Doubts multiplied

[peter2]

Is there a way that Muslims could prove themselves to you without having to re-publish the offensive material

Actually, you're right, the re-publishing would may be another offense. I think it's not to me to find a way for muslims to testify that allah is full of compassion, mercy and wisdom.

i'd just add, from the following of this affair, i'd rather suffer mercy, compassion, and wisdom from Samuel Paty, than from muslim allah.
For I assume Samuel Paty never inspired any beheading, but his

 

[Robban]

Hello Robban

Sorry, i don't know whether it's from my lack of understanding of english speaking or from something else, but i fail to see what you want to tell.
If you just want to distinguish extremists from pacific muslim worshippers, however, i obviously agree

Well, you wrote in your OP that you asked the Muslim Allah, that if He existed, to kill you.

Pretty pointless asking something from someone you do not even believe exists.

 

[peter2]

I wouldn't want to have to draw Jesus in the poses that Charlie Hebdo chose for Muhammad, just to demonstrate that I'm different from Timothy McVeigh. Nobody should die over offensive speech, but nobody should be compelled to repeat the offensive speech, either.

The 4 evangelists have obviously disapproved all what they did to Jesus up to death, however silently.
Yet, i assume they considered a duty to write the Gospel.

Besides, i certainly would have disapproved an offending caricature of Jesus.
Yet, if a teacher teaching his pupils to keep cool had to be beheaded for showing them this document, i would also certainly have considered it a christian duty (to testify of this posthumous suffering of Jesus) to publish the document myself, in order to tell the whole story (even with illustrated caricatures).
it looks like i'm not worshipping the same person as muslims do

 

[peter2]

I wouldn't want to have to draw Jesus in the poses that Charlie Hebdo chose for Muhammad, just to demonstrate that I'm different from Timothy McVeigh. Nobody should die over offensive speech, but nobody should be compelled to repeat the offensive speech, either.

The 4 evangelists have obviously disapproved all what they did to Jesus up to death, however silently.
Yet, i assume they considered a duty to write the Gospel.

Besides, i certainly would have disapproved an offending caricature of Jesus.
Yet, if a teacher teaching his pupils to keep cool had to be beheaded for showing them this document, i would also certainly have considered it a christian duty (to testify of this posthumous suffering of Jesus) to publish the document myself, in order to tell the whole story (even with illustrated caricatures).
it looks like i'm not worshipping the same person as muslims do

May i conclude, please, from the non response there's no reason for me to think i've mistaken ?

Or, may be my message was not clear enough (?)
Please, could someone at least just tell me whether it was clear or not..

 

[peter2]

Or, may be my message was not clear enough (?)
Please, could someone at least just tell me whether it was clear or not..

Doubting the issue, i try and synthetize my thinking :

It looks like
what i would feel a duty, glorifying God, that is :
the re-publishing of a caricature of Jesus,
(especially after someone would have found glorifying Him, God, to kill a hypothetic author of a first publishing)

is also :
the respectively same a muslim would likely feel offending muslim allah , that is :
the re-publishing of a caricature of Muhammad,
(in similar respective circumstances with muslim allah)

because, as for God,
the sufferings of Jesus, even posthumous, and why not through offense,
have always been an occasion to bear testimony (see Gospel)

It seems the opposite testimony prevails in Islam

 

[peter2]

It looks like
what i would feel a duty, glorifying God, that is :
the re-publishing of a caricature of Jesus,
(especially after someone would have found glorifying Him, God, to kill a hypothetic author of a first publishing)

is also :
the respectively same a muslim would likely feel offending muslim allah , that is :
the re-publishing of a caricature of Muhammad,
(in similar respective circumstances with muslim allah)

because, as for God,
the sufferings of Jesus, even posthumous, and why not through offense,
have always been an occasion to bear testimony (see Gospel)

It seems the opposite testimony prevails in Islam

May i suggest the non convinced reader to meditate the following Scripture :

Gal 6, 14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

 

[PloverWing]

May i conclude, please, from the non response there's no reason for me to think i've mistaken ?

My lack of response was because 1) CF didn't let me post anything for a few days, and 2) I feel like I've probably said everything I have to say on the subject, and we may just "agree to disagree".

I may not be following your argument. Holding up the example of a noble martyr from my own faith (as in Jesus' death) seems quite different from ridiculing my own faith (as in the cartoon).

[ Note that CF is still glitchy for me, so I may go silent again. ]

 

[joechristianwarrior]

That is an interesting thought. I know 1 Corinthians 11:4, but I feel badly if I pray without my head covered. It is definitely a sign of submission to God. I’m Messianic and male. The priest and Levites covered their heads in the Temple, why would Paul say otherwise? Enough things have gone on in my head that a little dishonor sees justified.

How does that fit with the command to "pray without ceasing"? Are women to keep their heads covered at all times?

 

[Jerry N.]

How does that fit with the command to "pray without ceasing"? Are women to keep their heads covered at all times?

I think that “praying without ceasing” is more of a mindset of remembering God in all things than formal praying. Let’s say I’m sitting at my kitchen table and look out at the beautiful sunrise, I would probably thank God for it without reaching for a hat or yarmulke, but formal prayers over food or in the morning or evening require more focus and the head covering helps. I really don’t think God minds either way, but the head covering reminds me of submission to God. I think my wife probably does the same, but I haven’t walked in on her when she is praying privately. However, I have seen her close her eyes and bow her head for a moment without a head covering in stressful situations. In a congregation, one should follow the convention of those present as not to project what some might think is false piety. Outside of situations when the focus is on praising God, I don’t think a woman must cover her head at all times. I might be mistaken, but I think Paul had particular situations and cultures in mind. We had the pleasure of living in Egypt for a while, and my wife always kept her head covered outside our home.

 

[peter2]

Holding up the example of a noble martyr from my own faith (as in Jesus' death) seems quite different from ridiculing my own faith

i hardly understand your thinking :
Doesn't any christian proclaiming the Gospel affirms an apparent and then, ridiculous testimony of Christ's invisible kingship through a visible and ridiculing death on the cross ?
(I happen to be acquainted with a non believer teaching his children christian faith is comparable to santa claus believing of children, but for grown ups)
Is it not the will of Jesus to ridicule the believing in a strong Messiah, through ridiculing this strength crucified with him ?

 

[Jerry N.]

i hardly understand your thinking :
Doesn't any christian proclaiming the Gospel affirms an apparent and then, ridiculous testimony of Christ's invisible kingship through a visible and ridiculing death on the cross ?
(I happen to be acquainted with a non believer teaching his children christian faith is comparable to santa claus believing of children, but for grown ups)
Is it not the will of Jesus to ridicule the believing in a strong Messiah, through ridiculing this strength crucified with him ?

Forgive me, but I have no idea what you are writing about. I have read all of the previous posts and I’m confused. I don’t agree with Islam or Hinduism, but I would not ridicule anybody’s faith except Luciferianism, which I would probably keep to myself. Most religions are seeking a relationship with God, and that is noble even if misguided.

 

[peter2]

i hardly understand your thinking :
Doesn't any christian proclaiming the Gospel affirms an apparent and then, ridiculous testimony of Christ's invisible kingship through a visible and ridiculing death on the cross ?
(I happen to be acquainted with a non believer teaching his children christian faith is comparable to santa claus believing of children, but for grown ups)
Is it not the will of Jesus to ridicule the believing in a strong Messiah, through ridiculing this strength crucified with him ?

So that for me, i wouldn't feel as a ridiculing thing the re-publishing of an offensive caricature of Jesus. It would bear a testimony that someone (the caricaturist) tries to ridicule him, but fails, for the true believers believe this ultimate posthumous and post resurrection suffering of thorn does serve God's glory

 

[peter2]

Forgive me, but I have no idea what you are writing about. I have read all of the previous posts and I’m confused. I don’t agree with Islam or Hinduism, but I would not ridicule anybody’s faith except Luciferianism, which I would probably keep to myself. Most religions are seeking a relationship with God, and that is noble even if misguided.

Hello Jerry. Sorry if this might be disturbing

I don't want to ridicule any faith but may be one in a strong Messiah; this ridiculing Jesus himself achieves perfectly on the cross.
It's at the heart of my relationship with God

 

[Jerry N.]

Hello Jerry. Sorry if this might be disturbing

I don't want to ridicule any faith but may be one in a strong Messiah; this ridiculing Jesus himself achieves perfectly on the cross.
It's at the heart of my relationship with God

I’m not disturbed. The ridicule of Christ on the cross came from Satan and the evil in the hearts of mankind. Evil has always ridiculed good, but some people ridicule everything to make themselves feel strong or smart. I still don’t understand your point.

 

[peter2]

I have no idea what you are writing about. I have read all of the previous posts and I’m confused

i mean people (worldly ones) might think it is ridiculous to believe someone (Jesus) dead crucified could be a powerful God. That's what you just wrote. it's ok

The ridicule of Christ on the cross came from Satan and the evil in the hearts of mankind

I'd rather say : the ridicule of Christ on the cross might come from God trying to teach men not to fear looking ridiculous.
I believe such is God's and Christ's glory.
And this also is what i was trying to tell to PloverWing, to bear testimony God's fully different from muslim allah

 

[Jerry N.]

i mean people (worldly ones) might think it is ridiculous to believe someone (Jesus) dead crucified could be a powerful God. That's what you just wrote. it's ok

I'd rather say : the ridicule of Christ on the cross might come from God trying to teach men not to fear looking ridiculous.
I believe such is God's and Christ's glory.
And this also is what i was trying to tell to PloverWing, to bear testimony God's fully different from muslim allah

The fact that God can take an evil or bad situation and turn it for His purpose doesn’t mean God meant for it to happen. God did not want Adam and Eve to sin. He takes no pleasure in death, but He used all these things for His glory, because Christ overcame death and evil. We should follow Christ even if people laugh at us and should follow His example, but God does not condone sin.

 

[peter2]

The fact that God can take an evil or bad situation and turn it for His purpose doesn’t mean God meant for it to happen. God did not want Adam and Eve to sin. He takes no pleasure in death, but He used all these things for His glory, because Christ overcame death and evil. We should follow Christ even if people laugh at us and should follow His example, but God does not condone sin.

It looks like we agree, or does it come from my imperfect understanding of english speaking ?

 

[Jerry N.]

It looks like we agree, or does it come from my imperfect understanding of english speaking ?

Your English does make understanding your writing a bit more difficult, but it is not too bad, and it is commendable that you are able to write posts in English on difficult subjects.

 

[peter2]

Your English does make understanding your writing a bit more difficult, but it is not too bad, and it is commendable that you are able to write posts in English on difficult subjects.

Thank you
May be the whole of my belief lies in :

the ridicule of Christ on the cross might come from God trying to teach men not to fear looking ridiculous, since Jesus didn't fear to let his messianity look ridicule.

I believe such is God's and Christ's glory.

So that whatever offense, ridiculous or else, they may add to Christ's sufferings, it 'll turn to God's glory

 

[peter2]

Peter2 >
May be the whole of my belief lies in :

the ridicule of Christ on the cross might come from God trying to teach men not to fear looking ridiculous, since Jesus didn't fear to let his messianity look ridicule.

I believe such is God's and Christ's glory.

So that whatever offense, ridiculous or else, they may add to Christ's sufferings, it 'll turn to God's glory

I haven't reached the point of no return, but I suppose that the above quote nevertheless has a testamentary dimension.

Here is my motivation:

As truth seems to be less and less accepted these days, in favor of a supposed decorum, I wanted to re-express, in this last thread, my appreciation for the moderators for their flexibility.

The subject is indeed difficult, since I am expressing my feelings, which are that no Muslim would consider republishing the offensive cartoons of Mohammed that led to the beheading of Samuel Paty.

As for me,
I think it would be to God's honor if I republished the satirical representations of the Last Supper by the transvestites at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympics, if one of them had been beheaded by a christian.
Indeed, the message of the cross is that any humiliation of Jesus, even posthumous, even post-resurrection, is absorbed by the glory of the resurrection.
Thus,
what in my eyes would truly defile the cross would be this possible beheading. The parody of the transvestites, in comparison, is nothing but ignorance.

Conclusion:
My idea of God's honor is diametrically opposed to the idea that Muslims have of the honor of their god.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)