₦airaland Forum

Dear elbaron,
nferyn did not answer my enquiries, and if you were satisfied with his post, that's okay. I'll find the time to make my reply as soon as I get back from work later in the day.

nferyn:
@ 4get_me
sorry to bother you again, but I still don't understand you when you're saying

I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

Do you mean that a specific interpretaton by Luther constitutes proof of the validity of Christianity?

Not necessarily, nferyn. Let's look at it this way: if I had always thought that Belgium was a town in Denmark, I would have no proof that my notion was correct. Even so, I might be suspicious of anyone arguing to the contrary. However, if someone should point out with clear proof from a map source that Belgium was a separate and sovereign nation from Denmark, I would have to change my views from my previous notion because it just wasn't in the books. In the same way, I had been taught loads of things that just were not in the Bible - such as purgatory and penance. It matters little whatever Martin Luther's specific interpretation of a text was. If I was told that "the just shall live by faith", and I found that in the Bible, it would be enough for me to change my previously held notion about salvation. This was what I meant by "clear text proof."

I do not hold the view that Martin Luther's (or anyone's) specific interpretation constitutes proof of the validity of Christianity.

Ynot:
Methink the solution is, to force em to start paying taxes to the government just like everyone else; huge taxes on their offerings/properties and, trust me you will see a whole bunch of em close down.

That will not solve anything, because more churches will open inspite of the taxes. If you want churches to close down, we'll understand that, regardless of how you feel about anyone of them. But let me ask, how would you feel if you were a pastor and people start clamouring that your own enterprise (which hitherto had been enjoying tax exemptions) should start paying taxes - I guess the tune will change and you'll sing a different song. It's easy to give advice and recommendations about someone else as long as the splinter is not in our own foot.

I'm not a pastor, but in all fairness I think people will learn sooner than later that the focus should be on God Himself than on any MOG (man of God)or his enterprise. Has anyone stopped to ask why these new generation pastors (not everyone of them, though) succeed in milking people who willingly give with no questions asked? The answers may be many, but I'd rather say that the people themselves are partly to be blamed. It's easy to be conned if my focus is on money; but if I'd rather set my gaze on knowing and pleasing God, it would be difficult for anyone to lead me by the nose into something other than Him. It's almost like a case of choosing between God and Mammon.

Nonetheless, not every church dotting the landscape today is operating as a business. For those who are honouring God, I encourage you all the more to stay true to your calling - you know your work is not crap neither is it in vain. As for those who think the church is an enterprise for easy buck, may I challenge you to get right with the Lord and with a reminder that God is watching.

So, what's really your point?

It's unfortunate that I did not see this topic before today. And I'm doubly surprised that it's only a few verses here and there from Genesis to the NT that seems to be your worry. Why? Well, to be a thorough skeptic or atheist will require nothing less than 1,189 mistakes to be purveyed from the pages of the Bible - assuming that one verse will equal one contradiction. I shall limit my comments to Christianity and the Bible, so that I don't wear you out with the additional task of ferreting contradictions in every verse in the Qur'an, every verse in the Book of Mormon, every verse in the Veda, and every verse in the _____.

I just want to know something: elbaron, are you seriously seeking truth and reason, or you're hell-bent on amusing yourself with a personal campaign against Christianity?

Whatever your own interpretation or ideas of "truth" and "reason", they are of little import to me at this point. At least, at the basic level, if something is not true, then it is a lie; and if something is unreasonable, then it lacks reason. It applies both ways - to you and me.  Now, if you're are saying that the Bible is not true because of the Genesis verses and others you quoted, wait until you go through the other books and chapters - altogether 1,189 verses.

It would help to make a succinct statement as to the reason why you're quoting the verses you did. Genesis to Malachi are contradictory, and the rest of the Bible gives you sleepless nights, not so? I'll be thrilled to see your "part 15" sequel, since you stated on the first page that we should be on the look out for part two - and you'll still have another 1,174 sequels to your campaign. Am I sounding ridiculous already? I hope not. But it just goes to show that by quoting those verses in display of apparent contradiction, you're not achieving anything personally.

I don't believe the Genesis quotes are contradictory in themselves, and it's funny that you lifted those questions from a skeptic website. Nothing wrong in that, except that it doesn't seem at all that you checked the facts for yourself in the Bible to see how unreasonable those fellows could be. You have nothing to show personally that your views are founded on verifiable convictions that you have tested in your own experience. If you have carefully thought out your misconceptions and checked your quotes from the Bible itself, perhaps you would have taken a different view and not have attempted this beggarly amusement of the chaps at the skeptic website where you plagiarised their weak 'interpretations' of the Bible . I'll give you an example:
   ________________________________________
   6. Math quiz: How many animals went on the Ark?
   (GEN 6:19-20) God told Noah to take with him on the ark two of every kind of animal to include birds, animals and creeping things.
   (GEN 7:2-3) God told Noah to take with him on the ark seven of every clean animal and bird and two of every unclean animal.
   _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, the question is whether the number is two or seven? Look closely: in GEN 6:19-20, "two of every kind of animal" clearly points to the male and the female (that is, a pair) - and this two "male and female" includes every kind of animal - whether clean or unclean. Infact, read the Bible yourself to see that Gen.6:19 says the "two" refers to the male and female of every animal.
In GEN 7:2-3, while the clean animals are to be seven in number, that does not contradict the fact that this seven should include the "two" (male and female) of GEN.6:19-20. The same thing could be said of the two of every unclean animal. So, instead of having taken just "two" camels (that is, a pair - the male and female), the total number of camels that Noah would have brought into the ark would be four. Why is this? For the simple reason that a camel was regarded as an unclean animal in Lev.11:4.

I could almost write a Bible encyclopedia to show that the verses giving you sleepless nights are not contradictory but require careful study to see their contexts. Once you've made up your mind to be adverse to something, the rest is history - because it will be difficult to make sense at all in any thing you seek to attack if that is your underlying thought.

Let me ask you one question: are you seeking the truth of Christianity and the Bible, or you've made up your mind to just seek to be antagonistic? At least, help is readily available if you seek the former. However, if your purpose is simply to attack and ridicule a faith that you have no inkling about, don't waste your time: you're attempting something greater than your small frame.

I think you're missing the point. It's a funny thing for anyone to sit back and ask for evidence that God exists. Let's take a simple premise: if God does not exist, why bother fighting the claim that He exists? I don't think anyone who believes in God owes any non-believer an explanation or proof for His existence. Why? The reasons are numerous but I give a few here:

1. The claim that "God does not exist" is as strong a claim as "God exists". If one requires proof, the other requires proof as well. If you're asking for an authority outside the Bible that supports the existence of God, you should be willing to provide authority in the same way for His non-existence. You cannot claim that a phenomenon or experience is untrue or illegitimate simply because you have not experienced it for yourself. Not only that, but the claim that "God does not exist" supposes the idea that the one who makes the claim has an all-inclusive knowledge beyond our world and experience to state that something does not exist. You must know everything from start to finish in order to be able to categorically state in the entire universe that God does not exist. When people say that God does not exist, the question we ask is: "How do you know that for sure?" Mere conjectures and arguments will prove nothing - you must have a concrete proof in the same manner that you are asking others, in order to show that your claim is true.

2. In the case of providing proof for the existence of God, I've sometimes asked people to be very specific: what kind of 'proof' or 'evidence' are you asking for? If you demand scientific evidence, it just doesn't add up because you cannot subject God to the analysis of a test tube. What I mean is that, science has its limitations and does not provide answers to questions of non-scientific phenomena. It is as easy to deny the mysterious nature of the supernatural because the physical sciences cannot tell the 'how', 'why' or predict the 'what' of these phenomena. The same could be said with respect to some other type of 'evidence' that you seek, whether Mathematical, physical or philosophical. The one thing that the supernatural deals with is 'faith' - and that does not lose its value simply because you deny that faith is rational or a suitable test for questions of the existence of God. What surprises me is that, the one thing - faith - that is the key to verifying the supernatural is the very one you have failed to employ in this question of the existence of God.

3. There are many skeptic and atheistic claims that have been made to the effect that God does not exist because the history and prophecies recorded in the Bible are myths. Again, you'll hear many people saying this because the prophecies are not scientifically testable. But wait a minute - how are prophecies 'tested'? Anyone who wants to test a prophecy by any other means than how it should be tested is being intellectually dishonest. A prophecy in the ordinary sense is something stated that will prove its authenticity when it is fulfilled. You could as well state that tomorrow you'll have lunch - and then tomorrow your lunch is not missed. Is that prophecy? No. Why? Everyone can say anything at that level and see it 'come to pass.' But that is not the same as Biblical prophecies. If you study the Old Testament like Psa.22:18 and Isaiah 53, and compare them with Matt.27:35 for their fulfillment, you get an idea of what prophecy is like. So many Biblical prophecies could be delineated, but the basic question an honest skeptic should ask here is: Are the histories and claims recorded in the Bible true or false? Lazy arm-chair refutations will not help the skeptic - you will need to go out to the very land and spots to verify if Biblical histories are true or false.

I could go on and list dozens more of why the atheistic claim of the non-existence of God needs verifiable proof from atheists themselves in just the same way that they ask the believer to provide. If it's true that God does not exist, the least you can do is stop worrying over Him; afterall, there's no need to be alarmed over something or someone whose non-existence poses no harm to you personally. But if you must go on fighting a claim you cannot sustain, perhaps it is not the believer that is afraid - but you, because you fear that your own convictions will one day be proven colossally wrong in the presence of God Himself.

You don't have to live in that fear or perturbation. God's love is real - and you can know this for yourself only by faith in Jesus Christ.

Many blessings,
4gt_m. 

Still Thinking,,,

Well, the past weeks have been quite interesting, though lots have happened to dampen the situation concerning the topic at hand. While my original topic was a bit narrow in terms of looking at religious violence and free speech, it should perhaps have been broad enough to discuss free speech vis-a-vis other social events. In all, the clamour for social justice in the wake of recent political, social and religious disturbances have peppered our understanding of just what free speech entails. I particularly like one that nferyn posted when replying to another thread: "The right of your fist ends where my face begins." Classic, isn't it? Nferyn and I may not agree on a whole lot of things, but I think we both agree on one premise: "Calling terrorism a freedom of expression is perverse." (see his post here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6236.96.html - it's on page 4 of the topic "The Prophet Muhammad Cartoons". Just last night when my wife said something that put me in my place, it suddenly dawned on me that "freedom of speech" is not the same thing as "vacancy of thought." (Don't even ask me what she said, because that might cause another 'katakata').

We should all cherish the freedom to express ourselves. That is precisely what makes the world go round. We value the right to say whatever, whenever, however, and to whoever in as many places as can be called 'wherever'. It is true that not everything we say will go down well with everbody on whatever topic - and William Shakespeare still has me shaking on how well he captured the thought with this: "I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

How far should the freedom of speech or expression be tolerated? What does it entail - and does it give me the right to be crude in just about anything and everything? Who determines what is freedom of speech and what is not?

These are the many questions that have emerged in the past weeks. Besides religious sensitivities, the question of free speech has its throes and pathos in various other contexts. Not too long ago, some reknowned cartoonists in celebrating their art as a means of conveying their message to society, are of the opinion that free speech and expression should be seen as inclusive of the right to insult anyone. Perhaps, that is why public figures like politicians and businessmen and women are caricatured with an aim to opposing their views or policies. Maybe you agree or not; but how should we interpret the deliberate or calculated insult at publicly-affecting issues, with the results of the events following that cartooning of Muhammad?

Some of us only got to know recently about, and were appalled that, British historian David Irving denied the Holocaust (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4710508.stm). There are mixed feelings as to the jail sentence he got in the Vienna trial which sees it as a crime for anyone to deny that event. If this was a joke, perhaps no one would have bothered with him. Yet, a lot of thinkers are still wondering about the mystery behind Irving's revisionist work at such a level as to make his opinions not only public, but also with an aim to deride the wounds of a group of people.

I am free to write and say whatever I want - here on Nairaland, and in my bedroom where my wife could hear me loud and clear. I am also free to run for cover when rocks are pelted at me for not exercising discretion at people's sensitivities. By and by, I've learnt that the "Zero Tolerance" sign in most buses in Atlanta, Georgia were not posted for the mere fun of it, but to warn that a law is in operation that we need to respect as regards my bus fare. But, do you feel like my neighbour sometimes who sees laws as somewhat synonymous with a killjoy in the exercise of his freedom? I'll leave it here with another quote from a great sage:

     "Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without
       penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population." - Albert Einstein.

Free speech and tolerance - perhaps that's another matter entirely, depending on what side of the fence yoou are on. 

@nferyn
Hello. I'm sorry that my reply to your thread came this late - I had a few exams to sit and did not mean to be rude by disappearing on you. Anyhow, I'll quickly make this reference:
_________________________________________________________________

Quote from: 4get_me on February 18, 2006, 01:38 AM
I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to
change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

Can you explain?
_________________________________________________________________

I was responding to your earlier post to the effect that Christians are not as gullible as many people suppose (if that's what you meant):

"All people undergo the psychological process of dealing with cognitive dissonance. It is a natural human trait to either
discard or encapsulate contradictory information instead of changing already held prior conceptions"

Indeed, if we hold prior conceptions, they are immediately discarded as soon as the truth we did not know comes to light. Take for instance, before Martin Luther in the 16th century, many Christians believed that people had to rigorously work their way upwards to God; but when the scales fell and 'justification by faith' alone came to light, many people abandoned the servile ideas of penance and purgatory. This did not mean that a new Bible was written; that truth had been in the Bible all along until Martin Luther fearlessly and openly preached it.

I would not have needed to go into all this, but just so it would not appear that the delay in responding to your post be interpreted as rudeness

Amen!!

And Father, give comfort to those who have been affected by the destruction of life and property. Only You can do what man cannot do, and we ask for restoration, healing and mutual co-existence among our citizenry. Wash away our shame, in the Name of Jesus Christ. Amen!

Re: Please, is the 'Eckankar' we sing of in our Christian songs the one that exists today?



Em,,, Can I say something?

If the question is about the correlation between Eckankar and Christianity, then my answer is that these are worlds apart. Eckankar is not the same as Christianity. There may be many admirable things in Eckankar that seem to be outwardly 'Christian', but on closer observation of what they teach you'll see that they don't lead to the same destiny. Consider the following:

1. HU: an ancient name for God?

Neither the Jews nor early Christians called God by that name (excuse my ignorance about what language the word or name 'HU' derives from; but it finds no mention in Christianity). It is as easy to claim that the ancient name for the Holy Spirit is 'ECK' , but there again it has no bearing on historical Christianity or Judaism. At best, Jesus' teaching on prayer is that we should not use vain repetitions because that is what pagans (or, the heathen) do - Matt.6:7. "Father" is the singular Name Jesus taught Christians to call God, and that is the same Name that speaks of Love - "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." (I John 3:1).

2. Beliefs and Practices

Compare the teachings of the New Testament with the beliefs and practices of Eckankar, and anyone would see clearly that they are not the same. Where in the teachings of Christ do we find such concepts as Soul Travel or the singing of the word 'HU' as the means to a closer relationship with the true and living God? Infact, you will not find Jesus Christ as the central figure in Eckankar, because their website clearly states that "The Mahanta is the inner, or spiritual, form of the Living ECK Master" who "gives inner guidance through dreams, Soul Travel, and the Spiritual Exercises of ECK" to adherents of the Eckankar religion (see it here: http://www.eckankar.org/Harold/). What does this mean for the Christian? It means that someone else (Sri Harold Klemp) is trying to usurp the rightful place of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of Christians. The seriousness of not recognizing the place of Christ in our lives is underscored in the Bible: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor.13:5).

3. Sin and Salvation

I have wearied myself in search of the Eck teachings on sin, salvation, and the redemption that Jesus Christ offered in His death and resurrection. If these are even taught at all, they do not appear to feature as prominently as the apostles taught in the Bible. The emphasis is on 'leading a happy, balanced, and productive life as well as gaining a spiritual experience' or the other. I think this is very suspect, because people may experience a lot of good things in this life and still end up lost on resurrection day. It pays to heed the warning of God's Word: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (I John 1:8). Yet, God has provided redemption from sin through the blood of His Son Jesus Christ: " Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom.3:24).

This is my submission - Eckankar and Christianity have no connection.

nferyn,
This is one good turn again that you've surprised me as far as finding common grounds for rational discussion goes. I agree with some of the things you've pointed out about the excesses of religious beliefs and convictions used by some people to cause havoc. However, I'm not of a skeptic persuasion and I don't necessarily think that the standard approach to most problems should follow that trend (I hope I understand your context). As far as 'dismissing contradictory information' is concerned, that resilience is shared as well by skeptism. If one presents an event that cannot be explained by the laws of natural science in the understanding of the physical world, skeptism at best hesitates to accept such a claim; or, at worst discards it as untenable under scientific scrutiny. I've been taught a lot of things about Christianity that just were not in the Book; but then, critical thought led me to change my prior conceptions - of course, only after I had clear text proof.

The Christian Right in the US is something 'greek' to me - but for your mentioning it, I probably would not have heard about it. However, glad that we could share ideas even if somewhat of contrasting approaches.

4gt_m.

chrisd:
Some of my conversations with Muslims here have been very beneficial to me even though I am a christian.

chrisd,


2. Christian love is based on the revelation of who God is to us - and loving God means to keep the commandments of Jesus Christ. (John 14:15 - "If ye love Me, keep My commandments". I'm not trying to judge you, but did you not say in another thread that you have problem with 'born again' believers? Yet, Jesus said you cannot enter into the Kingdom except you are born again (John 3:3,5). How many Moslems honestly believe that?

Let's be clear about one thing: any similarities you make between Christianity and Islam is superficial and has no substance. If you really want to understand Christianity, read the Bible. If you fancy Islam, the Qur'an will show more about what it does not allow about Christianity.

4gt_m.

chrisd, you're neither preaching Christianity nor Islam; at best it sounds like 'chrislam.' No honest Moslem will applaud your attempt to marry the two faiths; and those who are trying to nod approvingly probably do so because they think it helps to promote their religion - not because that's what Islam teaches. Let me point out a few examples:

1. When you quote Paul alongside the teachings of Muhammad, may I inform you that most Moslems I know have a clear disdain for Paul? Some even think that Paul was the founder of Christianity! However,  Muhammad and Paul did not teach the same thing about faith. Paul's teaching about faith is to believe in one's heart and confess with the mouth the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:9-10). Muhammad rejects that confession of faith. Why is this important? Because without the resurrection, faith is useless as one would still remain in their sins (see I Cor.15:17 - "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.". How many moslems honestly believe that?

nferyn, I still maintain that Weinberg's statement, though clever, is wrong. What you have just stated about those who perpetrated the 9-11 incident applies to the first part of his axiom, viz 'With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.' I've no problem with that so far. However, it does not follow that good people need religion to do bad things. It is all too easy to fall for that excuse that just because the guys at Enron staged a fraud they were not good initially. I think that's the problem with our learned Professor. He wants people to believe that every case of 'good' people doing 'bad' is founded on religion as the necessary factor - and that's the second part of his axiom. Dead wrong. So, let me guess: if there were no religion, 'good' people would never do bad? In some cases one calls people 'good' until they do something 'bad' - and to argue that those people were not 'good' at the onset does not sound intelligent. Weinberg got it all mixed up and I'm not one to fall for that.

4gt_m.

@ nferyn, I'm sorry to say that your quoting Stephen Weinberg severally here and in other threads does not make real sense. It is true that many people have done many evil things under the excuse of religion, but religion itself does not necessary have to be the raison d'etre for evil things done by good people. Weinberg is a physicist who won a nobel prize for his work in physics - he did not win a nobel prize in matters of faith or religion so he is the least qualified to talk about religion. Many 'good' people in businesses have done evil things without recourse to religion - the guys at Enron who pulled the largest bankruptcy in US history started out as 'good' business people, until the scales fell. It didn't take religion for that to have happen, even though those guys were 'good'. It is alright for people to express disdain for what they don't like, as in the case of people trying to blame religion for evil. Many 'good' people walk the face of the earth today who don't need religion to do bad things if presented with the opportunity. If Professor Weinberg had critically thought about this, perhaps he would have had something else to say that would have made common sense.

No. For good people to do evil things does not take religion. The Professor is clearly wrong.

chrisd, I advise that you let up on using such language on civilised people - no one's a bastard simply because he does not conform to your branch of lifeless christianity. In another thread, you've shown that you've a problem with people who are born again and you leave one wondering why you call yourself a christian if you don't know the first lesson of salvation in John 3:5. Some moslems may not act like lunatics in their mosques, but what happens outside of the mosques in Pakistan in protests at cartooning Mohammed? Really, you should have to check in somewhere for mental recess if you state what you can't defend. The question is if the Christian God and Allah in Islam are the same. If you've got constructive inputs, please do so.

Or, if you only want to prove to us in the forum that your religion is as uncultured as the uncivilised language you use, you're welcome to be my guest.

4gt_m.

chrisd:
In the same way you do not recognize Muhammad. What do you expect them to do? You're talkimng from your ass now.

chrisd, if that statement was meant as a reply to my post, I do not take kindly to your addressing me with 'talking from your ass.' Let's just be civil here or you'll have to change your eastern base. As to the question of Christians recognising Mohammed, I don't think the Bible has any reference to him, even though we respect his place in Islam. You cannot marry both faiths together as far as Islam does not recoginse the essential confessions in Christianity - one of which is this issue of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. Mohammed never acknowledged that, and we cannot recant on our faith that Jesus was who He said He was, in as much it is out of place for Moslems to recant their essential belief and cofessions in Islam. It does not appear to me that you know where you really belong.

4gt_m.

Meaning of 'father' in Islamic thinking,

nuru:
No one, insofar as I know, actually believes that God had sexual intercourse with Mary to produce Jesus. Such an idea is revolting to most minds and is certainly not held by any of the established Christian creeds. God is not the father of Christ or any other humans in any literal sense. ''

So far so good. Note that you've quoted a source that clearly states that God is not the father in any literal sense - but that is what most Moslems have always believed, because they always want to force the idea that Christians are blaspheming when they call God 'Father'; and they do so by asking the retorical question: 'If God has a Son, who is His wife?'

nuru:
'' Considering that Jesus says that he came to do nothing but his Father's will, the last definition of father is the most appropriate as applied to his relationship with God. Jesus is the Son of God because he perfectly carries out the will of God. ''

nuru, by quoting the source above, do you really believe then that Jesus is the Son of God? No matter what that term means to you, Islam will never allow you confess Jesus as the Son of God, so don't even start to imagine the excuses you're bringing up. Jesus refered to God as 'Father' because He was the 'Son' - whatever definition you give to those terms, Islam denies both of them. Try going to a mosque and saying that Jesus is the Son of God - I doubt if you will remain the same from the experience that follows. Quoting sources you neither understand or believe in does not help your arguments.

4gt_m.  

chrisd:
We have different culture here. The idea of loving father began in England. Everyone is their love in England.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23)

So, tell me - according to your archives, this verse in the Bible was written after the idea of a loving father began in England? chrisd, when you make statements, first think about them before you leave yourself open to a situation you can not intelligently uphold. If you would rather grovel under a legalistic religion where love does not exist, good for you. Born again Christians enjoy the love of the Father that the Son came to offer - and that's my confession.

4gt_m.

chrisd,
Just because you had problems with a few pastors or pentecostal churches does not mean that defines the whole of Christianity. Em,,, er,,, what about [b]alheri'[/b]s questions? You really have made some postulations that beg for answers.

4gt_m.

alheri:
I don't think anyone has said that. You still havent answered my question about the "Allah" you said was used by early christians.

alheri, lef am alone - your question is not in his history books

4gt_m.

@ chrisd I'm surprised that you can quote so much of history books but don't even know where the faith you're trying to ridicule bagan. Are you seriously seeking to know the truth or something's wrong somewhere that we don't know about? Abi, make we call ambulance for you?  Talk now befor e too late. Or just 4get_me.

chrisd:
The first preachings of Paul started on the eastern meditterranean and than to modern Greece. That is eastern world.

Christianity began in Jerusalem - Acts 2.

Christianity started well before Paul. There were Christians existing before Paul - he said so himself (Galatians 1:17). In your misconception you drive yourself to believe that Chrsitianity began with Paul. That is why I often said that you cool down and get your facts right - all the misconceptions you are posting will lead you into more confusion. Somebody has been lying to you, but it is not God nor the Bible. Read the Bible for what it says then you'll know the truth.

4gt_m.

chrisd:
That's the basic protestant fallacy.

chrisd, you've failed to show me the verse in the Bible where you read that God is called "Allah Almighty." For your information, Christianity did not begin in the Eastern Europe of your concept (no rudeness meant) - but if you look both in the Bible and history, you'll find that it spread to those regions, but started in the upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 2 - you can read Acts 1:12 and 2:5 to make your reading easier). Whether anyone came up with "God" in English or not (and there again you don't have any facts to that), Islam and Christianity do not worship the same God.

Meanwhile, Martin Luther is not God neither is he the Lord Jesus Christ. He condemned James because he did not understand its essential message at the time until Christians after him understood and accepted its rightful place in scripture. Anyhow, if you don't believe in James, what part of the Bible do you believe enough to save you if you have something against people becoming 'born again'?

4gt_m.

chrisd:
stop shunning all others with your simplistic view of christianity. You always like that, born again christians, you.

I'm not shunning anyone - if I have something to say, is that a problem to you if it turns out that you didn't get your facts right?

chrisd:
You always like that, born again christians, you.

So, why are you a Christian if you're not born again, even if your version is eastern christianity? I'm not sure the Bible calls anyone a Christian if he or she is not born again. Do you remember the clear teaching in John 3:3,5? _{Or is that also part of the books that have been removed in your campaign to slur the Bible as a corrupt Book}?

chrisd:
God of christianity and God of Muslims is the same. We just approache him differently. Muslims like a strict disciplined God and most western christians like a loving God. I think both are extremes.

And what's so wrong in worshipping God who shows us His love in Jesus Christ? How would you be blessed if your father (biological) only related to you in strictness (legalism, perhaps) and never has the chance to show you what fulfillment could be enjoyed from a parental love? That sounds like a really stale life without a hint of joy. Besides, if loving God is extreme, and you neither accept the 'strict disciplined God,' where do you really belong?

Well, God is love - even the newly born again Christian knows that.

4gt_m.  

Is that so? Okay, please do me the favour of quoting one Bible verse where God is called "Allah Almighty". If 'Allah' is the arabic name that arabic Christians use for 'God', it is clear that they would not be referring to the Allah of Islam. If what you're saying is that the God of eastern Christianity and the Allah of the Qur'an are the same, you have it mixed up as I pointed out in the 3 questions above.

4gt_m.

@ chrisd, do you really have a leg to stand on? Don't be tedious to yourself. One minute you tell us that you're a Christian, the next minute you deny the very foundation of your faith as a Christian. If you agree with nuru, good for you - and there's no sitting on the fence: you're either a moslem or a Christian. It is really absurd to associate Christianity with the West just as it is to associate Islam with Pakistan. Just you picture yourself as a Christian for one moment standing before God and saying, ",,,about God being father is not a concept I like." Whether you like it or not, that is what Jesus Christ called God - He called Him "Father" and He didn't invent that name from the "permissiveness in western families." If as a Christian I refute the confession that God is the 'Father', all I have left is the answer: "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." (John 15:23). You just can't have the Son without confessing God as "the Father" - Christianity does not work by human concepts - not yours, not mine: it is founded on the revelation of who God is in the Bible.

4gt_m.

@ Nuru, when a real Christian prays, he or she trusts God as "Father" - for that is how Jesus Christ Himself taught real Christians to pray: "Our Father who is in heaven." (Matt.6:9). Second, real Christians pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Himself taught us to ask in His name (John 16:23). Thirdly, the divine relationship established in Christianity confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God, not just as a prophet (John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.". Confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God is what Allah in the Qur'an rejects and that is why every muslim will not accept that the God of the Christian faith is the same as Allah (see Sura 4.171 - Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son.).

Now tell me, are Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God if -

1. Allah denies that Jesus is his Son and the Christian God calls Jesus His Son?

2. Allah is not known as "Father" but Jesus taught Christians that God is the "Father"?

3. Allah denies that Jesus Christ died by crucifixion and God in Christianity acknowledges Jesus' death
and resurrection?

How can they be 'the same God' if they don't say the same things? Look at it this way: in language, people confess the Supreme Being by the same name - Allah, God, etc. But in reality, Islam and Christianity are confessing two different deities, even if we give them the same attributes. Why is this so important? Jesus is spoken of in Islam and Christianity, but if you remove the confession that Jesus is the Son of God (which is something He said He was), then it is as good as telling a Muslim that Mohammed was not a prophet sent by Allah.

"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." (John 3:18).

4gt_m.

Just thinking,

In recent times we've seen the spate of religious intolerance across the globe and we are left wondering what has happened to the question of free speech. Is the violence resulting from religious protests (all types) and upheavals warranted at all? How far should free speech be tolerated? Have the recent violence by moslems done any good to convince people that Islam is a peaceful religion? These are some of the questions that beg for answers.

Readers are invited to make meaningful inputs to this thread in the hope of achieving a common dialogue across board.

4gt_m.

Softee, I get your point now, and I'm humbled even though I did not agree with you about the use of certain words. God bless and increase your faith in the truth of His word; nevermind that some who despise your choice to be saved in Jesus Christ will now turn round and call you a 'lunatic.' God is greater than what I will ever say to you - and it is in Him you should anchor your faith. To Him be all the glory.

4gt_m.

chrisd, did you understand the thread? My point is that in reality Allah in Islam and God in Christianity are not the same. Nuru seems to think that we're deceiving ourselves, so I threw him the challenge to enjoy worship in a church this Sunday (even if he went with his Qur'an). No sound Christian ever said that Allah was the Father - they are not the same. Please don't be so perturbed; I'm waiting for Nuru's miracle after this Sunday

4gt_m.

@kismat:
              All that is required of us is four simple things.

             1. declare there is only one God (once and for all)
             2. Fast during ramadhan
             3. Pray five times a day.
             4. Charity

kismat, you missed out one main point, and that is to declare that 'Muhammad is Allah's messenger and prophet.' The Moslem creed and confession is never complete without that last clause. Just thought you might know.

But let me add that anyone can do all the things you mentioned and still end up in hell. Why? Well, because salvation is not just an outward ritual - it's an inward transformation that occurs in the heart. Think for a moment about it: with the mouth one can declare that there is only one God, then fast, pray and give charity; but such a person might still have a murderous heart and an evil intent to hate other people. The Bible says that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). No 'wicked' person will enter into paradise - and that's a message for the heart.

We have goodnews in Jesus Christ: He came to change our hearts by the power of His love, and He is still offering this love today in the preaching of the Gospel. When we see ourselves for who we really are in the sight of God, give our hearts to Him in loving surrender, and then invite Jesus Christ to be our Saviour, we experience a real change of heart and the assurance of the Holy Spirit that heaven will be our home. This is more than religious ritual - because God has judged our sins in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(John 3:3,16) "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, ,,,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."

Until a transformation of heart takes place and an assurance from God settles in, religion will continue to be a difficult and doubtful way up to Paradise.

4gt_m.