why do people bash islam but love christianity??

Page 20 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 11:08 am

sonofghandi wrote:
The Baha'is responded to the Babis resistance by rewriting many Babi writings, downgrading the Bab to a forerunner of Baha'u'llah, the real prophet, and attacking and killing about twenty Babis in Bagdad, Adrianople, and Akka. Two of these Babis were brothers of Fatima, widow of the Bab, and one was her husband at the time. The killers were never punished and never disowned by Baha'u'llah even then. After this, the Turkish government separated the two groups, which let both sides cool off enough to allow the movement to become the peaceful and tolerant religion it has become today even with a myriad of different sects.


There were some conflicts, but there was no terrorism. What is your source about "rewriting many Babi writings"? I am not aware of any historical source which supports that idea.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

09 Aug 2013, 12:03 pm

nominalist wrote:
Greb wrote:
A person can't be christian doing the opposite of what Jesus said, not matter this is written in some part of the Old Testament or elsewhere.


Are you making the Gnostic argument that different Gods wrote the Old and New Testaments? If the same God inspired both compilations, then I don't see why it matters.


I think many Christians today are borderline followers of marcion. When one points out that god commanded genocide and murder in the old testament, the usual response is, that was God in the old testament. yet as you point out it supposedly the same God?
I actually have more respect for the marcionite theology. It may or may not be right, but at least he had a consistent theology. It beats the borderline answer of basically ignore it because it doesn't agree with me.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 12:18 pm

Cash__ wrote:
I think many Christians today are borderline followers of marcion. When one points out that god commanded genocide and murder in the old testament, the usual response is, that was God in the old testament. yet as you point out it supposedly the same God?


The Marcionites were quasi-Gnostic. However, as you indicated, they also held to the view that the Hebrew Bible was authored by a demiurge. In a sense, Marcion was a forerunner to mid-Acts dispensationalism and Bullingerism (or Acts 28 dispensationalism). However, neither of these dispensational theologies accept the "demiurge" concept.

Mainstream dispensationalists (like Scofield) argued that changes in God's relations with this world could be explained by different dispensations (or administrations of grace), not by a demiurge.

Cash__ wrote:
I actually have more respect for the marcionite theology. It may or may not be right, but at least he had a consistent theology. It beats the borderline answer of basically ignore it because it doesn't agree with me.


It is consistent, and it has experienced something of a revival on the Internet, but it portrays God as having a serious competitor.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

09 Aug 2013, 12:26 pm

Cash__ wrote:
nominalist wrote:
Greb wrote:
A person can't be christian doing the opposite of what Jesus said, not matter this is written in some part of the Old Testament or elsewhere.


Are you making the Gnostic argument that different Gods wrote the Old and New Testaments? If the same God inspired both compilations, then I don't see why it matters.


I think many Christians today are borderline followers of marcion. When one points out that god commanded genocide and murder in the old testament, the usual response is, that was God in the old testament. yet as you point out it supposedly the same God?
I actually have more respect for the marcionite theology. It may or may not be right, but at least he had a consistent theology. It beats the borderline answer of basically ignore it because it doesn't agree with me.


It's not a question of agreement. It's a simple rule:

In christianism, if there's a contradiction between New and Old Testament, New Testament prevails. Period.
In islam, if there's a contradiction between two commandments of Mohammad, the later one chronologically prevails. Period.


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

09 Aug 2013, 12:57 pm

Sigbold wrote:

And I think that most Christians would state that Jesus died for their sins. But according to the Quran someone else was made to look like Jesus and that person was then crucified. (Quran 4:157).


Let me fix that quote for you.

Quote:
And I think that most Christians today would state that Jesus died for their sins.


There were many beliefs in the early days. the writings of basilides and the Second treatise of Seth specifically deny jesus was crucified. They state Simon Cyrene was crucified in his place. They are generally taken to be written in the middle and end of the second century.

The first reference to the canonical gospels was also mid second century (In the writings of iranaeous). So they come from the same timeframe.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 3:31 pm

Greb wrote:
In christianism, if there's a contradiction between New and Old Testament, New Testament prevails. Period.


It depends on the branch of Christendom. Some Christianities elevate the Hebrew Bible over the Greek Bible. There are even some Christians who only accept the Hebrew Bible as authoritative. They see the Greek Bible as commentary.

Greb wrote:
In islam, if there's a contradiction between two commandments of Mohammad, the later one chronologically prevails. Period.


That is the same as in many other Christianities - the NT takes precedence over the OT.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

09 Aug 2013, 3:48 pm

Quote:
There are even some Christians who only accept the Hebrew Bible as authoritative.


For example?


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

09 Aug 2013, 4:41 pm

Greb wrote:

It's not a question of agreement. It's a simple rule:

In christianism, if there's a contradiction between New and Old Testament, New Testament prevails. Period.
In islam, if there's a contradiction between two commandments of Mohammad, the later one chronologically prevails. Period.


I am trying to understand what you are saying. If there is a contradiction between the old and new testaments, then either 1. God changed or 2. the old testament isn't the word of God. or 3. the new testament isn't the word of God and of course 4. Neither are the word of God.

Wouldn't Christian's think negatively about all of those options above?

I understand Islam's position.



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 5:05 pm

Greb wrote:
For example?


Some of them call themselves Netzarîm. First, here is a website:

How Christians Can Upgrade to Netzarim

Second, if you prefer, a YouTube video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Af58wnBzK0[/youtube]

Others use terms like Messianic Judaism. Some (not all) Messianic Jews reject the authority of the Christian NT. Since they follow Jesus as the messiah (regardless of what name they use for Him), they are, in my view, Christians.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

09 Aug 2013, 5:37 pm

nominalist wrote:
Greb wrote:
For example?


Some of them call themselves Netzarîm. First, here is a website:

How Christians Can Upgrade to Netzarim

Second, if you prefer, a YouTube video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Af58wnBzK0[/youtube]

Others use terms like Messianic Judaism. Some (not all) Messianic Jews reject the authority of the Christian NT. Since they follow Jesus as the messiah (regardless of what name they use for Him), they are, in my view, Christians.


According to wikipedia Messianic Jews accept the authority of NT.

"Messianic Judaism generally holds that Jesus is both the Jewish Messiah and "God the Son" (one person of the Trinity), though some within the movement do not hold to Trinitarian beliefs. With few exceptions, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are believed to be authoritative and divinely inspired scripture."


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 5:50 pm

Wikipedia??? Not an authority. I have studied Messianic Judaism. Some organizations accept the NT. Others don't. The two items I posted before were examples of a branch of Messianic Judaism which regards the NT as hā-midrāšîm (commentaries), not scriptural.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 6:02 pm

Here is an example from another page of the website I referenced before:

Quote:
After a considerable period interacting with the local Jewish community, openly professing his position as a follower of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a as the Mâ•shi′akh within the definitions of Ha•lâkh•âh′, concealing nothing, they were astounded that most of the Jewish community, including many of the leaders, even though they don't agree that Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a was the Mâ•shi′akh, nevertheless recognize that the true, historical Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a was a good, Tor•âh′-teaching Pәrush•i′ Rib′i. Ha•lâkh•âh′ does not, and cannot, prohibit a Jew from believing that any good, Tor•âh′-teaching Pәrush•i′ Rib′i is the Mâ•shi′akh! (What is prohibited, in accordance with Dәvâr•im′ 13.1-6, is belief in a NT or its Christian Yesh′"u of Hellenist Displacement Theology.)


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

09 Aug 2013, 6:03 pm

nominalist wrote:
Wikipedia??? Not an authority. I have studied Messianic Judaism. Some organizations accept the NT. Others don't. The two items I posted before were examples of a branch of Messianic Judaism which regards the NT as hā-midrāšîm (commentaries), not scriptural.


Well, from the moment you dismiss written sources about Jesus (what is basically the NT) what you know about him is nothing, besides some Roman references that just confirm that he existed.

It's like saying 'this is our holy book. It's a book on white, but it's our holy book anyway'.

Do they call themselves Christians? Good for them, they could call themselves equally Buddhists. Are they christians without paying attention to one single word of what Jesus said? Well, I'm afraid not.


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


NewDawn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 306
Location: Netherlands

09 Aug 2013, 6:36 pm

nominalist wrote:
Wikipedia??? Not an authority.


How come you are so sure about that? Do you claim to be an expert in every field written in any language on Wikipedia? Do you know who wrote the articles and who reviewed them? Do you know every specialist in every field? If not, how would you know how authoritative Wikipedia really is?



nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 6:48 pm

Greb wrote:
Do they call themselves Christians? Good for them, they could call themselves equally Buddhists. Are they christians without paying attention to one single word of what Jesus said? Well, I'm afraid not.


Most scholars do, but they don't, no. They associate Christianity with Romanism.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute


nominalist
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

09 Aug 2013, 6:51 pm

NewDawn wrote:
How come you are so sure about that? Do you claim to be an expert in every field written in any language on Wikipedia? Do you know who wrote the articles and who reviewed them? Do you know every specialist in every field? If not, how would you know how authoritative Wikipedia really is?


Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed secondary source. Better to go directly to the primary source, like I did, or to read a peer-reviewed article or book.

With most professors, including me, citing Wikipedia is unacceptable in a college paper.


_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute