Why

[Fizzywig]

No, I did not say that. We all know the most important commands of Christ........

No, you did not say that. I was merely pointing out the implication of your words. Having done so, now you quote another verse to show how love of neighbour is all important. Why should anyone consider it is all important to you, given your own choice of fundamentals in this discussion?

You do not own your words. You flit from claim to claim. "The Bible is clear". You are shown it is not, by examples. "The Bible interprets itself". It is argued just how impossible this is. "The Bible is clear if nothing extraneous is brought in". Again, it is argued that not to bring anything from outside to the reading of the Bible is impossible. All arguments ignored as you ask instead for particular denominations.

You gave your own fundamentals long ago in the exchange. I accepted one. Remember? And what did I say? Here it is.......

Salvation is by Grace? Ah! At last. But not unique to Christianity, and in fact seen more clearly by some in other Faiths that are not given to what can only be called Bibliolatry,..i.e. the reliance upon the word as text and a particular interpretation of it rather than the Living Word, the giver of Grace.

Now you demonstrate again the "reliance upon the word as text" to salvage something......ah yes, the one about loving your neighbour as yourself. That will do nicely. But does your own choice of fundamentals actually show any concern for your neighbour?

I have sought to say to other Christians here on this forum that reconciliation between human beings is as important as that between any one human being and God, that in fact one presupposes the others. This was ignored. Yet such is the position of countless Buddhist texts and teachings, (all within its non-theistic context) The Bodhicaryavatara is tireless in its insistence that the smallest suffering of another is our own, and will remain our own until ALL are free of suffering. The Pure Land teachings state explicitly that to have true faith is to go immediately to the Pure Land, yet return at once to THIS world to help those who suffer. Tibetan Buddhism has a practice of "exchanging self with other". To see another's suffering as our own is truly prominent in many Buddhist paths. "In protecting oneself one protects others, in protecting others one protects oneself". This from Theravada Buddhism, not given as a commandment, but given as that which is recognised as true once one actually begins to walk the path rather than merely read about it.

Yet here, according to your own words, no. The eternal fate of billions is not fundamental.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"

 

[simplegifts]

No, you did not say that. I was merely pointing out the implication of your words. Having done so, now you quote another verse to show how love of neighbour is all important. Why should anyone consider it is all important to you, given your own choice of fundamentals in this discussion?

You do not own your words. You flit from claim to claim. "The Bible is clear". You are shown it is not, by examples. "The Bible interprets itself". It is argued just how impossible this is. "The Bible is clear if nothing extraneous is brought in". Again, it is argued that not to bring anything from outside to the reading of the Bible is impossible. All arguments ignored as you ask instead for particular denominations.

You gave your own fundamentals long ago in the exchange. I accepted one. Remember? And what did I say? Here it is.......

Salvation is by Grace? Ah! At last. But not unique to Christianity, and in fact seen more clearly by some in other Faiths that are not given to what can only be called Bibliolatry,..i.e. the reliance upon the word as text and a particular interpretation of it rather than the Living Word, the giver of Grace.

Now you demonstrate again the "reliance upon the word as text" to salvage something......ah yes, the one about loving your neighbour as yourself. That will do nicely. But does your own choice of fundamentals actually show any concern for your neighbour?

I have sought to say to other Christians here on this forum that reconciliation between human beings is as important as that between any one human being and God, that in fact one presupposes the others. This was ignored. Yet such is the position of countless Buddhist texts and teachings, (all within its non-theistic context) The Bodhicaryavatara is tireless in its insistence that the smallest suffering of another is our own, and will remain our own until ALL are free of suffering. The Pure Land teachings state explicitly that to have true faith is to go immediately to the Pure Land, yet return at once to THIS world to help those who suffer. Tibetan Buddhism has a practice of "exchanging self with other". To see another's suffering as our own is truly prominent in many Buddhist paths. "In protecting oneself one protects others, in protecting others one protects oneself". This from Theravada Buddhism, not given as a commandment, but given as that which is recognised as true once one actually begins to walk the path rather than merely read about it.

Yet here, according to your own words, no. The eternal fate of billions is not fundamental.

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself"

Sorry you are not getting it. As a person saved by faith, the gift of grace, yes I understand the 2 most important commandments. If you do not have that faith one is not necessarily saved. Works does not equal salvation, but faith without works is dead.

P.S. Reconciliation is a part of the Lord's Prayer.

 

[Fizzywig]

Sorry you are not getting it. As a person saved by faith, the gift of grace, yes I understand the 2 most important commandments. If you do not have that faith one is not necessarily saved. Works does not equal salvation, but faith without works is dead.

P.S. Reconciliation is a part of the Lord's Prayer.

Exactly what am I not getting?

That YOU are in fact "saved"? I accept that and "get it". As I have said before, often we are "saved" in spite of our beliefs rather than because of them.

Do I not get that we are "saved" by grace not by works? That it is purely grace that "saves" has been my mantra on this Forum.

But I also get other things. But will drop it now.

All the best.

 

[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.

I thought Loammi was Jewish. Why would he care about the Christian canon? I do believe that Jews also do not recognize the Deuterocanonical as Scripture. Which non-Catholic Christians also do. Useful in teaching but not the word of God.

The naming of the canon was just a technicality. The Books of the canon were in use since written.

Who wrote the Books is a small part of the criteria. Did Christ recognize the Old Testament Books if yes then of course they are in the canon. Considering Mohammad died before the canon was decided then ..... who really wrote the verses? Did Mohammad approve of the verses included? There is hadith saying others wrote certain parts and/or influenced Mohammad. You are of course free to believe what you want.

Another very funny issue with Islam, Mohammad through the Quran verified the Bible!!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

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?

On the whole, I seriously doubt that what you describe here is happening.
Parts of the political left are loathe to speak up against conservative Islam because the loudest and most noticeable criticism from the right is so strongly intertwined with racism, xenophobia, and nationalist sentiment - and they do not want to be tarnished with that by association.

It is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, like criticizing Israel in Germany: since it's so strongly associated with the far-right end of the political spectrum, nobody engages in it except for those who *are* right-wing extremists.

Personally, I feel that the left needs to re-discover religious criticism as one of their core values and duties, so as not to leave these matters in the hands of racists and xenophobes. There's much to be criticized in conservative Islam, just as there's much to be criticized in conservative Christianity.

Even now, though, everybody stands unanimously in their rejection of Islamist extremism and the violence associated with it. Except when it happens in Saudi-Arabia, because they sell us oil.

 

[simplegifts]

Exactly what am I not getting?

That YOU are in fact "saved"? I accept that and "get it". As I have said before, often we are "saved" in spite of our beliefs rather than because of them.

Do I not get that we are "saved" by grace not by works? That it is purely grace that "saves" has been my mantra on this Forum.

But I also get other things. But will drop it now.

All the best.

That Scripture interprets Scripture. We are not to bring our own experiences to the table, use multiple passages from the Bible to interpret passages that are confusing, seek consistency, etc.

Here is an example - Did Mary remain a Virgin her entire life? Catholics looked outside the Bible to find an answer and turn it into something that must be believed. We just don't know, because the Bible doesn't really say so. There is also the tradition that says she did. In the Bible is mention of brothers of Jesus, or are these brethren. IF it really mattered in the whole scheme of things that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life it would have been stated so in the Bible.

Which leads us to the Quran and the need for hadith. The Quran says Mohammad is the best example but then a person must look to hadith to find the example. I read a book, paper wish I could remember the source. Mohammad means (Praise One) and their argument was that the this was actually a mention of Christ!

I do not believe in OSAS one of those ideas that a person does not need to believe in to be a Christian. I have faith but I am working on my faith not being dead.

Christ wants all to be saved and as a Christian that is my desire also.

 

[Fizzywig]

That Scripture interprets Scripture. We are not to bring our own experiences to the table, use multiple passages from the Bible to interpret passages that are confusing, seek consistency, etc.

Here is an example - Did Mary remain a Virgin her entire life? Catholics looked outside the Bible to find an answer and turn it into something that must be believed. We just don't know, because the Bible doesn't really say so. There is also the tradition that says she did. In the Bible is mention of brothers of Jesus, or are these brethren. IF it really mattered in the whole scheme of things that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life it would have been stated so in the Bible.

Which leads us to the Quran and the need for hadith. The Quran says Mohammad is the best example but then a person must look to hadith to find the example. I read a book, paper wish I could remember the source. Mohammad means (Praise One) and their argument was that the this was actually a mention of Christ!

I do not believe in OSAS one of those ideas that a person does not need to believe in to be a Christian. I have faith but I am working on my faith not being dead.

Christ wants all to be saved and as a Christian that is my desire also.

No, you do not understand. To begin all over again, those who say as you do then proceed to say and believe diverse things. This is fact.

Deal with it.

Discussion closed. Sorry.

 

[simplegifts]

No, you do not understand. To begin all over again, those who say as you do then proceed to say and believe diverse things. This is fact.

Deal with it.

Discussion closed. Sorry.

Please give examples of the diverse ideas. Do those who hold the views think it is a requirement for true faith?

Are you accusing the correct entity? God is not a god of confusion. It is human thinking that can and does add confusion into the mix. The cause of diversity is the people, not the Scripture.

 

[simplegifts]

On the whole, I seriously doubt that what you describe here is happening.
Parts of the political left are loathe to speak up against conservative Islam because the loudest and most noticeable criticism from the right is so strongly intertwined with racism, xenophobia, and nationalist sentiment - and they do not want to be tarnished with that by association.

It is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, like criticizing Israel in Germany: since it's so strongly associated with the far-right end of the political spectrum, nobody engages in it except for those who *are* right-wing extremists.

Personally, I feel that the left needs to re-discover religious criticism as one of their core values and duties, so as not to leave these matters in the hands of racists and xenophobes. There's much to be criticized in conservative Islam, just as there's much to be criticized in conservative Christianity.

Even now, though, everybody stands unanimously in their rejection of Islamist extremism and the violence associated with it. Except when it happens in Saudi-Arabia, because they sell us oil.

Not all Islamist attacks are being discussed in the media. If a person mentions an article about violent Islam they are accused of going to a racist, islamophobic site.

What? How is it racism to protect your culture, democracy?

Have you ever been to Holland Michigan! I have heard that Holland Michigan is no longer a Dutch majority city. Hispanics/Latinos have become a huge number, but that doesn't matter because the Hispanics/Latinos have embraced the Dutch culture, parades and festivals.

Interesting article about the change of the signage. Some people don't like change at all. The new sign is awesome!!
http://fox17online.com/2016/03/03/holland-removing-dutch-welkom-signs/

Yes, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated too

 

[Fizzywig]

Please give examples of the diverse ideas. Do those who hold the views think it is a requirement for true faith?

Are you accusing the correct entity? God is not a god of confusion. It is human thinking that can and does add confusion into the mix. The cause of diversity is the people, not the Scripture.

Good grief! I have given examples!

Diverse human beings wrote the Bible, thus there are diverse ideas. Those who read the Bible bring their diversity to their reading, thus the diverse ideas. Diverse human beings give greater weight to different verses, thus creating diverse interpretations.

Scripture DOES NOT "interpret itself" in the way you claim.

Deal with it.

This is my final response.

All the best

EDIT:- My apologies if this seems rude, but you do seem prepared to go round in circles. You seem uninterested in addressing anything I say. Not asking for agreement, but to ignore it is another matter. As far as your own point of view, I have heard it from others who interpret the Bible in ways other than yourself. You accept this, or you ignore it. Your choice.

 

[smaneck]

I thought Loammi was Jewish. Why would he care about the Christian canon?

The Old Testament, more properly called the Tanakh is the Jewish canon yet you claim Jesus gave it to you?

I do believe that Jews also do not recognize the Deuterocanonical as Scripture.

Relevance?

Who wrote the Books is a small part of the criteria. Did Christ recognize the Old Testament Books if yes then of course they are in the canon.

He never mentioned most of them.

Considering Mohammad died before the canon was decided then ..... who really wrote the verses?

Canonization and authorship are entirely different issues. The Qur'an is clearly a single-author work?

There is hadith saying others wrote certain parts and/or influenced Mohammad.

Where?

You are of course free to believe what you want.

I believe what I am persuaded is true, not what I 'want.'

Another very funny issue with Islam, Mohammad through the Quran verified the Bible!!

I have a funny feeling you got this backwards.

 

[smaneck]

Not all Islamist attacks are being discussed in the media. If a person mentions an article about violent Islam they are accused of going to a racist, islamophobic site.

The very fact that one would call it 'violent Islam' instead of some violent Muslims demonstrates that Islamophobia is involved.

What? How is it racism to protect your culture, democracy?

Islam is no threat to your culture or to democracy.

Have you ever been to Holland Michigan! I have heard that Holland Michigan is no longer a Dutch majority city. Hispanics/Latinos have become a huge number, but that doesn't matter because the Hispanics/Latinos have embraced the Dutch culture, parades and festivals.

So Latinos need to become Dutch so as not to threaten your culture?

Is there something threatening about Dearborn?

 

[smaneck]

That Scripture interprets Scripture. We are not to bring our own experiences to the table, use multiple passages from the Bible to interpret passages that are confusing, seek consistency, etc.

Says who?

Here is an example - Did Mary remain a Virgin her entire life? Catholics looked outside the Bible to find an answer and turn it into something that must be believed. We just don't know, because the Bible doesn't really say so.

It seems to me the Catholic position is more consistent even if those particular doctrines don't make much sense. By that I mean scripture is scripture by virtue of the Holy Spirit. The Church is thought to have been guided by the Holy Spirit as well. Were that not so they could not have determined the biblical canon. And if they are indeed guided by the Holy Spirit why would they be confined to what is explicitly in the Bible?

Which leads us to the Quran and the need for hadith. The Quran says Mohammad is the best example but then a person must look to hadith to find the example. I read a book, paper wish I could remember the source. Mohammad means (Praise One) and their argument was that the this was actually a mention of Christ!

You realize you're not making any sense?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Canonization and authorship are entirely different issues. The Qur'an is clearly a single-author work?

This is an entirely different discussion, but just how much historical criticism does exist in relation to the Qur'an? (It's a genuine question: I'm genuinely ignorant of the current status quo in Islamic studies.) Christian Theology as an academic discipline underwent some quite fundamental changes within the last 200 years, giving rise to scholarship that treats the Bible like any other historical document, without any a priori conclusions. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the same could be said about Islamic Studies.

 

[Niblo]

I read a book, paper wish I could remember the source. Mohammad means (Praise One) and their argument was that the this was actually a mention of Christ!

Eh??

 

[smaneck]

This is an entirely different discussion, but just how much historical criticism does exist in relation to the Qur'an? (It's a genuine question: I'm genuinely ignorant of the current status quo in Islamic studies.) Christian Theology as an academic discipline underwent some quite fundamental changes within the last 200 years, giving rise to scholarship that treats the Bible like any other historical document, without any a priori conclusions. I'd be pleasantly surprised if the same could be said about Islamic Studies.

In the case of Islam much of that scholarship is being done by non-Muslims. Islamic seminaries use their own methodologies and are more concerned with issues of law rather than theology. Most of the controversy revolves around ahadith, not so much the Qur'an. There is manuscript evidence going all the way back to the time of the Prophet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript

As you know, the same cannot be said for Bible. Also the writing style of the Qur'an is consistent, suggesting single authorship.

 

[LoAmmi]

Islamic seminaries use their own methodologies and are more concerned with issues of law rather than theology.

Man, why would anybody be more concerned with law than theology.

*checks faith symbol*

Oh, right....

Carry on.

 

[Trichakra]

Sorry i don't get it.

 

[KawaiiChristianGal]

Islam in itself is definitely not a peaceful religion but I do think some Muslims are good people... No offense here, but look at the Catholics they killed numerous individuals, Protestants, and people like me all because we disagreed with them... but does that mean we should lump all Christians in a box and say they are all evil? no.

 

[dlamberth]

Islam in itself is definitely not a peaceful religion but I do think some Muslims are good people... No offense here, but look at the Catholics they killed numerous individuals, Protestants, and people like me all because we disagreed with them... but does that mean we should lump all Christians in a box and say they are all evil? no.

I agree with your point about lumping all Christians in a box. Where I'd have to disagree is that when we look at history, Protestants have not been all that innocent.