Why

[simplegifts]

It looks like you are the one who is confused. What do any of those passages have to do with the Qiblih? Fitnah which is being translated as "making mischief in the land" refers primarily to acts ranging from subversion to terrorism. The reference to cutting off hands and feet and crucifying was about an act of terrorism which had recently been committed.

recap - My mention of the verse re the later verses are the better.
You mention that chapter is about the changing of the Qiblih.
I say that chapter also mentions content re "mischief in the land"

005.032 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
005.033 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=784&Itemid=60
"Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."

 

[simplegifts]

I was not questioning. Originally I just commented that the Bible is not clear, this demonstrated by the countless interpretations of various Christians throughout the ages, especially since the Reformation. You have failed to answer this. And, given our discussion, it is now apparent to me that Christians would also be in dispute regarding what doctrines are actually fundamental!

EDIT:- I'm not sure what it is I do not really know (!!) I did actually state quite clearly the various opinions were drawn from those who would subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

I have been trying to discover from you which denominations so I could show that the teachings of said denominations have in fact taken information from outside the Bible to formulate their teachings.

 

[Fizzywig]

I have been trying to discover from you which denominations so I could show that the teachings of said denominations have in fact taken information from outside the Bible to formulate their teachings.

I have offered the thought that in fact the Bible does not, and cannot, "interpret itself". That we always bring our own presuppositions. I have offered the thought that to say that only scripture can be used to interpret scripture is false, given the virtually infinite combinations of verses. I have offered an alternative.

Individual Christians accepting the doctrine of sola scriptura have believed and insisted upon interpretations other than your own. It is immaterial to the essence of my argument what denomination they may have belonged to.

You yourself must demonstrate that YOU have bought nothing to the table prior to your own interpretations.

So I repeat. The Bible is NOT clear. Why? Because individual Christians believe mutually contradictory things, each claiming the guidance of the spirit.

(And I remain staggered by what you consider "fundamental")

You can continue to throw up a smokescreen.

 

[smaneck]

recap - My mention of the verse re the later verses are the better.
You mention that chapter is about the changing of the Qiblih.

I was talking about what a particular ayah or verse referred to, not the entire sura! Sura 2 is the longest sura in the Qur'an. It talks about all sorts of things!

I say that chapter also mentions content re "mischief in the land"

Good job of diversion!

Shall we now talk about genocide in the Bible since you want to change the subject so bad?

 

[smaneck]

I have been trying to discover from you which denominations so I could show that the teachings of said denominations have in fact taken information from outside the Bible to formulate their teachings.

Doesn't matter whether they have or haven't. The majority of Christians reject the premises of sola scriptura. The scripture is a product of the Church not the other way around.

 

[simplegifts]

Doesn't matter whether they have or haven't. The majority of Christians reject the premises of sola scriptura. The scripture is a product of the Church not the other way around.

Scripture is a product of God who inspired men. Christ gives us the canon of the Old Testament. Paul after his encounter with Christ gives us the canon of the New Testament. So you are saying that the Quran is a product of Mosque. Except in the case of the Bible criteria had to be met not just some guy saying he had seen an "angel" with no eyewitnesses or proof of any kind.

 

[simplegifts]

I was talking about what a particular ayah or verse referred to, not the entire sura! Sura 2 is the longest sura in the Qur'an. It talks about all sorts of things!



Good job of diversion!

Shall we now talk about genocide in the Bible since you want to change the subject so bad?

So yes it does talk about violence. You bring up a point, a person must be able to float between chapters to get the full picture of Islam.

No diversions, but I would like to point out that Islam can never be truthfully discussed without attacking Christianity.

The violence in the Bible was against specific people at a specific time for a specific reason. The Quran is against all non-Muslims for all times, subdue, fight and or kill.

 

[simplegifts]

I have offered the thought that in fact the Bible does not, and cannot, "interpret itself". That we always bring our own presuppositions. I have offered the thought that to say that only scripture can be used to interpret scripture is false, given the virtually infinite combinations of verses. I have offered an alternative.

Individual Christians accepting the doctrine of sola scriptura have believed and insisted upon interpretations other than your own. It is immaterial to the essence of my argument what denomination they may have belonged to.

You yourself must demonstrate that YOU have bought nothing to the table prior to your own interpretations.

So I repeat. The Bible is NOT clear. Why? Because individual Christians believe mutually contradictory things, each claiming the guidance of the spirit.

(And I remain staggered by what you consider "fundamental")

You can continue to throw up a smokescreen.

And if those prepositions are used to define fundamentals that is information from outside the Bible. Give an example.

Why can't you tell me the fundamentals some question and which denomination? Are they truly contradictory? It is just your say so with no references. Why would anyone take your word for it with no references?

 

[Fizzywig]

And if those prepositions are used to define fundamentals that is information from outside the Bible. Give an example.

Why can't you tell me the fundamentals some question and which denomination? Are they truly contradictory? It is just your say so with no references. Why would anyone take your word for it with no references?

It is a fact that many Christians see the eternal destiny of billions as fundamental. That you consider the thought of when Christ will return as more fundamental is your choice. Why is that your choice? Because of the presuppositions you brought with you before opening your Bible. It is in the culture around you, the one in which you lived and moved and had your being. There is no way such can be dropped, leaving the Bible to "speak for itself".

As far as examples, I have given you examples. You merely say that the examples given were not "fundamentals" . You then gave your own fundamentals. I then gave you examples of other Christians who disagreed with your own interpretations of what you claimed were fundamentals. Go back. Read through the exchange again.

You seek to create a smokescreen by asking for the denominations of the Christians concerned.

 

[Fizzywig]

Just as background, once again the view of "inspiration" of the Catholic Church:-

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (Dei Verbum, III, 12, 2)

(And "sola scriptura" is in fact a virtual modernism compared to the long tradition of the Catholic Church, and I would emphasise that as a doctrine the Bible cannot be used to support it)

Given that new knowledge of the times and culture of the Biblical writers is continual, then it follows that the exact meaning of any verse is subject to change. (To insist that God would not allow such is purely circular)

For me, this is one of the reasons I gave up looking to the Bible as any sort of primary ( some would even say, sole ) source of truth. It is a purely human document, no more the word of God than any other text.

(I still believe in the Living Word, another thing entirely. Which speaks of Grace, pure and simple, without small print)

 

[smaneck]

Scripture is a product of God who inspired men.

So supposedly is the church.

Christ gives us the canon of the Old Testament.

What???? Loammi will be quite surprised to hear this!

Paul after his encounter with Christ gives us the canon of the New Testament.

Uh, no. The Biblical canon was not decided until 300 or 400 years later.

So you are saying that the Quran is a product of Mosque.

Uh, no.The Qur'an is a single author work as attested by nearly all scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim. A mosque is just a building, the church is not. However, if we are talking about the canonization process, that was completed during the reign of the Caliph Uthman less than a generation after the Prophet's passing, a feat unprecedented in religious history.

Except in the case of the Bible criteria had to be met not just some guy saying he had seen an "angel" with no eyewitnesses or proof of any kind.

What "Bible criteria"? We have no idea who wrote most of the books in the Bible.
It looks like you have no idea how the canonization process took place for either the Old or New Testaments.

 

[smaneck]

No diversions, but I would like to point out that Islam can never be truthfully discussed without attacking Christianity.

By that you mean you can't attack Islam without Christianity receiving the same treatment, you are quite correct. Perhaps that is why this forum prohibits it.

The violence in the Bible was against specific people at a specific time for a specific reason. The Quran is against all non-Muslims for all times, subdue, fight and or kill.

False.

 

[simplegifts]

It is a fact that many Christians see the eternal destiny of billions as fundamental. That you consider the thought of when Christ will return as more fundamental is your choice. Why is that your choice? Because of the presuppositions you brought with you before opening your Bible. It is in the culture around you, the one in which you lived and moved and had your being. There is no way such can be dropped, leaving the Bible to "speak for itself".

As far as examples, I have given you examples. You merely say that the examples given were not "fundamentals" . You then gave your own fundamentals. I then gave you examples of other Christians who disagreed with your own interpretations of what you claimed were fundamentals. Go back. Read through the exchange again.

You seek to create a smokescreen by asking for the denominations of the Christians concerned.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why.7954743/page-5
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.

The problem is your thinking that a secondary doctrine is a primary doctrine, a teaching that a person must believe to be saved, or a Christian. For example your mention of OSAS. OSAS is not a teaching that must be believed to be a Christian or to be believed for your salvation. I do not think there are any Christians who believe in OSAS will tell you believing in it will save you or make you a Christian.

To be saved does a person need to be baptised? We do not know if the thief on the cross was baptized yet we know Christ promised him that he would be with him. Catholics will tell you otherwise but then again they use information outside of Scripture.

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? Again knowledge of the answers to these questions is not something we need to know to be saved or a Christians.

 

[simplegifts]

By that you mean you can't attack Islam without Christianity receiving the same treatment, you are quite correct. Perhaps that is why this forum prohibits it.



False.

No not all all, simply start a new thread.
You are not being honest with yourself.

 

[simplegifts]

So supposedly is the church.



What???? Loammi will be quite surprised to hear this!



Uh, no. The Biblical canon was not decided until 300 or 400 years later.



Uh, no.The Qur'an is a single author work as attested by nearly all scholars both Muslim and non-Muslim. A mosque is just a building, the church is not. However, if we are talking about the canonization process, that was completed during the reign of the Caliph Uthman less than a generation after the Prophet's passing, a feat unprecedented in religious history.



What "Bible criteria"? We have no idea who wrote most of the books in the Bible.
It looks like you have no idea how the canonization process took place for either the Old or New Testaments.

 

[Fizzywig]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why.7954743/page-5
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.

The problem is your thinking that a secondary doctrine is a primary doctrine, a teaching that a person must believe to be saved, or a Christian. For example your mention of OSAS. OSAS is not a teaching that must be believed to be a Christian or to be believed for your salvation. I do not think there are any Christians who believe in OSAS will tell you believing in it will save you or make you a Christian.

To be saved does a person need to be baptised? We do not know if the thief on the cross was baptized yet we know Christ promised him that he would be with him. Catholics will tell you otherwise but then again they use information outside of Scripture.

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? Again knowledge of the answers to these questions is not something we need to know to be saved or a Christians.

So fundamentally your own salvation is of prime importance to you. To have "godly love", to love your neighbour as yourself, is to consider the eternal fate of billions of lesser consequence than your own. "Faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is".... my own salvation.

The Bodhicaryavatara, a Buddhist text, sees deeper than that.

Hope you make it.

I really need a break from these forums.

 

[smaneck]

To be saved does a person need to be baptised? We do not know if the thief on the cross was baptized yet we know Christ promised him that he would be with him. Catholics will tell you otherwise but then again they use information outside of Scripture.

No, it most definitely from the scripture:

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16).

The Church has always held that there are exceptions such as the thief on the cross, but baptism is the ordinary vehicle of grace.

 

[smaneck]

No not all all, simply start a new thread.
You are not being honest with yourself.

Obviously you can't see the contradiction between arguing for abrogation and then turn around and say that everything in the Qur'an is for all times and places.

 

[simplegifts]

So fundamentally your own salvation is of prime importance to you. To have "godly love", to love your neighbour as yourself, is to consider the eternal fate of billions of lesser consequence than your own. "Faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is".... my own salvation.

The Bodhicaryavatara, a Buddhist text, sees deeper than that.

Hope you make it.

I really need a break from these forums.

No, I did not say that. We all know the most important commands of Christ.
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Maybe you should take a break from the forum.

 

[MehGuy]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
211 attacks with 1458 dead. This does not include the injured.

Why is this subject taboo? 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?

Are we so enamored with the thought of multiculturalism that we can not be honest about questionable ideologies?

I know some liberals are protective of Muslims. Not that they want to close all discussion, but I feel they fear a widespread hysteria of Muslims if the discussions are not properly monitored. Would be mean a little more if they were more consistent about it regarding other groups, but hey.. I guess it has to do with who is more of a minority in a given location.

I feel like I am in the middle of this issue. I have plenty of Muslim friends and many of them are very pleasant to be around, and I want to protect their character, on the other hand I can see how liberals might go too far in babying them.