Christianity: A Summary

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Apr 11, 2018.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??? Muhammad agrees that God made the earth - remember that, Islam is founded on the Bible.

    Not all Abrahamic religions agree that Jesus and God were one.
     
  2. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Islam does not equal Christianity.

    Muhammad was illiterate, and never read any biblical manuscripts. He had great reverence for, 'the people of a book.' But his poetic quotes of the Qu'ran were not an extension, or completion of the judeo-Christian texts, but given for the Arab tribes, so they could be a 'people of a book,' too.

    They contradicted much, in the judeo-Christian books.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And, they have criticisms of your view of God as well.

    BTW: As literature, the Qur'an is a truly phenomenal accomplishment. I would suggest care in your attempts to be derogatory of its author.
     
  4. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,614
    Likes Received:
    8,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is only ONE truth....you choose.
     
  5. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ?
    I made no criticisms, nor derogatory remarks. Those are common perceptions of the motivations for Muhammad. I DO have criticisms for Islam, but not in that post. I'm sure there will be valid complaints later on.

    I see islam as a departure.. a judeo-christian cult.. that was intended by Muhammad as a Faith for the Arabs.

    Islam is NOT 'founded on the bible'.. it was an offshoot.. a departure from the judeo-christian tradition.

    There is no denying the poetry and aurel impact of the Qu'ran.. which is why Muhammad said it could not be written. The published Qu'ran is referred to as an 'interpretation', even in Arabic.

    But i find the warnings and fears of offense to be highly ironic, given the flood of irreverence and ridicule for the Person and words of Jesus. Why are cheap shots at Jesus ok, but Muhammad must be treated with reverence? Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    1. Muhammad never claimed to be divine, and he disputed the historical Christian view of Christ's deity. 600 years after Jesus, he 'reinterprets' the claims of Jesus and denies His Divinity. In essence, islam is just an old judeo-christian cult, denying the core tenet of Christ's deity.
    2. Muhammad's departure from the core beliefs of Christianity is heretical, and puts him in the role of a deceiver. Islam is contrary to, and ideologically opposed to the core teachings of Jesus.
    3. Islam has never been sympathetic to, or tolerant of, Christianity, unless the power of the state protected the Christians, and that is true to this day.
    4. Christian principles of tolerance, law, seperate church and state, and human equality drove the Enlightenment, not the conquering intolerance of Islam.

    So no, i do not revere Muhammad as a prophet, but see him as just another deceiver in the long line of heretics and false prophets.

    They may be 'all the same!' to those ignorant of the differences, but there are very critical differences between them. The hostility from the conquering Muslim hordes, that almost took out Europe, remain entrenched in history. The Byzantines, Coptics, Hindus, and many others fell to the sword of islamic domination. There is NO CONCEPT of religious tolerance in Islam. The opposite is commanded by the Qu'ran.

    So the phony narrative of 'the religion of peace!' is a propaganda meme, to lull and disarm truly peaceful people from the conquering intent of Islam.

    History and reality are better backdrops for judging motives and actions, than Taqiyya.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    yabberefugee likes this.
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe it wouldn't be, if someone could explain how Jesus could have, among other things, been tempted, lacked knowledge of the day and hour of His second coming, lacked authority to grant a seat on His right or His left, or had a will apart from that of His Father, if He is God.
     
  7. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lots of people have tried.

    Perhaps there are things about The Infinite, Omnipotent, Omnipresent Creator of the universe that cannot be reduced to human platitudes.

    Perhaps knowledge of the Divine Majesty transcends human words and understanding.

    Perhaps He intended to keep us in the dark about some things, to keep us from getting too cocky.

    I don't know.
     
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False. You stated that he was illiterate.
    That's just your interpretation - NOT theirs.
    It was assembled in way not particularly dissimilar than the Bible - except that the Qur'an was written in a language in continuous use, thus making the numerous translations over the ages not an issue.
    More whining. I don't see any "cheap shots at Jesus" here. And, certainly nothing ascribable to science.
    Of course Muhammad never claimed to be divine. Nobody claims he was divine. And, if he disputed Christ's deity he certainly was not the only one - as you should well know.
    Those are obviously not the only choices for what Muhammad may have been. Not agreeing with your interpretation of Jesus is by no means unusual for the leader of a religion and makes him a heretic only in terms of your religion - just like those who lead (or follow) ALL other religions. You don't have a point here.
    This is a social comment only.
    No, this is just a conceit. The Bible is not at all interested in the personal rights or equality before the law of humans. The Bible is about human DUTY. Humans have DUTIES, then they die and get judged. We learned that religion tied with government is not tolerable, so we drove a separation.
    This is merely an outfall of your religious choice.
    There have been conquering hordes of most of the religions we know about. There were very long times of religious intolerance (to the point of death) in Christianity, too.

    Suggesting that anything like a "conquering intent of Islam" is going on today is just plain perverse.

    Today, we (as a Christian majority country and at the behest of Christian evangelicals in particular) give aid to Israel in their ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and promulgate law against Muslims entering our country. We have instances of hate crimes against Muslims here even today.

    Let's not get carried away with how "Jesus-like" we are.


    And, how did my questions about science get dodged so totally?
     
    sdelsolray likes this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure - humans would undoubtedly have difficulty in understanding "The Infinite, Omnipotent, Omnipresent Creator of the universe" and his intent.

    In fact, it seems doubtful that we would truly understand ANYTHING about such a being so clearly that a human could stand in judgement of another's religious belief.

    In fact, partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was our very fist sin, was it not?

    Yet, here we are, ready to believe that our very own religion is the only acceptable religion since the first human walked earth.
     
  10. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then you agree perhaps that it may be important to know someone's denomination, because they might make a different claim if they were a different denomination?
     
  11. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where is that wine line drawn? I doubt today's wine is the same as that of Jesus' time (and indeed different denominations differ) yet somehow you have decided that the alcohol is an uncrossable line?

    There are Christians (and non-Christians) who would argue that the tend commandments made no loophole for Muslims or anyone who do murdering themselves. It's not do unto others as they're doing to you, it's "as you would have them do unto you".

    Again, I'm not here to argue which one is right, all I'm saying is that there is room for interpretation, and the lines you draw seem arbitrary.
     
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The example was set up for you to object to. I think you do the same thing towards deism/theism, yet with animals you object, why don't you for theologies?
     
  13. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Anybody can make any claim they want, regardless of their denomination. If this page proves nothing else it proves that people don't really understand Christianity.
     
    usfan and yabberefugee like this.
  14. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Number one, I have read Clement and you haven't. It's obvious from your presentation that it was simply cut and pasted from one or more websites. If there is any indication that Clement believed anything other than what was taught by the Apostles I don't see it. As a matter of fact, a Clement is mentioned in one of the epistles (I'll let you do the legwork on that) who may very well be the Clement we are talking about.

    But AGAIN, that is not what you originally posted.

    "Most of Christianity did not accept the Trinity for the first roughly 300 years. It was generally agreed that Jesus was divine to some degree but the nature of this divinity was a hotly debated topic."

    "Most of Christianity". Three guys, five tops constitutes "most of Christianity"? "Divine to some degree"?? Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?

    This is aside from the fact that the quotes you are making a big deal out of aren't wholly incompatible with Trinitarian theology, I just think they are poorly chosen words. I always have thought that. But this is the kind of thing Jehovah's Witnesses hang their hats (and their salvation) on.

    But aside from that, you wanted to talk about Clement. What "debate" did Clement have and who did he have it with?

    (Oh, and you might want to drop the "appeal to authority" thing while you're appealing to authority.)

    "What is more laughable is the Theologians who disagree with you."
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    yabberefugee likes this.
  15. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Muhammad WAS illiterate. How is that statement of fact an 'insult'?

    I am defining precise Christianity, as given by the Founder. If offshoots and apostates have departed from sound doctrine, over the millennia, they have their own apologists to defend the historicity of their worldview. I cannot help the FACT that Islam is a heretical offshoot from Christian orthodoxy. I can only defend the biblical Christian worldview. I will leave defending Islam or Mormonism to others.. hopefully not in this thread.
    Most of your other commentaries are strawmen, built to attack caricatures of Christianity.

    As is typical in a thread like this, the Narratives come out, and all the old 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war rhetoric is fanned, hoping for a disruption of any intelligent, informative discussion. The Narratives and caricatures become the Most Important Thing, and reason is lost.. along with any pretense of civility.

    I have no desire to defend your strawman. You can go off on some tangent, if you wish, and prime the pump of ad hom in hopes of a juicy conflict, but i am not interested. I'll just stop replying, and the thread will degenerate into heckling from naysayers.

    This is just the boring and tedious part of internet forum 'debate,' and there is no way for me to control the circus atmosphere that these threads can become. I tire of the games and fallacies, and leave. The hecklers can find someone else to heckle and ridicule. You can have your single vision echo chamber, and it is no loss to me.

    I offer intelligent, rational, and civil discussion, for crucial topics that affect the human condition. If this is not wanted, i am fine leaving it to you.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  16. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would say it is important to know the historical, accurate TRUTH, so distortions and lies can be sifted out.

    If you lump truth and facts together with lies and distortions, how can you ever differentiate the truth? You are left tossed about in a sea of relativity , with no anchor of Truth, and no way to navigate through the storms of lies.

    'Denominations!' is not the issue. Historical, biblical Christianity is. There is a single, orthodox set of beliefs that define Christianity. There are also myriads of false teachings and heresies that define 'not Christianity.' They are not all the same thing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    it's just me likes this.
  17. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. This is a philosophical thread.
    2. 'Science!' threads are too triggering, for the Militant Internet Atheists. I am weary of trying to have rational conversations in this forum.

    Last year i tried for a rational, SCIENTIFIC debate about the 2 basic beliefs about origins. I could NEVER get the posters to stay on topic, and it devolved into an ad hom stream of heckling and ridicule.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/origins-the-evidence.512854/

    It is an exercise in futility, to attempt a rational discussion about origins. I don't even try, anymore.

    Thankfully , my end is nearer now than ever before, and i won't have to witness further decline of reason, science, and civility.
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course I have read Clement. You talk and talk but do not provide anything to support your claim. I posted a quote from Clement that clearly shows he thought Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

    If you think Clement thought differently then post what he said that supports your claim.



    I did not say that "Three guys" constituted most of Christianity. I gave examples of Church Fathers that held anti-Trinitarian beliefs. It is nonsense to assume that the much of the Church did not share the same beliefs as the Pope in 100 AD. Where is the evidence in support of your claim.

    200 years later things had not much changed.

    https://www.ucg.org/studienhilfen/b...he-surprising-origins-of-the-trinity-doctrine

     
  19. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is your "authority"? The United Church of God website? Why didn't you just cut to the chase and post the Jehovah's Witnesses website?
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have anything other than fallacy ? Ad Hom in this case (attacking the messenger rather than refuting the message)

    You have no ability to refute any of the statements posted and so you have to resort to fallacy.

    What is even more mind boggling nonsense is that the claims in that website are "referenced" .. so attacking the website means zero as it is not the source.

    What information posted do you disagree with ? and what is the basis for this disagreement ?
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113

    This above is not true. It was you who could not maintain rational conversation.

    Here is one post from a poster on your thread.

    There is no ad hom or ridicule in this post. Your response however is fallacious.


    The claim in bold is false. (assumed premise). The next claim in bold is also false ... we are a whole lot closer. The third claim in bold is a repetition of the previous falsehood.

    https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

    So not only is this evidence for how life came to exist .. how it could have happened is proven by exposing simple molecules that are thought to have existed to primordial earth conditions.

    Under such conditions these molecules assemble themselves into RNA - the primary building block of all life on this planet.

    In other similar experiments scientists have shown that "self replicating molecules" are created - the primary mechanism of evolution.

    In other experiments scientists have shown how membranes that have ion selectivity form naturally = a cell wall.

    So then .. your claims are preposterously false.
     
  22. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Number one, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are right, and all YOU have is ad hominem attacks.

    Here, read a book for a change:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1941...hat+wasn't&dpPl=1&dpID=51dTJKmoC1L&ref=plSrch
     
  23. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have not done one ad hom attack. That would be you. Do you know what Ad Hom even is ?

    I have proven I am right. I have given you early Church Fathers that believed that Jesus was subordinate to the father.
    I have shown you that the Bishops at Nicene did not agree with the Trinity doctrine Constantine shoved down their throats.
    I have shown you that Constantine did in fact shove the doctrine of Athanasius down the throats of those at Nicene.


    Even after Nicene this silly doctrine was not accepted by the majority and the "Holy Spirit" was not yet fully involved as it is today.

    Historian Charles Freeman states: “Virtually nothing is known of the theological debates of the council of 381, but Gregory was certainly hoping to get some acceptance of his belief that the Spirit was consubstantial with the Father [meaning that the persons are of the same being, as substance in this context denotes individual quality]


    Then we have another Emperor force the issue.

    Theodosius then persecutes other perspectives - a process which over the next few centuries persecutes other perspectives out of existence.

     
  24. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Early Christians could not have believed what you say because:

    1. It undermines Christian doctrine of God by supposing that the Divine Triad is not eternal and re-introduces polytheism.

    2. It goes against the liturgical custom of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and finally...

    3. It undermines the idea of Christian redemption in Christ, because only if the mediator is Himself Divine can man re-establish fellowship with God.

    That's what's wrong with your whole thesis, your claims, and that bogus website. It's absurd on it's face, it's illogical, and it makes no sense for no gain.

    Can you hear me now?
     
  25. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course truth is important, but the point is if you don't know the source of a comment (and any biases it might come with), how do you know your conclusions are actually the truth?

    Let's take this thread as an example. Let's say there is a parallel universe where a mormon decided to make this very same thread. They would list many of the same things as you listed, but they might phrase differently the nature of Jesus (if they regard him as a creation rather than an embodiment of God). That thread would be different from this thread. If I as a reader am to get anything useful out of either thread, I would want to know who wrote what, otherwise, I might not tell the difference between the two threads (this is overstating it a bit, I might be able to tell Mormon apart from others, but the same is not necessarily true for other denominations).

    Obviously, everyone believes that what they themselves believe is the truth (by definition). As such, if person A says that X is the truth, an observer should, rather than conclude that X is the truth, conclude that person A believes X. I agree that the truth is important, but when you write stuff on the internet, you're not conveying what the truth is to the rest of us, you're just conveying that you believe certain things to be the truth.
     

Share This Page