Sharia law vs. Christian law

by Charlatan Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:07 am

First topic message reminder :

This is what divides the world. Only in north and south america is this topic not really important, but the rest of the world fights tooth and nail over this. If we could find a happy medium, then there would be nearly global peace! So off we go to find the meeting point...

I find that abrahamic laws are pretty societal. If we take away from them, well we could lose out with divorce or whatever that is, and in the opinion of world peace it is pretty hard to make people worship god. Other than that it must remain, but could we add to it for these countries? I wouldn't be surprised if in London some happy go lucky bomber targets markets or something, so we need to 'get sharia law in' to 'keep it out.' If there are enough sharia law places then there will be no world terror, i figure - well not in these proportions.

What do we know about sharia law? Does it say you must kill? Does it say you must steal? Does it upset society? It does none of these things, so what is wrong with it??? People are fighting in north africa and he middle east, with concern coming from europe and eastern asia. The muslims have spread far and wide, and where they are impoverished they will not sell out on religion to the abrahamic laws only. The best thing to do is get more information on how to give the people this. It happens in iran and saudi arabia at least. Maybe a thing to consider would be why are the poor so willing to fight for what they believe in?

The poor often have little to do with luxury. The more luxury you have the less you fight! You see this in america too, at least, where the republicans are usually the poorer people an are also very religious. Could it be that money breeds sin? Surely not... right?

If we were to look at this from a psychological stand point, we would observe that poor people have less to be happy with, but, have the time to spend with family, strangely. For some reason they have a happy family typically when in the rural areas. Would it be that demolishing all churches would satisfy this need for peace? I hope not, let's get back to the psyche? If the person who has less loves more, then maybe there should be more wealth distribution. This will occupy the minds of all these rural people and then they would be happier, distanced from their loved ones. I understand also that families in the middle class have a lot of love, but time spent with them is less compared to the rural people. What is it about being impoverished that makes people think their lives are not worth anything, and the lives of others are also not worth anything?

Maybe what is needed is a lot of love? Imagine a radio station that is tuned to gospel music all day long? This simple luxury could be what is missing in the lives of the rural people. I know in my country south africa they go madd for gospel in the rural areas, so why not try that in other muslim areas? Al jazeer is still in business, so they must support local stuff. Imagine a muslim radio station that plays muslim worship songs all day long. Think how important the music is to people that go to concerts and watch mtv, buy cds and go to night clubs or trendy restaurants to listen to music? Music must be the way to get to these people and relax and soothe them...

So is it a case of sharia vs. abrahamic laws? Is it that simple, or are the people not exposed to enough of their desire to feel with god at all times? I guarantee you that feeling as if god is with them more they will relax more, dance more, feel better.

But now it is a politcal thing! The west wants to 'domesticate' the east. The problem with that is that there is already a identity that exists out there in the outback, and that it wants to remain there. I am sure with some gospel music there would be great strides forwards.

by trevorw2539 Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:10 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Maya Law involved priests tearing out the hearts of sacrificial victims, which probably stopped a lot of argument.

Origin of the term 'Don't lose heart'? Smile

by bambu Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:17 am

Then there's the emotional magic of Dreamtime law...40,000+ years old;

As some American ladies on Oprah's tour discovered:

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Ultimate-Viewers-Watch-the-Sun-Rise-Over-Uluru-Video

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Sunset-at-Uluru-Video

by Shirina Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:31 pm

Origin of the term 'Don't lose heart'?

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:32 pm

Sharia law vs. Christian law

Now might be a good oportunity to receive comment from someone who understands Sharia Law. To redress the balance of the thread.

by bambu Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:27 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Sharia law vs. Christian law

Now might be a good oportunity to receive comment from someone who understands Sharia Law. To redress the balance of the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Sharia law (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also Islamic law, قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the moral code and religious law of Islam.

There are two primary sources of Islamic law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Where it has official status, sharia is interpreted by Islamic judges (qadis) with varying responsibilities for the religious leaders (imams). For questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, they extend the application of sharia through consensus of the religious scholars (ulama) thought to embody the consensus of the Muslim Community (ijma). Islamic jurisprudence will also sometimes incorporate analogies from the Quran and Sunnah through qiyas, though Shia jurists prefer reasoning ('aql) to analogy.

#####

Seems the Islamic judges, Imams, religious scholars, consensus of Muslim communities, and Shia jurists decide what exactly Sharia law is, depending on the location.

IMO, Sharia law is for Muslim countries...and Christian law is for Christian countries.
..and Sharia law should never be allowed in any form in Christian countries.
Any Muslims in Christian countries who want to live under Sharia law should go live in Muslim countries.

Yes I know..."there is no such thing as a Christian country".
Well there should be.

by trevorw2539 Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:46 pm

RoC.

Jesus, these duplicitous folks were attempting to trip Jesus up. If Jesus had said “stone her” these folks would have cried out “this man contrary to Roman law”, which said that only Rome could authorize executions. If he had said “don’t stone her”, these folks would have cried out “this man teaches contrary to Moses’ law.”

I agree with the above facts but have my doubts as to Jesus re-action. I think he simply waited for his words to sink in to test their re-action. If you look through the NT and gospels the Jews had been ready to stone Jesus before. John 10v31 (the term 'again' suggest they had already tried). And they had thought about it again Luke 10v6. Why hesitate now.

They killed Stephen and got away with it, probably while the Romans were preoccupied with more serious matters like a change of Governor. Josephus records another stoning. Also the stoning of James the Just.

Providing a stoning did not lead to death and did not cause a riot, the Romans would have not been particularly interested. The Sanhedrin had its own 'soldiers' and was left to 'rule' the people in religious matters. Until decades later of course.

Of course that's only my opinion, and yours is just as valid. Smile

by ROB Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:40 am

Trevor,

Consider this…

Greek Bible

Now the chief priests and the whole council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put him to death. They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’”

The high priest stood up and said to him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against you?”

But Jesus kept silent.

And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

Matthew 26:59-66

… and this…

Greek Bible

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him [Stephen].

But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him with one impulse. When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul. They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 7:54-60

Stephen humbles me. That man was a Christian!

It seems, my brother, that Jews were willing to violate Roman law when it came to blasphemy. Jesus said, “You have said it yourself”, Tyndale’s translation, “Thou hast said”, and that was enough for the chief priest to tear his robes, an action indicating extreme despair and hopelessness, which a chief priest was not supposed to ever feel except in the presence of someone who blasphemes the LORD God, YHVH Elohim, the Creator, Author, Owner, and Sovereign of all existence.

All Stephen did was tell some folks about Jesus. Same response, for the same reason. Blasphemy, in their eyes, the exception to the rule.

by trevorw2539 Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:24 am

RoC. quote.

It seems, my brother, that Jews were willing to violate Roman law when it came to blasphemy. Jesus said, “You have said it yourself”, Tyndale’s translation, “Thou hast said”, and that was enough for the chief priest to tear his robes, an action indicating extreme despair and hopelessness, which a chief priest was not supposed to ever feel except in the presence of someone who blasphemes the LORD God, YHVH Elohim, the Creator, Author, Owner, and Sovereign of all existence.

Then why the difference between Jesus and Stephen? Jesus they take to the Roman authorities, Stephen they stone. The Romans must have known what was happening, a mob dragging Stephen through the streets out of the city, and then stoning him to death.

Unless they were occupied elsewhere with another 'Messiah' (rebel Jew) who had built up a following of men and needed dealing with. Or a new Governor, which fits in well with the sudden change of High Priest between Jesus trial and Stephen's murder. The high Priest being appointed by the Roman governor.

Many high Priests were simply there for the position rather than religion. If not, how could a Sadducee ever become a High Priest, and yet they were.

In any case, what is blaphemy? 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord the God in vain.'

Leviticus 24 gives an example of the definition of blasphemy. By the time of Christ it has come to mean other things.

Whilst I would enjoy debating on here with you, I fear others would soon be bored. And we should not 'hog' the thread with our beliefs and interpretations.

Please feel free to comment. And we'll leave it there, to the relief of the other posters. Smile

by ROB Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:54 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
… why the difference between Jesus and Stephen? Jesus they take to the Roman authorities, Stephen they stone. The Romans must have known what was happening, a mob dragging Stephen through the streets out of the city, and then stoning him to death.

Unless they were occupied elsewhere with another 'Messiah' (rebel Jew) who had built up a following of men and needed dealing with. Or a new Governor, which fits in well with the sudden change of High Priest between Jesus trial and Stephen's murder. The high Priest being appointed by the Roman governor.

In any case, what is blaphemy? 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord the God in vain.

I don’t know. I can speculate, and I will, but only with the understanding that my speculating that it is so doesn’t make it so.

The high priest and the Sanhedrin had been trying to reign in Jesus for a period of time, perhaps for several months, maybe for a year or more. We see from the text several instances wherein various groups tried to trick Jesus into saying something that would put him at odds with Roman authority, including the incident with the coin in which disciples of two opposing groups joined together, which indicates to me an ongoing conspiracy, or “putting heads together.” In fact, we read in the text that Jesus was apprehended by Sanhedrin soldiers under circumstances that confirm pre-planning.

Since Roman law reserved the death penalty to Roman authorities, this was a smart way to do things, and it worked out as the high priest and Sanhedrin desired, with Jesus condemned to crucifixion by the Roman governor. The text tells us that the accusation placed over Jesus’ head was “King of the Jews”, which, in a Roman context, could have been seen as a challenge to Roman authority.

Stephen’s death, by contrast, seems to have been a “spur of the moment” incident, with no preplanning. It was more like, “Do you hear what he’s saying? Blasphemy!” and then the crowd, now a mob, allowed mob mentality to take over. Also, Saul the persecutor, at whose feet they laid their cloaks, may have instigated the mob.

Blasphemy includes claiming to be God or to be equal with God. Sch’ma Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod: Hear, remember, take into your inner beings these words, Israel, the LORD God, the LORD is one.

by trevorw2539 Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:13 pm

RoC quote.

Blasphemy includes claiming to be God or to be equal with God. Sch’ma Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod: Hear, remember, take into your inner beings these words, Israel, the LORD God, the LORD is one.

One interpretation I'll grant you.

The troubleI have is that You do not allow for progress. As you know the Saduccees stuck rigidly to the Torah. And that is why they went out of existence when the Temple was destroyed, while the Pharisees continued for another 2+ centuries.

If you stick rigidly to the Torah and Gods commandments to Moses and the Israelites then you must, for instance, ask yourself if the High Priest had any right to even try Jesus. High Priests, according to Gods Commands were to be from Aarons immediate descendants, and priests from his Levite family/tribe. Given that the High Priest line died out about three generations after Solomon sacked Abiather the High Priest, Caiaphas had no right to the position. He was not of Aarons line but appointed by a Roman Governor - Gratus.

Even during the Maccabean period High Priests came and went by means of bribery and murder.

The right for the Jews to appoint a High Priest was taken away by, I think, Herod the Great.

The OT commandment was 'outdated' in respect of the High Priests at least.

Please don't say that God works in mysterious ways. Smile

Some of the High Priests were nearly as bad as the Borgia Popes.

Whilst I accept the 10 commandments and Jesus 'fulfillment' of them, other things move on.

by oftenwrong Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:16 pm

Our Priesthood is better than Yours !!

by bambu Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:26 am

oftenwrong wrote:Our Priesthood is better than Yours !!

Some priesthoods are better than others;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FthpwSIyqRo

by ROB Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:04 am

RockOnBrother wrote:

Blasphemy includes claiming to be God or to be equal with God. Sch’ma Y’srael, Adonai Eluheinu, Adonai echod: Hear, remember, take into your inner beings these words, Israel, the LORD God, the LORD is one.

trevorw2539 wrote:
One interpretation I'll grant you.

The troubleI have is that You do not allow for progress. As you know the Saduccees stuck rigidly to the Torah. And that is why they went out of existence when the Temple was destroyed, while the Pharisees continued for another 2+ centuries.

My adherence to Torah is markedly different from that of either the Sadducees or the Pharisees. In the 20th and 21st Centuries in which I’ve lived, I find little value in such rigidity. I couldn’t name all six hundred thirteen mitzvahs if you paid me.

Jesus, directly and through his apostles, reiterated Moses’ teaching to the Nation of Israel, Y’srael, to put God’s commandments upon one’s heart. Although Reform rabbis do not accept Y’shua bar Yosef as Moshiach, many accept him as a rabbi whose teachings continue to have profound impact, then and now. One of the best sermons on the second great commandment as identified by Jesus was taught (not so much preached) by a Reform rabbi at a Friday evening Shabbat service. Substitute “mitzvah” for “commandment”, and he read the account from the Gospels as written. The congregants didn’t mind, and my questions afterward were answered by “after all, Jesus was a rabbi.”

Remember that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, so he teaches the Law and the Prophets fulfilled, sweeping away dogma that humans had allowed to creep in, and emphasizing the timeless principles over the ritualistic aspects. Those core principles are as applicable in 2012 as they were circa 30 AD, circa 1400 BC, and at the time of Noah.

trevorw2539 wrote:
If you stick rigidly to the Torah and Gods commandments to Moses and the Israelites then you must, for instance, ask yourself if the High Priest had any right to even try Jesus.

I would think not, since I know of no such duty assigned high priests in Torah.

trevorw2539 wrote:
High Priests, according to Gods Commands were to be from Aarons immediate descendants, and priests from his Levite family/tribe. Given that the High Priest line died out about three generations after Solomon sacked Abiather the High Priest, Caiaphas had no right to the position. He was not of Aarons line but appointed by a Roman Governor - Gratus.

Even during the Maccabean period High Priests came and went by means of bribery and murder.

The right for the Jews to appoint a High Priest was taken away by, I think, Herod the Great.

Excellent points which I had never put together until reading your post.

trevorw2539 wrote:
The OT commandment was 'outdated' in respect of the High Priests at least.

Not according to Reform and Conservative Jews with whom I’ve conversed who state to a woman and man that since the bloodlines are so blurred there can be no priests or high priest today. Incidentally, there is possible a connection between pre-AD priests and those whose last names are “Levine” and “Cohen.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
Please don't say that God works in mysterious ways.

He does, but I won’t say it!

trevorw2539 wrote:
Some of the High Priests were nearly as bad as the Borgia Popes.

Whilst I accept the 10 commandments and Jesus 'fulfillment' of them, other things move on.

Or that pope that seems to have colluded with Hitler. And just as you’ve pointed out about high priests, I see even less evidence that God, or his Beloved Son, in whom he’s well pleased, that we were told to hear, has ever authorized (a) a singular bishop of Rome, and (b) the bishop of Rome’s authority over anything.

by trevorw2539 Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:36 am

Roc. Thanks for you reply. Smile

by trevorw2539 Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:20 pm

Not according to Reform and Conservative Jews with whom I’ve conversed who state to a woman and man that since the bloodlines are so blurred there can be no priests or high priest today. Incidentally, there is possible a connection between pre-AD priests and those whose last names are “Levine” and “Cohen.”

Surely the need for High Priest and Priests died with the destruction of the Temple. They were involved in the main in Temple ritual and its maintenance, and the High Priest in sacrificial ritual. After its destruction the Rabbi's and teachers took over then in the synagogues, where sacrifices were not allowed.

The blurring of bloodlines is a post exile phenomena. Before Israel was destroyed by Assyria, and Judah was exiled by Babylon, tribe members married within the tribe. Levi's particularly, as they had been set apart by God. They possessed no tribal land, only cities within the tribal areas.

After Judah's return the Jews possessed no land, except for a brief period during the Maccobean rule.

I agree. There might be a very remote connection in the names.

by ROB Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:58 pm

Trevor,

The rabbi that taught "love your neighbor as yourself" from the Gospels said basically what you've said; that the temple's destruction removed the need for priests. Reform Jews today seem not to focus upon the priests in their modern application of Torah.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:59 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Trevor,

The rabbi that taught "love your neighbor as yourself" from the Gospels said basically what you've said; that the temple's destruction removed the need for priests. Reform Jews today seem not to focus upon the priests in their modern application of Torah.

Destruction of the Temple was a 'fortunate' occurence for Reform Jews of today, but not for Orthodoxy who, even today, look and pray for a new Temple in '2240'? And most certainly not for the 1000's of Jews who lost their lives in AD70.

Surely an example of things 'adapting'. Without the Jewish rebellion and the destruction of the Temple perhaps things might be different today, sacrifices and all the ritual continuing? Purely conjecture, of course.

by ROB Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:41 pm

Also purely conjecture, referring to the phrase with the words "God" and "mysterious" that I'm not going to say, Jesus sacrificed for all people for all time, including for all people in the 20th and 21st Centuries. It's as if Reform and Conservative Jews, without realizing it, are co-beneficiaries of Jesus' sacrifice.

The Orthodox movements seem to be today's Pharisees amongst Jews, rigidly adhering to 613 mitzvahs, including dietary mitzvahs. I've asked several Reform Jews about Jewish Inuit (if there ever were such) and kosher, and they've all said that if un-kosher whale meat is what sustains them, then whale meat is kosher. I doubt that an Orthodox Jew would give that answer.

In fact, Reform Jews often live lives closer to keeping the Law fulfilled than we who call ourselves "Christians."

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:43 pm

RoC. Thanks for your info. I have taken an interest in the Jews, their rituals etc, as I studied the OT and it's background history, but my knowledge is 'dated'. Pre AD60. Their history since then has been more difficult to follow. Where they were dispersed, how many remained in Palestine etc. References to enclaves in Palestine down the centuries indicate that settlements were to be found. Sometimes tolerated by the Arabs, sometimes persecuted.

Today there are so many diverse Jewish 'sects'. Rather like Christian denominations.

Anyway. Thanks.

by ROB Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:36 pm

Trevor,

I think that your study of pre-AD 60 Jews is (1) relevant, and (2) necessary for understanding Jesus’ teachings (numerous) and commandments (but a few). Since Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, we need knowledge of that which he fulfilled. To get to the correct finishing point, one needs to know the correct staring point.

Many people, including Christians and Jews, like to speak of Christianity as separate from Judaism. Uh, huh!

Lesse now… Jesus was a… Jew. John the baptizer was a… Jew. Matthew and Mark were… Jews. Luke was a… Jew. Paul was a… Jew. James was a… Jew. Peter was a… Jew. John the disciple was a… Jew. And Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a… Jew.

Whole buncha people we read about in the Greek Bible, the oft-called New Testament, were Jewish.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:18 pm

Roc quote

Whole buncha people we read about in the Greek Bible, the oft-called New Testament, were Jewish.

Now that is news;) Smile

by polyglide Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:35 pm

What most people seem to miss is the fact that Jesus came at a time when man had turned his back on everything decent and were on the verge of
becoming less than animals of the lowest order.

He came to give man the chance of redemption and showed how this could be acheived , alas , we have now reached a very similar state and I doubt if we will get another chance.

Just look at the world today and even the different views fo those commenting on this site to see the disrespect for anything or anyone.

by trevorw2539 Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:26 pm

polyglide wrote:What most people seem to miss is the fact that Jesus came at a time when man had turned his back on everything decent and were on the verge of
becoming less than animals of the lowest order.

He came to give man the chance of redemption and showed how this could be acheived , alas , we have now reached a very similar state and I doubt if we will get another chance.

Just look at the world today and even the different views fo those commenting on this site to see the disrespect for anything or anyone.

Using the logic you have just used, we then have to blame God for letting us get to the stage you have mentioned. The world had no guidance before then, and in the main, after then. It's no use saying that God used the Jews to shew himself. The Jews were one nation and belief among hundreds of others different ones.

Each early belief tried to make sense of the world, and to bring some order. That's why we have so many different ancient codes. You talk and use logic that comes with hindsight.

The world was no worse, and in some cases better, when Jesus came than it had been at times down the millenia.

If you believe that God has a time and purpose then think on this. Perhaps he saw what was going to happen and realised that the time and conditions were right for the spreading of the Gospel. The Roman Empire at the time was one that tolerated the practise of religion, regardless of race and creed, as long as it didn't disturb their rule. Other Empires had tried to spread their own culture and religion. Christianity could spread despite the Jewish persecution, and some Roman persecution.

The other problem is that whatever Jesus taught would only reach a very small minority of the worlds population for around a millenia, and only just relatively recently, the rest of the world. So the rest of the world would have to go on in the same old way until they did hear.

I don't dispute your Christian beliefs. I just dispute the superiority that Christians seem to feel. If we, as Christians believe as we do, we should be humble that we, as individuals, have been given our 'faith', not proud.

If the world was bad enough to send Jesus to show us the way, it's sure taken time to do it.

Good luck

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:36 pm

An Atheist is not a Theist.

by ROB Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:52 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Using the logic you have just used, we then have to blame God for letting us get to the stage you have mentioned.

If we are going to blame God, we must blame him for creating us into freedom of choice (Genesis 1:26-27).

trevorw2539 wrote:
I just dispute the superiority that Christians seem to feel. If we, as Christians believe as we do, we should be humble… not proud.

Here’s what James said:

“God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6).

“Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (James 4:10).

by trevorw2539 Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:19 pm

RoC. Thanks. I am aware of the quotes.

My points remain the same. Judaism and then Christianity are by no means the earliest religions in the world. Each previous one believed it was the true one. Each one was given by 'a god'.

If you and polyglide take the OT creation story as factual, OK. As you know, I don't.

A study of the OT shows that, if you take it literally, there were certainly other 'people/nations' in the world prior to, and during, the Adamic period.

Archaeology proves just the same.

The OT is the History of a nation and its relationship with God, from the nations birth to 70AD. Plus, of course, various other books of note. Notice it very seldom mentions other nations unless it comes into contact with them for various reasons.

by astra Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:36 pm

I'm enjoying this discussion.
Just now, I am reading the Arthur series by Bernard Cornwell - by no means factual as the author himself stresses, but the entanglement of the left overs of the Roman Religion/Gods/Rites, the resurgence of the Druid Religion/Gods/Rites tied with the emergence of a young Christianity and the new Religion/Gods/Rites brought in by the Saxons was just too tempting (for him) NOT to leave alone.

Funny how the Romans come up regularly.

by ROB Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:44 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
RoC. Thanks. I am aware of the quotes.

My points remain the same. Judaism and then Christianity are by no means the earliest religions in the world. Each previous one believed it was the true one. Each one was given by 'a god'.

In the beginning God created all existence. In the beginning God created truth.

Truth comes into existence simultaneously with existence; thus, truth precedes all religions. Nothing called ‘a god’ can create everything from nothing, so whatever ‘a god’ may have been credited with creating, ‘a god’ didn’t create.

trevorw2539 wrote:
If you and polyglide take the OT creation story as factual, OK. As you know, I don't.

Then how did existence come into existence?

by trevorw2539 Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:16 am

RoC. Rather than quote above again I'll answer. 'How did God come into existence. Did He create himself'.

Now I happen to believe there is a 'being' we call God who 'started' things off. But that is simply by faith, and I would not be dogmatic about that in my discussions with non-believers. It is only my belief.

The creation story in the OT is handed down from previous accounts. It is by no means unique.

In fact in my discussions with Moslems as to why Mohammed took the OT stories of creation and of the Patriarchs etc. and used them in the Qu'ran with his own particular claims and Moslem slant on events and people, they seem to claim, retrospectively that the world was created a Moslem world from the beginning by Allah. So all the OT characters, unknown to themselves, were really Muslims.

Quote.

Truth comes into existence simultaneously with existence; thus, truth precedes all religions.

Sorry. Rather a meaningless statement.

by ROB Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:32 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
… I'll answer. 'How did God come into existence. Did He create himself'.

I don’t know, to both questions.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Now I happen to believe there is a 'being' we call God who 'started' things off. But that is simply by faith… It is only my belief.

Why do you believe as you believe? Given the propensity of folks to ask this specific question disingenuously, I’ll add “Serious question.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
The creation story in the OT is handed down from previous accounts. It is by no means unique.

I can show you a uniqueness of the “creation account in the OT” if you choose to see it. To see it will require (1) posting brief summaries of at least a couple of the “previous accounts” hereon, and (2) an exposition of one verse of the Hebrew Bible. The second step we’ll do together, if you indeed choose to see the uniqueness.

trevorw2539 wrote:
… the world was created… by Allah.

Hebrew Eloah, power, singular of Elohim, power. Arabic Allah, power. Both Elohim and Allah emphasis the omnipotence of God; thus, there is no difference between Elohim and Allah except language.

trevorw2539 wrote:
… the world was created a Moslem world from the beginning… So all the OT characters, unknown to themselves, were really Muslims.

Muslim, one who submits to God. If at any time one submits to God, one is at that time Muslim. If at any time you submit to God, you are at that time Muslim.

trevorw2539 wrote:

Truth comes into existence simultaneously with existence; thus, truth precedes all religions.
Sorry. Rather a meaningless statement.

That is perhaps the most meaningful statement that there is. If one steps onto a freeway whereupon the vehicles are traveling at 70 miles per hour, c=mv, truth, will most certainly cause one a bit of pain. Since religion is of man, and man comes into existence after existence comes into existence, that truth, and all truth, precedes all religion.

by trevorw2539 Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:03 pm

RoC Quote

Muslim, one who submits to God. If at any time one submits to God, one is at that time Muslim. If at any time you submit to God, you are at that time Muslim.

Then there is no difference between being a Muslim and Christian. Wonder how Islam regards that.

By the way you forgot to included 'and to accept Mohammed as the Messenger of God', in your description of being a Muslim. Not quite the same.

Another question. If just accepting God is being a Muslim why do they not accept the Jews? Why did they need to change the OT to fit their theology?

I can show you a uniqueness of the “creation account in the OT” if you choose to see it. To see it will require (1) posting brief summaries of at least a couple of the “previous accounts” hereon, and (2) an exposition of one verse of the Hebrew Bible. The second step we’ll do together, if you indeed choose to see the uniqueness

Don't bother. I have read most creation accounts around. The simple answer is that each will have its own 'unique' points due to culture and varying knowledge. Most claim to have been given by 'God'.

Since religion is of man, and man comes into existence after existence comes into existence, that truth, and all truth, precedes all religion.

Words, words.

If religion is about belief in God, and God created the world, then the reason for religion comes before existence. Therefore 'truth' before existence.
How's that for words. Smile

By the way, in this country pedestrians are not allowed on our equivalent of your freeway.

How do you define Truth? As far as I am aware there is no universal agreement of the meaning of 'Truth'. Just theories.

In my reading of the OT I have come up against these words like Truth, Justice etc. We all have our dictionary explanations of the meaning of the word 'Truth', but not what 'Truth' really is. No-one can agree, though 'theories' abound.

I found this interesting while researching 'Truth'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

by oftenwrong Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:27 pm

Such a pity that all of the available scriptures are clearly the work of mankind.

by ROB Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:52 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Muslim, one who submits to God. If at any time one submits to God, one is at that time Muslim. If at any time you submit to God, you are at that time Muslim.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Then there is no difference between being a Muslim and Christian. Wonder how Islam regards that.

There is a difference between Muslim and Christian. Let me know if you wish to know.

trevorw2539 wrote:
By the way you forgot to included 'and to accept Mohammed as the Messenger of God', in your description of being a Muslim.

No I did not. The definition of Muslim is one who submits to God. A word’s definition is a word’s meaning.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Another question. If just accepting God is being a Muslim why do they not accept the Jews?

I don’t know.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Why did they need to change the OT to fit their theology?

I don’t know. However, I suspect for the same reason that the Roman Catholic hierarchy interprets and adds to (rather than exposit) the Hebrew and Greek Bibles to fit their theology and the same reason Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints interprets and adds to the Hebrew and Greek Bibles to fit their theology.

RockOnBrother wrote:
I can show you a uniqueness of the “creation account in the OT” if you choose to see it. To see it will require (1) posting brief summaries of at least a couple of the “previous accounts” hereon, and (2) an exposition of one verse of the Hebrew Bible. The second step we’ll do together, if you indeed choose to see the uniqueness

trevorw2539 wrote:
Don't bother.

I won’t.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Since religion is of man, and man comes into existence after existence comes into existence, that truth, and all truth, precedes all religion.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Words, words.

Truth, truth.

trevorw2539 wrote:
If religion is about belief in God, and God created the world, then the reason for religion comes before existence.

No man; no reason for religion.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Therefore 'truth' before existence.

As God is truth, and God is before existence, then truth (quotation marks neither necessary nor appropriate) is before existence.

trevorw2539 wrote:
By the way, in this country pedestrians are not allowed on our equivalent of your freeway.

The hippie who directed traffic while straddling two lanes of Northbound Interstate 5 was not allowed on the freeway, either.

trevorw2539 wrote:
How do you define Truth?

Within uniqueness lies the answer to your question.

by trevorw2539 Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:51 pm

Roc quote.

The definition of Muslim is one who submits to God. A word’s definition is a word’s meaning.

Agreed. Muslim - an adherent to the Islamic faith. Noun.

muslim - one who submits to God. Adj.

Roc quote

No man, no “reason for religion.”

? When were the angels and elders of Revelations, and in the OT, created? They certainly worshipped God. Maybe even religion precedes 'existence'.

trevorw2539 wrote:
How do you define Truth?

You’ve chosen not to discuss uniqueness, wherein lies the answer to your question.

You can give me your definition of truth and that will be your view. In religion 'truth' is what the individual believes. My definition of 'truth' may not be yours, and certainly the other posters on here will definitely have different ideas of the 'truth'.

Probably the only definition of 'truth' that has any meaning is that 'truth' which can be proved in fact. Even then 'truth' is subject to changed/ing circumstances. The truth is I don't know the 'truth'. scratch

Greenhouse calls.

by ROB Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:55 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
The definition of Muslim is one who submits to God. A word’s definition is a word’s meaning.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Agreed. Muslim - an adherent to the Islamic faith. Noun.

muslim - one who submits to God. Adj.

Thus, since a Christian who is actually a Christian seeks to submit to God, a Christian is a Muslim. It’s unfortunate that we of the 20th and 21st Centuries have allowed ourselves to slip away from using precisely defined words in the ways in which they are precisely defined.

That’s why I’m sometimes a Christian. There are definitely times that I behave in ways that have no similarity whatsoever with the behavior taught by Jesus. On the other hand, sometimes I’m able to discipline myself to behave as Jesus taught. Those are the times that I’m a Christian, one who behaves in such a way as to remind others of Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus the Christ.

RockOnBrother wrote:
No man, no “reason for religion.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
? When were the angels and elders of Revelations, and in the OT, created?

Don’t start me to lying; I don’t know.

trevorw2539 wrote:
They certainly worshipped God. Maybe even religion precedes 'existence'

Worshipping God; i.e., YHVH Elohim, the Author, Creator, Owner, and Sovereign of existence, doesn’t require “religion”; it requires faith that God is who he says he is. This is why Baha’is refuse to call the Baha’i Faith a religion.

trevorw2539 wrote:
How do you define Truth?

RockOnBrother wrote:
You’ve chosen not to discuss uniqueness, wherein lies the answer to your question.

trevorw2539 wrote:
You can give me your definition of truth and that will be your view.

No I cannot. If you had asked me a few years ago, I would have been eager to give my opinion. I was so wise back then! Knew dadgummed near everything!

Today, I’m far more humble. I realize that the hippie, on an acid trip at the time he stood in the midst of seventy mile per hour traffic on Interstate 5, even though he thought he was invulnerable, really wasn’t. He was simply blessed with incredible luck and a friend who quickly called the Oregon State Police for help.

The formula c=mv, describing momentum as the product of mass times velocity, is truth, no matter what one’s opinion might be. The momentum of an average sized car at the time, about four thousand pounds times seventy miles per hour, would have killed the hippie had the car struck him “head on.” That’s truth, whatever the hippie’s opinion might have been.

By the way, I’m not making this stuff up. The hippie’s friend was a close acquaintance of mine, and I heard the story from hi lips.

Truth has no relationship whatsoever with one’s opinion thereof. We cannot “opine” truth into existence; time-wise, truth precedes mankind by the number of years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds that existence precedes man’s existence.

trevorw2539 wrote:
In religion 'truth' is what the individual believes.

Nope. See “c=mv” above.

by polyglide Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:36 am

The whole point is that man was given the choice which paths he would take in life and was indeed given the option to go the right way or the wrong way and had God interfered in any way that would have nullified the whole meaning of the freedom,

Having been witness to man's almost self distruction God did not interfere but gave us another option to save ourselves, had he made us do his bidding then we would be nothing more than robots.

by blueturando Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:02 pm

Having been witness to man's almost self distruction God did not interfere but gave us another option to save ourselves

Really??? And when did this 'Almost self distruction' take place Polyglide

by trevorw2539 Fri Apr 13, 2012 2:42 pm

RoC quote

hus, since a Christian who is actually a Christian seeks to submit to God, a Christian is a Muslim. It’s unfortunate that we of the 20th and 21st Centuries have allowed ourselves to slip away from using precisely defined words in the ways in which they are precisely defined.

I am a Member of a Tennis Club and abide by the rules of the Club. My friend is allowed to play on the Club courts but not enter the Club house unless agreeing to the Club rules. We both submit to the laws of the LTA but are not both club members. A christian submits to God. It does not make him a Muslim 'club' member.

Trevor quote They certainly worshipped God. Maybe even religion precedes 'existence'

Substitute either/or.

Faith - great trust or confidence in something or someone

Religion - the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship

Both Cambridge Online Dictionary

You can give me your definition of truth and that will be your view.

Was not a request. Merely a statement of fact.

RoC quote. Nope. See “c=mv” above.

Nope. The result is hypothetical as it didn't happen. Your friend wasn't hit. You assume that he would have been killed. Agreed that is the likely outcome, but not proven. Just recently 2 cars collided head on at around 60 MPH each car. Both cars were complete 'right-offs'. The drivers, by some miracle, walked away bruised and battered, but alive.

In religion 'truth' is what an individual believes.

by Shirina Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:23 pm

In religion 'truth' is what an individual believes.

Truth is an absolute value. That's why "truth" is its own word. It means something specific. It is not synonymous with "faith," "religion," "opinion," or "belief."

One of the defining characteristics of "the truth" is that it applies to everyone irrespective of opinions and beliefs. Gravity is one such example - we are firmly planted on the ground and things have weight because of gravity. You can have all the faith and beliefs you wish to that gravity doesn't exist, but there it is, nonetheless.

Religion is not truth, and any one specific religion is even less truthful. That's not to say that the lack of truth equates to dishonesty - no, that's not what I mean. Instead, what I mean is that religion does not apply to everyone. Even among believers, "truth" varies from individual to individual. Gravity, which is truth, does not vary and change depending on one's version of it. Just because it is truth to the believer does not mean it is truth to everyone else. It's like going to an insane asylum and listening to a patient there claiming to be Napoleon. I'm sure the patient believes it to be truth, but only to him. For everyone else, he is most certainly not Napoleon. He probably isn't even named Napoleon, much less actually IS Napoleon. Again, truth in this case fails to meet its primary attribute - that it applies to everyone.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:43 pm

That puts Court witnesses on the spot!

"I swear by Almighty God that I shall tell The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth."

by trevorw2539 Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:57 pm

Shirina Quote.

Even among believers, "truth" varies from individual to individual.

That is what I said.

As Pilate said 'What is Truth'. Went through meanings of certain words when studying the OT.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth. is interesting

by Sponsored content