Why

[smaneck]

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Probably be best for another thread. Do you know if the site is equipped to handle the alphabet of Arabic language? I'm always keen to practice my languages.

I can sometimes cut and paste things in Arabic here but I don't have the software to type it in.

 

[Fizzywig]

The whole world hates Jesus and the Gospel and God.

Good grief.

 

[smaneck]

I'm not making it, YOU are. The "No True Scotsman" argument is, in fact, a type of non sequitur, and is, in actuality, irrelevant to this discussion.

No True Scotsman is the name of a logical fallacy which you are making.

Then you are aware of the later, more violent commands Muhammed made.

I'm aware that the Qur'an says that killing is bad, but persecution is worse, therefore if they persecute you then you may fight them until persecution is no more. But if they make peace with you, then do not fight against them because Allah does not love the aggressor. That is a paraphrase of one of the later suras. But it is the same sura which says "There is no compulsion in religion."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hatred and maltreatment toward those we are trying to save... this is what I meant. The Gospel is not convincing people to fear and hate unbelievers, yet that is what is going on today by professing Christians.
The people who are calling for war, for banning certain classes of people from entering nations, for the denial of care for refugees, for the forced visual identification of some religions... those people are afraid, and attempting to spread their fear.
It's not just history. It's happening now. And I want my children to understand that is not the spirit Christ had given His people.
Christ dined with those who were ungodly. I would not have my children learn to reject such hospitality toward those who need God's love.

Very Good then, You and I agree with Scripture subject to Jesus on all of this.

 

[amariselle]

No True Scotsman is the name of a logical fallacy which you are making.

Again, the "No True Scotsman" argument/accusation is a type of non sequitur.

Just as there are definitive standards by which we can ascertain who is a true Scotsman and who isn't, so there are definitive standards whereby we can ascertain who is a true Christian and who isn't. Someone's claim to be a Christian is not enough, just as someone's claim to be a Scotsman is not enough, we must look at the evidence for the validity of their claim.

This is why the "No True Scotsman" accusation is lazy and dishonest, because it allows the accuser to simply skip over all of the relevant evidence, and instead, choose to be dismissive of the valid points the person they're accusing is making.

 

[smaneck]

Just as there are definitive standards by which we can ascertain who is a true Scotsman and who isn't, so there are definitive standards whereby we can ascertain who is a true Christian and who isn't.

That argument led to their being only one Christian in the world who lived 2000 years ago.

This is why the "No True Scotsman" accusation is lazy and dishonest, because it allows the accuser to simply skip over all of the relevant evidence, and instead, choose to be dismissive of the valid points the person they're accusing is making.

What your No True Scotsman argument does it allow you to skip over all the evidence that Christians have not historically been any different.

 

[dlamberth]

The whole world hates Jesus and the Gospel and God.

Oh boy...words escape me.

 

[amariselle]

That argument led to their being only one Christian in the world who lived 2000 years ago.

What your No True Scotsman argument does it allow you to skip over all the evidence that Christians have not historically been any different.

Wrong. There has been only one perfect Person, Jesus. But there have been many Christians.

 

[simplegifts]

 

[simplegifts]

Smanek, that is also the chapter that states, 002.106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

The later verses are the most violent verses.

 

[Arthra]

I am not attacking Muslims. I am questioning Islam. We all know if it were Christianity doing this Christianity would be attacked. It would be pointed out to us that those being violent are not following Jesus's teachings. Why is Islam protected? Do we all know that deep down they are following Mohammad's teachings?

I think the terrorism we hear about and that may include some examples close by is not a result of Islam.. that is, the terrorist acts are a result of an exploitation and distortion of the religion of Islam.

Attacking unarmed civilians, women and children has never really been part of classic Islam.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle
a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle
forbade the killing of women and children.

(Hadith, Bukhari Vol 4)


Ali ibn Abi Talib was the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad as well as the fourth Caliph and the following were his instructions:

If Allah favours you with success and inflicts defeat to the enemy, then do not attack those who have surrendered, do not injure the disabled and weak, do not assault the wounded, do not excite women and do not make them angry with rude behaviour even if they use harsh and insulting words against your commander and officers because they are physically... weak and get excited easily and frightened quickly. During the days of the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him and his descendants) we had strict orders not to touch, molest or insult women though they were unbelievers. Even in pre-Islamic days it was the custom that if a man struck a woman even with a stick or a stone, the revenge had to be taken by his sons and descendants.

~ Ali b. Abi Taalib, Letters from Nahjul Balaagh

 

[simplegifts]

I think the terrorism we hear about and that may include some examples close by is not a result of Islam.. that is, the terrorist acts are a result of an exploitation and distortion of the religion of Islam.

Attacking unarmed civilians, women and children has never really been part of classic Islam.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle
a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle
forbade the killing of women and children.

(Hadith, Bukhari Vol 4)


Ali ibn Abi Talib was the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad as well as the fourth Caliph and the following were his instructions:

If Allah favours you with success and inflicts defeat to the enemy, then do not attack those who have surrendered, do not injure the disabled and weak, do not assault the wounded, do not excite women and do not make them angry with rude behaviour even if they use harsh and insulting words against your commander and officers because they are physically... weak and get excited easily and frightened quickly. During the days of the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him and his descendants) we had strict orders not to touch, molest or insult women though they were unbelievers. Even in pre-Islamic days it was the custom that if a man struck a woman even with a stick or a stone, the revenge had to be taken by his sons and descendants.

~ Ali b. Abi Taalib, Letters from Nahjul Balaagh

The problem is the vagueness of the Quran and the definition of innocence.

 

[Fizzywig]

The problem is the vagueness of the Quran and the definition of innocence.

Vagueness is the problem with all "holy books" as demonstrated conclusively by all the various interpretations.

Innocence? Once Original Sin is accepted as doctrine, no one is innocent.

 

[simplegifts]

Vagueness is the problem with all "holy books" as demonstrated conclusively by all the various interpretations.

Innocence? Once Original Sin is accepted as doctrine, no one is innocent.

The Bible is actually very clear. The problem with the various interpretation of Christianity is a result of going outside of Scripture to look for answers - The Book of Mormon, Catholic Tradition, the thoughts of any specific later day "prophet" etc.

I have asked Muslims why they can't be Quran only since they consider the Quran so complete? Why do they need they hadith?

We have indicators from the Bible what is sin and basically we do all fall short, all are saints and sinners.

 

[Fizzywig]

The Bible is actually very clear. The problem with the various interpretation of Christianity is a result of going outside of Scripture to look for answers - The Book of Mormon, Catholic Tradition, the thoughts of any specific later day "prophet" etc.

Sorry, wrong.

Those who look only to Scripture constantly dispute its meaning. Dispute fundamentals. This is fact, not supposition.

You accept that fact or take the option so many take. i.e. That they understand and interpret correctly, and any deviation from their own understanding is deemed false.

 

[Fizzywig]

I have asked Muslims why they can't be Quran only since they consider the Quran so complete? Why do they need they hadith?

Irrespective of the claims of believers, no one comes to the Biblical text free of presuppositions. The text never speaks for itself. The teachings of the various Church Fathers, the teachings of St Augustine and others, each has played a part in the interpretations of various Protestant thinkers. All these, to a greater or lesser degree, play their part in the minds of those who now read the text themselves.

It does not speak for itself.

To be aware of this is perhaps the beginning of learning, even of hearing what it actually does say NOW.

 

[simplegifts]

Sorry, wrong.

Those who look only to Scripture constantly dispute its meaning. Dispute fundamentals. This is fact, not supposition.

You accept that fact or take the option so many take. i.e. That they understand and interpret correctly, and any deviation from their own understanding is deemed false.

Can you give an example? Many of the differences don't really matter, don't involve moral issues, but are more about how we celebrate our faith. Follow Christ's example! It is all laid out for us.

Follow Mohammad's "perfect" example? The total picture is not completely laid out for Muslims in the Quran.

 

[simplegifts]

Irrespective of the claims of believers, no one comes to the Biblical text free of presuppositions. The text never speaks for itself. The teachings of the various Church Fathers, the teachings of St Augustine and others, each has played a part in the interpretations of various Protestant thinkers. All these, to a greater or lesser degree, play their part in the minds of those who now read the text themselves.

It does not speak for itself.

To be aware of this is perhaps the beginning of learning, even of hearing what it actually does say NOW.

I have seen and believe that Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. I will admit that you must follow the colloquial, definition of words used, customs, history of the times, etc to understand.

 

[Fizzywig]

Can you give an example? Many of the differences don't really matter, don't involve moral issues, but are more about how we celebrate our faith. Follow Christ's example! It is all laid out for us.

Follow Mohammad's "perfect" example? The total picture is not completely laid out for Muslims in the Quran.

There are many examples. The problem in mentioning them one by one is that the current recipient of the list will merely quote their own verses in order to declare that the Bible IS "perfectly clear".

However, to concentrate upon fundamentals.

To be saved does a person need to be baptised?

Once saved always saved......or not?

Are the "lost" annihilated or tormented forever?

How are those who die before the age of decision dealt with?

How are those who have never heard of Jesus dealt with?

Now each of there deals with very fundamental issues. No doubt you have your answer, and possibly a Bible verse or two to back it up. That does not alter the fact that various Christians will have DIFFERENT answers.

 

[Fizzywig]

I have seen and believe that Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. I will admit that you must follow the colloquial, definition of words used, customs, history of the times, etc to understand.

And as I have observed, there are totally diverse interpretations.