanatic would be more appropriate.

Well said, sMASH.


d spike wrote:
Some time ago, Megadoc naively attempted to define a fundamentalist christian as one who believes in the fundamental teachings of Christ. He obviously thought that viewers of that post were even less well-read than he was, and as his definition sounds simple and self-explanatory, folks would believe it to be so. He very well knows what it means and refers to: literal application and strict adherence to scripture. Thanks to 9/11, even the most illiterate among us knows the meaning of "fundamentalist".



d spike wrote:(Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:54 pm)
The bottom line in any argument with you is your belief as a fundamentalist, and the basis of this very belief denies you the possibility of maintaining a debate on religious beliefs.
Fundamentalism has one basic rule:
1. This belief is the right one.
This rule means all other beliefs are wrong. This rule also means that the scripture used to base one's faith on is true, correct, perfect... for to consider otherwise would mean rule#1 is wrong.
Therefore you HAVE to believe that the Bible is focused on one thing, the same as your faith... one "message"... one complete... book. You weren't fooling anyone giving lip-service to the concept of the Bible being multiple writings - you still treat the Bible like one entity. Hence the reason why you cannot accept the basic truth about the Bible - different books, different authors and different reasons for writing those books.
The irony of this situation is that the one compelling fact that explains why they all deserve to be compiled together, that explains what binds these diverse books together, is the one truth you will not accept: these books were compiled because they were all considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit - and the folks who decided this were the RC boys...
I know your knee-jerk reaction will be to deny this by saying they weren't considered Roman Catholic at the time... that the Catholics came around much later - but that would be just more codswallop on your part... and I can prove it (but I will leave that for later :lol: )

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby d spike » May 28th, 2012, 1:12 am

AdamB wrote:thanks for being open as to subscribing to Catholicism. I don't see what is the big secret that people have to hide that.

One’s choice of religion is one’s personal affair.
Refusing to state one’s religion in a public forum is not proof of anything except one’s appreciation for privacy.
I fail to see how someone else's religion is any of your business.

What is stated here in this thread is people's opinions... and it is to THIS that you are expected to respond.

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby d spike » May 28th, 2012, 3:08 am

AdamB wrote:@dspike
First of all, to be subtle in insulting people / insulting people with panache is still insulting them. I am the opposite, I say what I mean / tell people what's on my mind in the clearest terms but I promised to be good.

Only bad little children need to promise to be good.
My posts are quite clear in their meaning, and also reflect my opinion.
As far as "with panache" is concerned: thank you, I try my best.

AdamB wrote:Almost everytime you respond to others' posts you insult them, that's not nice (examples in blue above).

It's not my fault you write stuff that is worthy of the responses I have written.
If you don't like being told you stink, then go and bathe.
If you had perused this thread before tossing in your bent penny, you would have noticed that Tuner has a certain flair... many of the posts can be quite flagrant.
Don't come here in the sandpit, and then complain of grit in your britches.

I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching
.
Who have I insulted here? What imbecilic nonsense is this?
So if I say I have a problem with homosexuality, then I am being insulting? What drivel!
Don't you have a problem with errant teaching? Or do you find it okay for people to say totally incorrect things?
Fundamentalist thinking (that may be an oxymoron)
Fundamentalists are very wary of "thinking", as that can easily lead to deviation from their desired path - blind acceptance is the key they prefer. I have shown this to be so many times - but I remember now, you don't look back at earlier posts to see what has gone before, right?
To think that God “fails” because people sin is an overly simplistic way of thinking, and shows little understanding of why the Creation exists.
This is quite correct. Prove it wrong, if you wish. How is this insulting?
This post quoted demonstrates ignorance of the concept of Original sin.
...and so it did. Truth hurts much?
Before anyone thinks I am putting poor AdamB down, let me say that MANY Christians also don’t understand this concept either – but that doesn’t stop them from talking about it… which is why people like AdamB cannot be blamed for their errant thinking.

Good grief, these aren't insults!
Poor is not derisive or inflammatory in this case, but comic sympathy.
The errant thinking described was indeed errant thinking... I also pointed out that the error was no fault of yours - how on Earth could you possibly be insulted?
It seems that truth somehow offends you. I fear you are going to be quite miserable here.

AdamB wrote: You assume that your view on everything is the correct one and that everyone else is "dumb".

No, I do not. You should ask sMASH or others if this puerile view of yours even holds water. (Feel insulted if you wish - but this view is indeed quite childish.)
Your problem is that you came into a gunfight with a clasp-knife. You probably think I am one of your peers, who has attended a few seminars/lectures, read a few books, and feels a little swell-headed...
Kiddo, I have been doing this for a long time in the real world, long before the internet.
If you think my points are wrong, then prove it - rather than bewailing and embarrassing yourself.

AdamB wrote: This is a discussion forum where everyone has their own point of view and the right to express them.

A point that I have made repeatedly on this thread long before you even joined Trinituner! (but you wouldn't know that, would you...)
Are you implying that I think others do not have the right to voice their opinion? Where have I said such a thing?
Do you think that I should not point out errors that are made in a discussion in which I am taking part? So how come I don't have that same right to express MY opinion?

AdamB wrote:You claim to be the "godfather" of Christianity (and its knowledge / doctrines)

REALLY???!?!? WHERE???!?!? :shock: :shock: Where did I say such a thing?
You have chosen to discuss things you apparently know little about - but unfortunately for your ego, I do. Whose fault is that? You will notice that I do not discuss hang-gliding, jet-engine repair or deep-sea diving - these are subjects I know little of. If you choose to voice your uneducated opinion in public, prepare to be corrected. If you think such corrections are inaccurate, then just simply state why.

AdamB wrote: yet you hide and don't say where you stand concerning which branch of Christianity you subscribe to or that you don't subscribe to any at all.

Once again, I fail to see how that concerns you.
I am not hiding.
I just don't see the point of stating such private information in such a public forum.
What matters here is the opinion one expresses. Kindly respond to WHAT IS EXPRESSED, rather than looking for loopholes for a way out.


AdamB wrote:So the question is "Where does your great knowledge come from?"

Yurtle the Turtle, I think his name was... He taught me all I know.
What does it matter? Yet again, I fail to see how that information concerns you or what you believe in any way.
If you think I am wrong, say so. If you can prove me wrong, do so.


AdamB wrote:Why do you assume by default that only the Christian concepts are correct?
And where did you get this impression? You yourself have pointed out that you refuse to look back at previous posts, so you have no idea what I "assume". You are basing your opinion on a couple of pages of limited interaction. Why don't you ask sMASH or Duane or MG Man if this supposition of yours is true? You have myopically grabbed at an elephant, felt its trunk, and assumed that an elephant is very like a snake...

AdamB wrote: Yet you can't make up your mind if the "story of Adam and Eve really happened". Is it not stated in the Bible? Do you not believe the Bible and everything it contains?

Yet another misconception.
Believing the Bible to be inspired writings and accepting it literally are two different things. Only fundamentalist Christians follow the latter - and I believe a simple perusal of my posts would show that I am not one of their number.



AdamB wrote:
d spike wrote:
AdamB wrote:references please.

Why do you ask? Are you going to do actual research?

I ask because I want to know if you have made it up

You've got to be kidding me.
d spike wrote:This isn't MY logic or explanation.
This rationale existed long before Islam began... (and I am certainly not that old :lol: )

Of course I made all this up. (That is called sarcasm, look it up.)

AdamB wrote:or if it is "the thinking that caused it to be made dogma", who thought of it, where it is documented in order to be verified.

What do they teach you young 'uns in school these days?
You REALLY MEAN TO TELL ME THAT YOU ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF A COMPUTER THAT IS ON-LINE AND USING IT... AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO LOOK UP SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET?????
It's called RESEARCH. Try it sometime.
This material has been well documented through the ages. I didn't have to dig up any manuscripts to study this in my time. :roll:

AdamB wrote:Also, the validity from the source ie whether the thinking was substantiated from the Bible.

Also documented.
An angel doesn't have to appear to you, nor do you have to ingest/smoke a substance for this information to be made known to you.
You just need to perform the simple task of reading.
Look it up.
Use an encyclopaedia.
Use "Google", if you must.

AdamB wrote:
d spike wrote:In other words,
your faith is based on a book which was written based on that same faith.

I would suggest you look up "circular thinking".

Try and understand the difference between Faith and Knowledge.


Your comments please, easy on the insults!!

Have you looked up "circular thinking" as yet?
Or tried to understand the difference between Faith and Knowledge?

...and ask Nati, MG, or Kasey... I haven't started to insult you yet.

dnoah
Riding on 13's
Posts: 11
Joined: May 18th, 2012, 3:32 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby dnoah » May 28th, 2012, 7:45 am

megadoc1 wrote:
dnoah wrote:ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)

after that this happoned
megadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?


so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god

can someone help me out here???
it is very true to say that if Jesus was created he is not God but Jesus is the logos (the word ) that existed with God from the beginning, begotten not made...... He then added humanity to himself


dspike also said


"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."
"The Holy Spirit,
proceeds from the Father and the Son..."

There is more that can (and should be) explained, but I will stop at this point for your feedback... and for certain others to lob their rotten fruit...

_________________
Big red rice-eater
Post subject: Re: The Religion Discussion
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:07 am

but from what i understand and know,the word "Begotten" has been remove by most high ranking scholars of Christianity because they believe it was fabricated
for example u will not find that word in the following bibles: New International Version,New Living Translation,English Standard Version,International Standard Version and alot more
anyway the point im makeing is this,we all believe god has no beginning or end, so that would mean god was there before the beginning and if so, it is right to say that everything in and after the beginning was created or made which leads up to, if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god

i would like to know ya'll thoughts on this :|

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 28th, 2012, 8:37 am

Seems logical to me (MY LOGIC)...d spike and others may have their views / THEIR LOGIC.
The dictionary meanings of "begotten" does not support the meaning "not made".
be·got·ten    [bih-got-n] Show IPA
verb
a past participle of beget.

be·get
   [bih-get] Show IPA
verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
before 1000; Middle English begeten ( see be-, get); replacing Middle English biyeten, Old English begetan; cognate with Gothic bigitan, Old High German bigezzan.

A question: If GOD had "begotten" a SON, why limit GOD to ONLY begetting ONE SON? Why not others and daughters too?

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 28th, 2012, 10:38 am

d spike wrote:
...and ask Nati, MG, or Kasey... I haven't started to insult you yet.

true story He haven't started to insult you yet ..lol trust me on that

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby d spike » May 28th, 2012, 10:56 am

AdamB wrote:Seems logical to me (MY LOGIC)...d spike and others may have their views / THEIR LOGIC.

I'm not even going to TOUCH this. :roll: If you can look up "begotten", then certainly you can look up "logic".





dnoah wrote:...from what i understand and know,the word "Begotten" has been remove by most high ranking scholars of Christianity because they believe it was fabricated
for example u will not find that word in the following bibles: New International Version,New Living Translation,English Standard Version,International Standard Version and alot more

Yes, there is quite a fuss about the word "begotten". Most folk who clutch their bible, quoting it fervently, fail to realise that English was not the language it was written in. Fundamentalists (or Literalists :lol: ) always stub their toes on this doorstep, as there are quite a few times when the Early Greek (Koine), which differs from Modern Greek, does not have a simple English alternative... It gets almost laughable when one considers that the English used a few centuries back is vastly different to the one we speak now. One has to admit that the Muslims probably had the right idea regarding the non-translation of their scriptures! :lol: (Yet folks yowl and scream at the RC gang for attempting to keep their scriptures in the language it was originally translated into... )
AdamB wrote:The dictionary meanings of "begotten" does not support the meaning "not made".

AdamB is correct on this point.
One must look at the original words that were translated as "begotten".
The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
The phrase "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes.
The KJV translators (nearly) always attempted to translate word-for-word when it was possible. So when they came to monogenes they translated mono as only and genes as begotten.
Were they right to do this? Here is where the bacchanal starts.

Monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is the meaning attached to its use in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son." Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant - well, from the scripture's writer's point of view :lol:

The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16. In fact, John is the only New Testament writer who uses this word in reference to Jesus - and he does this repeatedly (John 1:14-18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9). Christian scholars point out that John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses this word to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters through faith.

Many of the current handbooks on Greek syntax state that monogenes should not be translated as only begotten. Instead, they take the word to mean only or unique. If this were true, the translation of the KJV would not be alone in its "error" for this is the translation of the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, and several other translations of the twentieth century.
The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Greek language (both Koine and Modern). The word monogenes does means one or unique in the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents. It does not mean unique, as in special, such as in the phrase, "his work is very unique." Here the Greek would be monadikos, not monogenes. As we examine the New Testament we find the word monogenes used nine times. In every case it is used to describe a relationship between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 1:18, 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9).




AdamB wrote:A question: If GOD had "begotten" a SON, why limit GOD to ONLY begetting ONE SON? Why not others and daughters too?

Language is a living thing. In order to understand it, one must first understand those who used it. The terms "Father" and "Son," used by early Christians that referred to God and Jesus, are human terms used to help them understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity they believed in. If you think about a good relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. Analogies only work so far. Stretching the analogy to cover the Origin of the Trinity is going to lead one into error. The analogy only focuses on their Relationship, not their Origin.

dnoah wrote:anyway the point im makeing is this,we all believe god has no beginning or end, so that would mean god was there before the beginning and if so, it is right to say that everything in and after the beginning was created or made which leads up to, if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god

That's just it.
d spike wrote:"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."

If you look back at my post regarding the three Persons of the Trinity, then you will see that the Second Person of the Trinity (the Word) shares the nature of God, and thus "is God". Not a created being...
This is the part of the Doctrine of the Trinity. (Why AdamB would think I am making this up is beyond me)
The RC gang refer to it as (*adopts Irish accent*) "the Mystery of the Holy Trinity". Somehow, this is a lot easier to palm off on folks (It be a mystery, laddie, ye canna understand it) :lol: rather than have to juggle a heap of purely theological concepts around in one's head.
If you can't accept it, then don't. It's not like your prayers will be delivered elsewhere due to an error in the address. (Again, the whole name of God argument is a waste of time. Why some behave as though there are a whole string-band of lonely deities up there, waiting anxiously for a human to direct a prayer at them personally, fighting over poorly-addressed mail, is also beyond me...)

Where the Christian dogma of the Trinity REALLY gets confusing is when "in the fullness of time" the Second Person of the Trinity (the Word) becomes "incarnate", or "made flesh", in the form of Jesus, son of Mary. Christians believe that He took on human form at this time to show folks what the Boss had in mind for His Creation, and to guide them in their journey back to Light.

Image

User avatar
megadoc1
punchin NOS
Posts: 3261
Joined: January 9th, 2006, 7:33 pm
Location: advancing the kingdom of heaven

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby megadoc1 » May 28th, 2012, 11:29 am

dnoah wrote:
megadoc1 wrote:
dnoah wrote:ok im just trying to understand this but im getting more confused

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(john 1:1)

after that this happoned
megadoc1 wrote:John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth
can you agree about who Jesus really is now?


so acording to the bible: god transformed in to jesus or did he create jesus???
then if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god

can someone help me out here???
it is very true to say that if Jesus was created he is not God but Jesus is the logos (the word ) that existed with God from the beginning, begotten not made...... He then added humanity to himself


dspike also said


"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."
"The Holy Spirit,
proceeds from the Father and the Son..."

There is more that can (and should be) explained, but I will stop at this point for your feedback... and for certain others to lob their rotten fruit...

_________________
Big red rice-eater
Post subject: Re: The Religion Discussion
Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:07 am


dnoah wrote:but from what i understand and know,the word "Begotten" has been remove by most high ranking scholars of Christianity because they believe it was fabricated


this is false look up dr william lane criag he is one of the leading scholars of Christianity and does not hold to this view feel free to check him out at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
dnoah wrote:for example u will not find that word in the following bibles: New International Version,New Living Translation,English Standard Version,International Standard Version and alot more
perhaps.. but you are missing out something all these translations listed came from the same source, that is the Hebrew and Greek text available for you today to search out yourself,now the word used for begotten in the Greek is monogenēs which meant only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). this cannot change but can be rendered differently in English carrying the same meaning


dnoah wrote:anyway the point im makeing is this,we all believe god has no beginning or end, so that would mean god was there before the beginning and if so, it is right to say that everything in and after the beginning was created or made which leads up to, if jesus was created that would mean he is not god or 1 out of 3 or part of god
i would like to know ya'll thoughts on this :|
good point but if jesus is the logos which is the divine expression of God, he was always there from the beginning for example : if God is love,then when did He became love? we would agree that he was always love from the beginning right ? we can say the same for the logos who is this divine expression of love ,it is who God is.... this expression is considered to be Christ or God the son, the second person of the trinity...not created but always existed with God

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and
invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true
God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom
all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men
and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered
and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the
living and the dead;
And in the Holy Spirit.


check out these podcast and let me know what you think

[url]http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s5
[/url]


AdamB wrote:Seems logical to me (MY LOGIC)...d spike and others may have their views / THEIR LOGIC.
The dictionary meanings of "begotten" does not support the meaning "not made".
be·got·ten    [bih-got-n] Show IPA
verb
a past participle of beget.

be·get
   [bih-get] Show IPA
verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1. (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
before 1000; Middle English begeten ( see be-, get); replacing Middle English biyeten, Old English begetan; cognate with Gothic bigitan, Old High German bigezzan.

A question: If GOD had "begotten" a SON, why limit GOD to ONLY begetting ONE SON? Why not others and daughters too?
[/quote]
well It all started in reading classes go back and take a look of what is said on here and as d spike says do some research..it helps to check out the original word and not just the translation

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 28th, 2012, 11:55 am

d spike wrote:"The Son,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
Begotten, not made.
Of one in being with the Father
Through Him, all things were made..."

If you look back at my post regarding the three Persons of the Trinity, then you will see that the Second Person of the Trinity (the Word) shares the nature of God, and thus "is God". Not a created being...

Where the Christian dogma of the Trinity REALLY gets confusing is when "in the fullness of time" the Second Person of the Trinity (the Word) becomes "incarnate", or "made flesh", in the form of Jesus, son of Mary. Christians believe that He took on human form at this time to show folks what the Boss had in mind for His Creation, and to guide them in their journey back to Light.

Jesus, The Spirit of Allah (GOD)?

Ruhuminhu or The spirit of Allah (Quran-Al Nesa 4:171 ) - The more accurate translation for this is Ruh [spirit] min [from] hu [Him]

Many people, especially Christians claim that Jesus is the 'spirit of Allah' according to the Qur'an, and therefore a part of Allah. However, this is false as we will see insha Allah/GOD Willing.

What Christians don't realise is that anything which is special or favoured by Allah/God is known as Allah's, HE adds it to HIMSELF by use of possession (apostrophe s). Let me explain this a bit better, the Sacred Masjid [mosque] in Makkah is known as Bait-ullah [the house of Allah/God], yet this does not mean that Allah lives in that house. No. What it does mean is that this place is special, it is favored by Allah and therefore is known as the house of Allah i.e. it belongs to Allah - it is HIS.

This is exactly the same with the creation of Allah, i.e. the Messengers of Allah are Allah's creation and property, and they are sent from/by Allah. This does not mean that they are part of Allah. Similar can be said about the angels. And similarly, the spirits [Ruh] which He sends. Since Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) is highly ranked and favoured by Allah, He honours him by stating that Jesus son of Mary is His property, His spirit (which He [Allah] owns.) And this is a part of the arabic language.

An important point to raise here is that mis-interpretation due the deficiency of the English language translated from the original texts (Greek/Aramaic) and use of the terms / prepositions OF and FROM. The Spirit FROM GOD is entirely different from the Spirit OF GOD. Meaning that The Spirit comes from GOD, belonging to HIM BUT not a part of HIM.

An analogy can be examined - how was the first man, Adam (not AdamB) created? GOD created and moulded him with HIS (GOD's) HANDS. How then did he, Adam, come to life? Was not a spirit (the soul) breathed (or however it was put) into him? Did this spirit emanate FROM GOD? If YES, then can we say that Adam is also the SON of GOD. If not, then the spirit came FROM GOD, belonging to HIM, but not a part of HIM. So, therefore Adam is also NOT GOD, just like Jesus!! Is MY logic making sense here?

You can read more about this issue and linguistics here insha Allah [God willing];
http://www.islamicboard.com/prophets...a-created.html (How was 'Eesa (as) created?)

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 28th, 2012, 11:59 am

An analogy can be examined - how was the first man, Adam (not AdamB) created? GOD created and moulded him with HIS (GOD's) HANDS. How then did he, Adam, come to life? Was not a spirit (the soul) breathed (or however it was put) into him? Did this spirit emanate FROM GOD? If YES, then can we say that Adam is also the SON of GOD. If not, then the spirit came FROM GOD, belonging to HIM, but not a part of HIM. So, therefore Adam is also NOT GOD, just like Jesus!! Is MY logic making sense here?

Posting the above separately since many may not read the entire post, coming down to this part...which is very relevant.

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 28th, 2012, 12:32 pm

[quote="megadoc1
well It all started in reading classes go back and take a look of what is said on here and as d spike says do some research..it helps to check out the original word and not just the translation[/quote]
It is due to what you have stated here, that the original texts in totality, language and translation / understanding from the language perspective, has been lost that GOD sent down the Quran and the last prophet, Muhammad, to all of mankind.

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 28th, 2012, 12:56 pm

@dspike,
You forgot to comment on :
You can see the similarity here concerning your statements about using logic to derive knowledge as opposed to valid sources / scriptures.

Forget about religion (based on faith) just use logic (based on rational thinking) - something Muslim scholars used to be famous for...Try and understand the difference between Faith and Knowledge.

You can also look up the following on Greek Logic:
http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies ... ram-nadwi/

Possibly YOUR ERRANT THINKING comes from your assumption that logic trumps knowledge based on revealed texts!!

Now is an opportune time to mention to you the Islamic concept of "knowledge" and "Logical thinking".

Ilm-ul-Kalam (knowledge of theological rhetoric)

[ A discipline that searches for answers to creedal issues using Logic ]

Ilmul-Kalaam (argumentation based on Greek philosophy) is among such innovations in the religion that created intellectual schisms in the Muslim nation and initiated deviant trends. One of the sects that indulged in Ilmul-Kalaam were the Mu’tazilah. They gave precedence to intellect over the revealed texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah – when they perceived the two conflicted. This attitude set an evil precedent for all later groups who sought to make intellect and desire decisive over the Qur’aan and the Sunnah

Ibn Baz Fatwa on this topic:

Q 3: Some people read many intellectual and scientific books and think that they have become a scholar or a Da’y (caller to Islam), although they may have poor knowledge in Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and have not read any books about Shari’ah (Islamic law). What is Your Eminence’s opinion in this regard?

A: Knowledge of Shari’ah (Islamic Law) is derived from what Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) have said, and not from someone else’s words. The first source of Islamic knowledge is the Word of Allah (Quran) and His Messenger, then the views of Muslim scholars who explain and interpret them for people. These scholars are Allah’s successors on earth after the messengers.

Allah (may He be Glorified and Exalted) says:(Surah Al-`Imran, 3: 18) Allah bears witness that Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), and the angels, and those having knowledge (also give this witness). Here, knowledge refers to knowing Allah and His Religion. Allah (may He be Exalted) says:(Surah Fatir, 35: 28) It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah. They are the messengers and their insightful followers, who follow this truthful religion and abide by the Qur’an and Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet). Muslim scholars are the heirs of Messengers, since they explain the religion and guide others to Allah.

Moreover, a true knowledge seeker studies and reflects on the Qur’an and Sunnah and learns from Muslim scholars. This is the way of acquiring knowledge of Shari`ah which involves doing acts of obedience, meditating and benefiting from others. A knowledge seeker should read a lot, with the aim of attaining as much knowledge as possible. They should reflect on knowledge and look for answers to unclear matters in trustworthy books of Tafsir (exegesis of the meanings of the Qur’an) such as Tafsir by Ibn Kathir, Al-Baghawy and others, in addition to paying great attention to books of Hadith. Furthermore, knowledge of Shari`ah should be taken from knowledgeable scholars among Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah (those adhering to the Sunnah and the Muslim main body) and not scholars of ‘Ilm-ul-Kalam (a discipline that searches for answers to creedal issues using logic), innovators in religion or ignorant people.

Anything that is not included in the Qur’an and Sunnah cannot be considered Islamic knowledge, even if it is useful in worldly affairs. Here, we are concerned about knowledge that is useful in the Hereafter, which eliminates ignorance, clarifies the religion and shows people what Allah has made lawful and unlawful to them. Indeed, this is the true knowledge of Shari`ah (Islamic Law).

Ibn Baz fatwas

The above is an Islamic ruling of Shaykh Ibn Baz. Only the most highly qualified of scholars are allowed to issue them.

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby d spike » May 28th, 2012, 4:49 pm

AdamB wrote:
Jesus, The Spirit of Allah (GOD)?

Ruhuminhu or The spirit of Allah (Quran-Al Nesa 4:171 ) - The more accurate translation for this is Ruh [spirit] min [from] hu [Him]

Many people, especially Christians claim that Jesus is the 'spirit of Allah' according to the Qur'an, and therefore a part of Allah. However, this is false

You are quite right. This entire statement is false. Christians DO NOT refer to Jesus as "The spirit of Allah". (Where do you get this from?)
The only claim that Christians make is that Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, aka The Son of God.
Jesus (or Yeshua or Joshua) means God saves.
The closest to what you are talking about is: ruach ha-kodesh (or ruah ha-qodesh) which means the Breath of God, or The Spirit of God.


AdamB wrote:An analogy can be examined - how was the first man, Adam, created? GOD created and moulded him with HIS (GOD's) HANDS. How then did he, Adam, come to life? Was not a spirit (the soul) breathed (or however it was put) into him? Did this spirit emanate FROM GOD? If YES, then can we say that Adam is also the SON of GOD. If not, then the spirit came FROM GOD, belonging to HIM, but not a part of HIM. So, therefore Adam is also NOT GOD, just like Jesus!! Is MY logic making sense here?

I'm afraid the term "Son" has you hung up. The point you are making here has nothing to do with the concept of the Second Person of the Trinity.
I would advise you to re-read my post on the Trinity.

User avatar
RBphoto
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 7603
Joined: June 26th, 2007, 10:46 am
Location: Pikchatekoutin
Contact:

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby RBphoto » May 28th, 2012, 5:05 pm

So all you religious people out there.... let me hear what you guys do for charity... what does your church/ mosque/ temple do to help people in the comunity with their offerings? On top of that, what do you personally do to ease the suffering of your fellow man?

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby d spike » May 28th, 2012, 5:30 pm

d spike wrote:
sMASH wrote:oh spike ...u may continue...


d spike wrote: ...I will stop at this point for your feedback...

I need some feedback from you regarding what you thought about the material posted, in order to continue. That way I will know how to frame my explanation.

Without your feedback, I have no idea whether my explanation was good enough or not.
Anyway, to recap:
d spike wrote:If this Idea of oneself were truly perfect, it would take form... become real... a form, exact and identical in every way... NOT another being, NOT a copy - for this implies it is less than perfect. The SAME, not a twin - for then that is two Beings...

This Idea is Perfect in every way, so the Idea of Goodness would be Good. The Idea of Love can love. Goodness loves that which is Good.
As this Idea is Perfect in every way, thus it too can know and love.
It knows the Father, and loves the Father.
This Love the Idea has for its Origin, and the Love that the Origin has for the Idea of Himself, is perfect too!
This Love takes form, as only Perfect Love can, and it flows between the Origin and the Idea.

Thus the Trinity:
One Nature... God.
...but Three Persons. The Origin, the Idea, the Perfect Love and Awareness.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Three Persons in one God.


How did Christian doctrine get fine-tuned? Well, there's an old saying: The church grew on the blood of the martyrs... (or something like that)... Well, the doctrine of the Christian Church grew on the blood of the heretics - allow me to explain. Many of the concepts that students of Christianity take for granted didn't exist in proclaimed form. It was just a bunch of stories that everyone re-told in written form, and copies of letters sent by some holy busybody.
Time to time, questions about their faith that were not asked before would crop up... and elders/priests would honestly try to give an answer.
Many of these answers would circulate among believers... whether they were right or wrong.
Sooner or later, the entire church would be in a quandary as these answers clashed with either previously accepted explanations or with other new explanations.
The leaders of the church would meet, argue, choose acceptable scholars to consider the argument, then decide on the outcome. The matters of belief in question would then be further defined and the church would then declare the proper answer as a doctrine. (This is quite a simplistic way of putting it) Those who were spreading the "wrong answer" as truth were considered heretics, and dealt with in a most unseemly manner if they chose not to recant.
So, even though "Heresy" is scowled and frowned upon, it was the teachings of those very heretics that helped define and clarify present-day Christian doctrine.

Cheers

AdamB
12 pounds of Boost
Posts: 2234
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 4:26 am

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby AdamB » May 28th, 2012, 9:09 pm

crossdrilled wrote:So all you religious people out there.... let me hear what you guys do for charity... what does your church/ mosque/ temple do to help people in the comunity with their offerings? On top of that, what do you personally do to ease the suffering of your fellow man?


There are various forms of charity, even a smile or a kind word can be considered charity. However, I presume from your reference to "offerings" you are intending to mean the money that is collected.

The Islamic principle concerning charity is that the money that is given is not for want of a better word "lost" but it is reimbursed back to the person by GOD. So persons are encouraged to give freely where possible.

Muslims perform compulsory prayers 5 times per day. This prayer is called Salaah and can be performed at home but is also established in the mosques. You can hear the Azaan (or call to prayer) called out , sometimes by loudspeaker. We congregate to pray together following the leadership of the imam. The prayer comprises bowing, prostrations, reciting of the Quran and words of praise to Almighty GOD. There is no collection or offerings.

During these times of congregation, there is no "service" or sermon like other comparable places of worship except on Friday just after noon when there is a sermon. Again there is no collection or offerings.

Compulsory charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, called Zakaat, and is due on the persons who meet the Nisaab or minimum requirement . This charity is calculated on the person's income after expenses (savings) for each year. The value is 2.5%. It is compulsory on the person annually. It may be paid direct to eligible persons of which there are seven categories including the poor, needy, etc.
“The charity (Zakaat) is only for the poor, the needy, those employed to collect (the Zakaat), those whose hearts will be inclined (towards Islaam, by giving them Zakaat), for slaves, for those in debt, for (Jihaad in) the Cause of Allaah, and for the wayfarer (i.e. destitute traveler). It is an obligation imposed by Allaah, and Allaah is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.” [Surah At-Tawbah 9: 60]. It is the individual's responsibility and not forced in non-Islamic countries. In Islamic countries, the state institutionalizes it in the form of a tax. It is a major sin not to pay what is due.

The second form of charity is called Zakaatul-Fitr and is the equivalent of 1 Sa' (about 3kg) of grains like rice, dhaal, lentils,etc. It is the responsibility of the head of each household on every living head (person) who is present just prior to praying the Eid-ul-Fitr prayer the morning after the end of the month of fasting, Ramadhaan. It is traditionally paid / distributed in grains to the poor and needy, those below the Nisaab level. Some institutions collect and distribute but can be given directly to the needy, thus maintaining a certaining level of privacy / anonymity / "not showing off". Assuming there are 100,000 muslims in Trinidad, then there would be at least 300,000kg of grains given to the needy once per year!

The third form of charity: If a person is unable to fast due to a valid medical reason like diabetes, then for each day of fast he can feed a needy person with a meal to compensate.

The fourth form of charity: Sadaqa Jariyah ( Continual Charity)
“If a human dies, then his good deeds stop except for three: a Sadaqa Jariah (continuous charity), a beneficial knowledge, or a righteous child who prays for him.” – Sahih Muslim.
These include digging wells, constructing mosques, bridges and building schools. Anything that will benefit humanity.

The fifth form of charity: Every year muslims sacrifice animals to commemorate the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his only son at the time by the command of GOD. Animals include camels, cattle, goats or sheep. The meat is recommended to be distributed 1/3 to needy, 1/3 to family and friends, and 1/3 kept by the person. That's a lot of meat in charity!

The sixth form of charity: In the law of equality of punishment, eg if someone murders / commits manslaughter the guilty person should be put to death after the "court case". However, it is allowed for the guilty person or his family to remit the retaliation by way of CHARITY, it shall be for him an expiation of the sin. The affected family accepts the charity or "blood money" and forgives the person without retaliation. This may sound funny or uncivilized or inhumane or barbaric but imagine if someone kills you, your wife and kids now have to fend for themselves because the income is no longer there. The murderer may be imprisoned for life if you lucky, he gets fed, clothing, shelter, education and prepared for possible reformation and re-entry in society after a number of years. Meanwhile, does tanty Kamla or the state care about your wife and kids' struggles? No, they wukkin' they tail off to pay taxes to reform the murderer! Who compensates them and tries to ease the burden to them? Does anyone know of any particular cases like this? Now what if they received a couple of hundred thousand dollars or half a million or $1M dollars. Now, in my case, my 4 kids might be able to get the education I would have given them had I been alive to earn this money!! What allyuh think?

There is also charity given where it is not compulsory but optional for example if there is a natural disaster sometimes in other parts of the world.

It is not recommended in Islam for persons to beg but it is recommended to give in charity.

In the mosque I attend, we have used the facility for giving free vocational classes and medical clinics where members of the community (non-muslims also) can attend and benefit.

In these times when man has set foot on the moon and are examining the universe / galaxies, spending billions of dollars...how many persons do we see going out seeking to find persons to assist in cash or kind?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!
Last edited by AdamB on May 28th, 2012, 9:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alfa, foreignused, st7, VexXx Dogg and 193 guests