A guide for guidance: how to choose your doctrine

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll save you a little trouble- Spade and I, between us got it worked out yesterday. See post 170 for the final definition.

Sure you did. But others may not agree with your definition. And your definition is nonsense any way. According to your definition, Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi are Christians and they both reject the divinity of Christ, they reject that Christ was a Messiah, they think he was just a human being. And that is a Christian?

Well, many Christians will disagree with that assertion.

 

[Cliffy]

Sure you did. But others may not agree with your definition. And your definition is nonsense any way. According to your definition, Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi are Christians and they both reject the divinity of Christ, they reject that Christ was a Messiah, they think he was just a human being. And that is a Christian?

Well, many Christians will disagree with that assertion.

Most Christians can't agree what a Christian is. As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist. All I see is a bunch of two legger carbon based units thinking they are more important than all the other carbon based units because they think some mythical being invented them (instead of the other way around).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Most Christians can't agree what a Christian is.

That is just what I have been trying to tell DHW, Cliffy. Hence my definition, anybody who says he is a Christian, is one (unless he doesn't believe in Christ).

 

[Cliffy]

That is just what I have been trying to tell DHW, Cliffy. Hence my definition, anybody who says he is a Christian, is one (unless he doesn't believe in Christ).

That is just too vague. I believe in Christ as a concept but I do not believe some guy 2000 years ago was a god because he was stupid enough to get nailed to a cross. Christ is a state of consciousness not a person.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As I've already informed you, Spade and I arrived at a workable definition yesterday. Being a Hindu doesn't preclude a person from being a Christian anymore than a person who has French blood doesn't preclude him from having Norwegian blood.

Sure it does. Being a Christian does not preclude somebody from being a Hindu, since Hinduism says that there are many paths to salvation.

However, being a Hindu precludes somebody from being a Christian. If somebody says that he is a Christian and a Hindu, the Hindus won’t have a problem with that, but Christians would. Christianity is an exclusivist religion. Bible says that only those who accept Christ are saved, they are the only ones who are Christians. While Hinduism says that the road to salvation can be broad (with different branches to it), Christianity says that the road is very narrow, and only a few (Christians ) make it.

Those who don’t accept Christ, no matter how good and noble, are not Christians. Islam makes the same argument, somebody who does not recognize the authority of Allah is not a Muslim.

Hence my definition. If somebody thinks that Allah is the only true God and Koran is the word of God, that is good enough for me, he is a Muslim. Then he may drink alcohol, eat pork, may be homosexual doesn’t matter. If he says he is a Muslim, then he is one, as far as I am concerned.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That is just too vague. I believe in Christ as a concept but I do not believe some guy 2000 years ago was a god because he was stupid enough to get nailed to a cross. Christ is a state of consciousness not a person.

And just what is vague about that? If somebody says he is a Christian, he is one, if somebody says he is a Muslim, he is one. How is that vague, nothing could be clearer than that.

 

[JLM]

Attn- DhW- were you going to explain the difference between Islam and Muslim to me? If not does anyone else know?

 

[Spade]

That is just what I have been trying to tell DHW, Cliffy. Hence my definition, anybody who says he is a Christian, is one (unless he doesn't believe in Christ).

That, in my humblest of opinions, fails for at least three reasons.
1. If Christianity is not a code of behaviours, then it lacks any fundamental coherence; it lacks worth.
2. There are many Christians who assert the historical Jesus was not divine.
3. You are too vague about what is meant by a "Belief in Christ"

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That, in my humblest of opinions, fails for at least three reasons.
1. If Christianity is not a code of behaviours, then it lacks any fundamental coherence; it lacks worth.

Now you got it, Spade. Christianity is a religion, and hence, does lack coherence and worth, in my opinion. I haven't come across a coherent religion.

2. There are many Christians who assert the historical Jesus was not divine.

Agreed. However, they do believe that Jesus was the Messiah, that he was indeed resurrected in some metaphysical manner (they probably don't believe that the dead body of Christ was animated and started walking, as Fundamentalists believe).

The concept of Christianity is based upon the divinity of Christ. Maybe not the divinity of physical body (that would be the Fundamentalist belief), but the divinity of the spirit of Christ, the Son of God.

3. You are too vague about what is meant by a "Belief in Christ"

That is because belief in Christ is vague, it means different things to different people. When people like Mother Teresa, MLK, Jimmy Carter profess belief in Christ on the one hand, and when Pat Robertson, abortion clinic bombers, Torquemada also profess belief in Christ on the other hand, that tells me that belief in Christ is a very vague concept, it means different things to different people.

 

[talloola]

Do you mean - reduce the laws and regulations of religion or just altogether as the world now is - reduce laws and regs. for all things? I think most of us can regulate ourselves depending on up bringing to a degree and whether we agree with that up bringing. How many times over the past few years have you read here (or there) where people were raised to a certain religion but now state they do not believe? I don't believe that looking at my neighbour's Lexus and pining for one of my own is a sin. I'm not pining for his lexus - I simply want my own. Now if I am pining for my neighbours husband, I guess that is considered a sin but I have to assume that as long as I make no attempt to make him a part of my life (btw - my neighbour doesn't have a husband), I still don't think I am sinning. I may not be able to control the way I feel but I can control how I choose to act upon those feelings. If I am going to feel guilt over those feelings, it would not be in a religious sense but in the betrayal of promises made to the person I am already married to. If I was not married, I would still not act on my feelings as I believe it is not my right to break up someone's home. Again - nothing to do with religion. I do not believe that God rewards us for anything and I'm not sure about punishment. I know that I have prayed for things that have "semi" happened in my life but more often than not, the things I have prayed for have always been things that were either un-answered or that the answer was NO. I know that right now I am truly struggling with my beliefs. Does a lack of response or at the very least, what feels like a lack of response mean that I do not have enough faith? Does it mean simply NO. Is there ever a time God gives a resounding YES to anything? Even Mother Theresa stated that in the last years of her life she did not feel God's presence. I think I know what she means. It's like God died and no one told us. Jesus must have too because all negative responses must mean there is no one there to answer. Funny ....... Good Will Hunting is playing on TV. I think that's what I'm doing. I'm searching for some kind of good will.

Excellent movie, I've watched it 3 times.

 

[Liberalman]

pray before satan preys on you

 

[eanassir]

Is not the teaching of God's word to be auditory, in the manner in which Gabriel gave the word to Mohammed and Mohammed did to the people of his day?

Visual teaching, as you well know stimulates only the brain, the concepts and functions of "Measure", while auditory teachings speak to the heart. Why would you do this against custom?

He who has ears, let him hear, in my teaching.

· The word قرآن i.e. Quran is derived from the word قرأ i.e. recite or dictate.

The Quran is that which Gabriel recited or dictated to Prophet Mohammed, then the Prophet recited to his people and ordered them to write it down.

So after writing it down it became كتاب i.e. book or scripture or writings.

Therefore, before writing it down, it cannot be called a written book; but only after writing it down it became a written book.

This is in the Quran 27: 6 about the Quran as dictated by Gabriel to Mohammed:

وَإِنَّكَ لَتُلَقَّى الْقُرْآنَ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ عَلِيمٍ​

The explanation:
([O Mohammed, surely] you are given the Quran [: Gabriel dictates and teaches it to you] from a Most Wise, All-Knowing [God.])​

While the aya 2: 1-2 speaks about the written ayat of the Quran which Mohammed's comrades or companions wrote on the parchments and any available writing materials.​

الم .ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ​

The explanation:
(Alif, Lam, Miem.
The explanation: (Recite To them, O Mohammed!)
That Scripture, whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who ward off [God's punishment.])​

"That Scripture" points out to the ayat that were revealed before this soora, and his comrades had written it down.​

· On the other hand, the Christ – salam be to him – said in the Gospel: "He who has ears, let him hear" which does not mean: do not write down the revelations; on the contrary God inspired the disciples following the death of Jesus to write down the Gospel and they wrote it.​

And this is in the Quran 69: 12​

لِنَجْعَلَهَا لَكُمْ تَذْكِرَةً وَتَعِيَهَا أُذُنٌ وَاعِيَةٌ​

The explanation:
(To make that [event of the safety of Noah and the believers with him in the Ark] an admonition for you, and that the retentive ear may receive it.)​

The أُذُنٌ وَاعِيَةٌmeans: the ear that listens and receives the admonition.​

http://www.quran-ayat.com/​

 

[Cliffy]

On the other hand, the Christ – salam be to him – said in the Gospel: "He who has ears, let him hear" which does not mean: do not write down the revelations; on the contrary God inspired the disciples following the death of Jesus to write down the Gospel and they wrote it.

The gospels were not written down by the apostles. They were made up three hundred years after JC was supposedly on earth. The Quran is probably of the same origin (fabricated by man). Mohammed made the whole thing up so he could control his people. He ripped it off from the catholic church and modified it to make it appear original.

 

[AnnaG]

Sure you did. But others may not agree with your definition. And your definition is nonsense any way. According to your definition, Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi are Christians and they both reject the divinity of Christ, they reject that Christ was a Messiah, they think he was just a human being. And that is a Christian?

Well, many Christians will disagree with that assertion.

So far I haven't seen anyone conform to your definition of anything. So what?

 

[AnnaG]

Attn- DhW- were you going to explain the difference between Islam and Muslim to me? If not does anyone else know?

Get Sir Portly to explain it to you. I am sure he could expound on the topic until your ears fall off.

 

[AnnaG]

If people weren't so lazy, had more self-respect, had more honesty, and a host of other positive traits, religions wouldn't exist.
There are almost 6 and a half billion people on the planet so there SHOULD be almost 6.5 billion religions and each one SHOULD leave the others to themselves.
IOW, mine is AnnaGism, you people have whatever you like but keep it OOMBY and don't be telling me I'll be doing something I don't even believe exists. That's just rude.

 

[gerryh]

:roll:There are those in this discussion that don't know what Islam is or what Mulslim is?

unbelievable.

 

[AnnaG]

:roll:There are those in this discussion that don't know what Islam is or what Mulslim is?

unbelievable.

lmao Really? I can believe there are such people.

 

[gerryh]

If people weren't so lazy, had more self-respect, had more honesty, and a host of other positive traits, religions wouldn't exist.
There are almost 6 and a half billion people on the planet so there SHOULD be almost 6.5 billion religions and each one SHOULD leave the others to themselves.
IOW, mine is AnnaGism, you people have whatever you like but keep it OOMBY and don't be telling me I'll be doing something I don't even believe exists. That's just rude.

pot...... meet kettle.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Attn- DhW- were you going to explain the difference between Islam and Muslim to me? If not does anyone else know?

In the simplest possible terms: Islam is the belief, Muslim is the believer.