Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Christianity" teaches nothing. The book called "Christianity" does not exist unlike the Torah and the Qur'an you have mentioned.
Both Muslims and Jews obey God in their practices. Obeying God is the fundamental requirement along with belief in One God.
Correction: Islam is submission to God which is obeying God which is obeying the commands from God which is continuation of keeping the commandments in both Judaism and Christianity. The common ground is obeying the commands.
It is still the Final Revelation. Joseph Smith didn't bring any new revelation; he only found the tablets on which is the revelation from an earlier prophet who had traveled through Arabia long before Muhammad.
Therefore, people are not going to be fooled by the latter remark because they are the same.
Wrong in every respect. Each of these books teaches something different. None has been able to establish any claim to be more of correct teaching, revealed by divine agency or more Right than any other. That Islam means 'Submission to God' does not justify it hi -jacking the entire Abrahamic line to itself.
Your argument against Joseph Smilt applies even more to the Muslim religion. Muhammad only got the revelation from gabriel who was supposedly there before Adam. Joseph Smith suposedly got his information from the writings of Moroni who lived long after Gabriel and if Muhammed had his information after moroni, then J Snith had his later than Muhammad.
That Mormonism is the Laters Revelation is simply that Islam was spread by conquest and assimilation of locals and the Mormon religion hasn't had so much success.
Therefor, as you say, people are not going to be fooled by the use of 'Submission to God' as some claim that everyone out to switch to the Muslim religion - which of course was not what the good professor was arguing.
Are you kidding? This topic is garbage. The "professor" is completely brainwashed, and Muslims have been on this Earth for undertwo millennia and in that time, managed to erase most of Earth's history. When nobody is watching they destroy historical and religious artifacts and build over them. Where is the Dome of the Rock, the "sacred traditional" building built? Right on top of the Temple, and they have the gall to claim that this is their traditional home. It's not. The parts of Mecca were their traditional home, they moved in while the Jews had their home obscured. If someone has an older stake to the land and is given the land by right, you don't get to sweep in, plant your architectural monstrosity right on their holy ground and claim it as your own.
Jews are there by international treaty, the Arabs are visitors. This would be like be like Portuguese fishermen visiting New York right after the Twin Towers had been destroyed, and having been there all of three weeks, demanding two fifty foot bronze statues, of mackerel and tuna, be built over the wreckage. And then some New Yorkers in sympathy declare the founders of New York wetre Portuguese. No, they weren't, they were Dutch. No, they weren't, Moses and Jesus were Jewish. Muslims weren't around until 570 AD at earliest. And I believe that is a generous estimate based on their prophet's birth.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said
By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad,
he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me,
but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent
and dies in this state (of disbelief),
he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.
Well, since you post this, I presume that you believe it. Many people think that a LOT of Muslims believe it. Khalif and others seem much more peaceful. In fact, the real argument with Khalif is semantic, with some believing that he intentionally deceives, and others not, but I have not yet seen an argument with his religious beliefs.
Who among Muslims affirms truth_teller's beliefs, and who do not?
BTW, truth_teller says this about Jews and Christians, who are somewhat favored by Muslims. What does he say about others?
Each book teaches submission to God by keeping the commandments which basically means obeying God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
None has been able to establish any claim to be more of correct teaching, revealed by divine agency or more Right than any other.
You are learning fast. If each book is telling you to obey God, they are all teaching the same thing.
[3.84] Say: We believe in God and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That Islam means 'Submission to God' does not justify it hi -jacking the entire Abrahamic line to itself.
Of course it does not hi-jack the entire Abrahamic line to itself; it only associates with a part of the Abrahamic line; the obeying one.
[2.124] And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.
God knew that the unjust ones in the Abrahamic line would not be in submission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Your argument against Joseph Smilt applies even more to the Muslim religion. Muhammad only got the revelation from gabriel who was supposedly there before Adam.
Joseph Smith suposedly got his information from the writings of Moroni who lived long after Gabriel and if Muhammed had his information after moroni, then J Snith had his later than Muhammad.
Gabriel still lives but Prophet Moroni had died even before Muhammad was born. Therefore, the golden plates are older than the Qur'an, and Muhammad is the last prophet.
That Mormonism is the Laters Revelation is simply that Islam was spread by conquest and assimilation of locals and the Mormon religion hasn't had so much success.
The Later Day Saints does not mean later revelation. The revelation to Moroni is the earlier one. If you regard the Torah as the First Edition, Gospels + other few as the Second Edition, Revelation to Moroni would be the Third Edition and The Qur'an would be the Last Edition.
Joseph Smith is not a prophet but the revelation was to Moroni. I once discussed it with a Mormon friend and it was him who had accepted that the Prophet Moroni is an earlier prophet than Prophet Muhammad and thus the revelation to Prophet Moroni is an earlier revelation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Therefor, as you say, people are not going to be fooled by the use of 'Submission to God' as some claim that everyone out to switch to the Muslim religion - which of course was not what the good professor was arguing.
No need to switch as long as one is submitting to God.
Well, since you post this, I presume that you believe it. Many people think that a LOT of Muslims believe it. Khalif and others seem much more peaceful. In fact, the real argument with Khalif is semantic, with some believing that he intentionally deceives, and others not, but I have not yet seen an argument with his religious beliefs.
Who among Muslims affirms truth_teller's beliefs, and who do not?
Muhammad was sent with belief that God is One and we are to obey God. Is there any Christian or Jew who does not affirm this belief?
The other point to note is that Khalif does not use hadith books when posting on this site but the Qur'an only. Writings in hadith books could be wrong but only the Qur'an is showing the correct Islamic belief.
Given that Israel has clobbered coalitions of Muslim states trying to do just that, hasn't it occurred to them that maybe God isn't helping the Islamic side with this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
No, Allah is just punishing them for failing to be strictly faithful. It's for their own good.
Absolutely correct!
The so-called "Islamic side" is no longer really Islamic (obeying God). If God can punish the Jews for not obey Him then of course He would do the same to the so-called "Islamic side" whenever it is no longer Islamic.
The so-called "Islamic side" is no longer really Islamic (obeying God). If God can punish the Jews for not obey Him then of course He would do the same to the so-called "Islamic side" whenever it is no longer Islamic.
There of course is the Old Problem. When the faithful get clobbered, it is never becasue God is not supporting what they are doing; it is because they are not Faithful enough. So we get further calls to be more Faithful, which tend, as we see, to more extreme methods. But they, too fail in the end. How faithful does ione have to be in order to get the divine support?
It makes no sense. God ought to make sure his people win and the success itself wil lead to faithfulness, but letting them lose.
Each book teaches submission to God by keeping the commandments which basically means obeying God.
You are learning fast. If each book is telling you to obey God, they are all teaching the same thing.
[3.84] Say: We believe in God and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.
Of course it does not hi-jack the entire Abrahamic line to itself; it only associates with a part of the Abrahamic line; the obeying one.
[2.124] And when his Lord tried Abraham with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Abraham said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.
God knew that the unjust ones in the Abrahamic line would not be in submission.
Gabriel still lives but Prophet Moroni had died even before Muhammad was born. Therefore, the golden plates are older than the Qur'an, and Muhammad is the last prophet.
The Later Day Saints does not mean later revelation. The revelation to Moroni is the earlier one. If you regard the Torah as the First Edition, Gospels + other few as the Second Edition, Revelation to Moroni would be the Third Edition and The Qur'an would be the Last Edition.
Joseph Smith is not a prophet but the revelation was to Moroni. I once discussed it with a Mormon friend and it was him who had accepted that the Prophet Moroni is an earlier prophet than Prophet Muhammad and thus the revelation to Prophet Moroni is an earlier revelation.
No need to switch as long as one is submitting to God.
This is just shifting the goalposts where you like. Slap ;'Submission to God' on the last religion and claim that it means they are all the same (last revelation but one, not the first). Quoting the Quran to validate the Quran proves nothing.
You pick whatever 'revelation' suits you. The Golden plates are earlier than Muhammad, so Muhammad trumps them.
Joseph Smith had revelations later than Muhammad, but that apparently counts for nothing.
If one takes the broadest common deniminator 'Submission to God' then one can say 'they are all the same thing'. But you know as well as i do that Islam requires a nomber of beliefs and practices that the other religions of the book do not have. This is what makes them 'not the same thing'. I won't need to tell you how often Muslims pop up saying that claims made in the Gospels are wrong. Thus believing is - wouldn't you say - not submission to God. The conclusion is that the Muslim view of Christianity is that it is Not the same.
There of course is the Old Problem. When the faithful get clobbered, it is never becasue God is not supporting what they are doing; it is because they are not Faithful enough. So we get further calls to be more Faithful, which tend, as we see, to more extreme methods. But they, too fail in the end. How faithful does ione have to be in order to get the divine support?
It makes no sense. God ought to make sure his people win and the success itself wil lead to faithfulness, but letting them lose.
You missed the point; so-called faithful are no longer faithful because they no longer obey God (no longer obey the commands).
There's no point in claiming that I am faithful (read Muslim) when not even obeying the commands from God.
Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.
You missed the point; so-called faithful are no longer faithful because they no longer obey God (no longer obey the commands).
There's no point in claiming that I am faithful (read Muslim) when not even obeying the commands from God.
Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.
I think you must be missing the point here. The fact is that the Muslims get clobbered time and again. In what respect are they not faithful?
This was your relevant post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif
Absolutely correct!
The so-called "Islamic side" is no longer really Islamic (obeying God). If God can punish the Jews for not obey Him then of course He would do the same to the so-called "Islamic side" whenever it is no longer Islamic.
)
It's the same problem with the OT. the Jews get clobbered time and again, and the excuse is that they have somehow backslidden.
Why would we not think that it's down to the abilities of humans, the efficiency and technology and is nothing to do with any god?
And if it isn't apparently doing anything, why should we think it is there at all?
Oh, and by the way, where is the Holy book called "Islam?" It is simply what you call your religion, just as Christians call their Christianity. It is of course convenient that it means "Submission to God' because it enables it to hi -jack all the other submissions to God. Which is what I said in the first place.
And just I said in answer to the idea 'they were all the same', they clearly are not in the way one submits to God. If - as I said - God doesn't seem to helping Islam prevail with the ongoing beef with Israel, doesn't your suggestion that they must not be Faithful suggest that Islam is NOT the correct way of doing it?
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-30-2017 at 04:49 AM..
Reason: fixed quote
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
