Jesus, Jew, Mohammed, it's true...

[starsgoblue]

I wasn't speaking of prophecy in the post...And I never presented anything as a cold hard fact, I was looking for some insight Nevermind...This discussion seem to have become a Christian apologist thread....

Why does it seem like the idea of truly coexisiting is so freakin' hard?

 

[Bad Templar]

I wasn't speaking of prophecy in the post...And I never presented anything as a cold hard fact, I was looking for some insight Nevermind...This discussion seem to have become a Christian apologist thread....

First of all, you asked.

I'm a Christian who believes in backing my opinions up and having vigorous discussions....sorry about that.

Some people obviously can't accept this or can't come up with any cogent arguments.

I am definetly curious bout the signifigance of this and how it relates to this thread topic.... I could take this further but I am curious to see what others think at the moment....

OK, I don't think it has any significance. I don't believe it relates to the thread topic. this is what I think at the moment.

Why does it seem like the idea of truly coexisiting is so freakin' hard?

Coexist: to exist together or at the same time.

Coessential: united in essence; having the same essence or nature.

The later is what I'm objecting to...the former, which I have exhaustively explained, I support absolutely.

I haven't tried to justify any crusades or start up new ones or incite synagogue and mosque bombings, have I?

Then again, if Bono got on stage and said 'Jesus, Jew, Mohammad, it's true...all sons of Abraham' and wore a headband with 'Coessential'....it would make more sense.....but your average concert-goer doesn't carry a dictionary around with them, do they?

 

[BVS]

Then again, if Bono got on stage and said 'Jesus, Jew, Mohammad, it's true...all sons of Abraham' and wore a headband with 'Coessential'....it would make more sense.....

I don't think it would at all.

 

[starsgoblue]

First of all, you asked.

I'm a Christian who believes in backing my opinions up and having vigorous discussions....sorry about that.

Some people obviously can't accept this or can't come up with any cogent arguments.



OK, I don't think it has any significance. I don't believe it relates to the thread topic. this is what I think at the moment.



Coexist: to exist together or at the same time.

Coessential: united in essence; having the same essence or nature.

The later is what I'm objecting to...the former, which I have exhaustively explained, I support absolutely.

I haven't tried to justify any crusades or start up new ones or incite synagogue and mosque bombings, have I?

Then again, if Bono got on stage and said 'Jesus, Jew, Mohammad, it's true...all sons of Abraham' and wore a headband with 'Coessential'....it would make more sense.....but your average concert-goer doesn't carry a dictionary around with them, do they?

I feel you're just being rude at this point. Coessential isn't an overly difficult word for people to understand....those of feeble minds (as you make it seem) would 'get it'. I'm a supposed sister in Christ and the way you talk to me is condescending. You don't have to agree with all I say but you don't have to belittle someone who doesn't share your opinions or may look at it slightly differently. I'm interested in what people have to say, doesn't mean I always agree...but I'm open to listening and learning..otherwise what is the point of discussion if it's one sided? I'm really wondering if I fit in the Christian scheme of things...I believe what I believe but I'm not going to go as far as behaving self-righteously or like I'm in some exclusive club either...

 

[beli]

Bad Templar did you post in this forum under a different username last year? You remind me of someone.

 

[Bad Templar]

Bad Templar did you post in this forum under a different username last year? You remind me of someone.

No, Beli. Not me.

 

[Bad Templar]

I feel you're just being rude at this point.......... I'm a supposed sister in Christ and the way you talk to me is condescending.

I've also been labelled by my 'supposed' brothers and/or sisters in Christ as exclusionist, insane, dangerous or fundamentalist and you've just added self-righteous to that list.

Sorry if my sarcasm offended you.

You don't have to agree with all I say but you don't have to belittle someone who doesn't share your opinions or may look at it slightly differently. I'm interested in what people have to say, doesn't mean I always agree...but I'm open to listening and learning..otherwise what is the point of discussion if it's one sided? ...

A statement like...

Why does it seem like the idea of truly coexisiting is so freakin' hard?

...doesn't engender healthy discussion.

I'm really wondering if I fit in the Christian scheme of things...I believe what I believe but I'm not going to go as far as behaving self-righteously or like I'm in some exclusive club either...

I'll stop posting if I'm contributing to your dilemma. I seem to have over-stayed my welcome.

 

[biff]

Sorry if my sarcasm offended you.

So, were you being sarcastic or forthright? You can't be both. What exactly was the chord you were trying to strike?

 

[Bad Templar]

So, were you being sarcastic or forthright? You can't be both. What exactly was the chord you were trying to strike?

Well biff, I was accused of being rude, I wasn't intending to be rude.

I have been attempting to be forthright...but it's not seen to be a virtue around here. People seem to be threated if others decide not to take the path of least resistance.

Out of frustration I resorted to mild sarcasm...often it's the only way to communicate a point when other rational methods fail.

 

[80sU2isBest]

While I don't want Islam and Christianity fighting, I think we do a disservice to people seeking the truth if we don't point out the major differences between them. Islam and Christianity make opposite claims about who Christ is - Christianity says he is the Son of the Living God and God in the flesh, and Islam says he was a prophet. Since we have opposing views on who Christ is, then we must say that one of these scenarios is right:

Neither view on Christ is true.
Only one view on Christ is true.

Both views can not be true. Jesus Christ is the most pivotal person that ever lived, and he is the basis of Christianity. You never know when a truth seeker may be listening to our converstion, and I believe we would be doing a disservice to that person by saying that both are true. It may seem politically incorrect, but we need to be honest and say that they can't both be true, and point out the two's opposing beliefs.

 

[BVS]

I have been attempting to be forthright...but it's not seen to be a virtue around here. People seem to be threated if others decide not to take the path of least resistance.

This is exactly why I stopped responding to your posts you hide behind your rudeness, anger, and judgement and call it virtue.

 

[2Hearts]

We know that Abraham was neither Jew or Christian or Muslim, it wasn't until he had descendents that the Arabs or Irsraelites came into being. And yet, God blessed Abraham and all of his descendents. Not just Issac and his hiers but Ishmael's as well. I think there has to be something said for that. Perhaps I am being too poetic but also recall in Genesis 21 that Ishmael and his mother were sent away because Issac and Ishmael were fighting....centuries later it still seems as though Issac and Ishmael's descendents are seperated and fighting.

Now further with what I've noticed. Ishmael and his mother were sent away, according to Genesis 21:21, the desert of Paran was the place where Ishmael settled (i.e. Arabia). It took me a little while to find where I've read about Paran before....Deuteronomy 33:1-2 Moses blesses the tribes. Here it is (in The Message translation):
1Moses, man of God, blessed the People of Israel with this blessing before his death.
2He said,
GOD came down from Sinai,
he rose from Seir upon them;
He radiated light from Mount Paran,
coming with ten thousand holy angels
And tongues of fire
streaming from his right hand.

In mentioning Sinai, Sier and Paran it seems to combine references to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It speaks of God coming from Sinai (from where Jews recieved thier Law through Moses), rising from Seir (the village near Jerusalem)(I don't think the word 'rising' was a mistake--Jesus), and shining forth from Paran (again Paran is the place where the first of the Muslim tradition settled).

I am definetly curious bout the signifigance of this and how it relates to this thread topic. I'm not discussing the nature of salvation. But I am talking bout what ways Truth is expressed. We have three 'religions' coming from this one man who has been told by God that ALL of his descendents are blessed...not just some of them but ALL. I could take this further but I am curious to see what others think at the moment....

Nice post, stars. Just letting you know that a fellow believer found this very interesting. It is definitely something to ponder.

 

[Marie Clare]

To say that jesus (christianity), jew (rejection of the new testament) and mohammed (islam-the koran) can 'coexist' is to say that they are not mutually exclusive, their doctrine do not contradict. I find this hard to fathom. I've often observed the tendency for the 'modern', western christian to pick and choose (and in some cases, completely transform) the parts of the bible- the source of their faith- that accord with their own personal prejudices. This new, pc, seemingly liberal fad of combining those three faiths and giving them equal claim to 'truth' is either a case of unabashed theological ignorance, or friendly feel-good atheism.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are organized religions. They have strict, documented doctrine and they do not allow alternatives. For instance, Jesus is not reported to have said 'I am one way, one truth, and one life. People can come to the father whatever way they want'. Nor did he finish his speech by saying, 'but that's just what i believe - your faith may be different'.
Many more examples abound, as I'm sure everyone knows.
Tolerating and respecting one anothers differences is fine, but twisting and misconstruing different faiths/opinions isn't fair to those that truly abide by them. Surly peace does not require
uniformity.

 

[80sU2isBest]

To say that jesus (christianity), jew (rejection of the new testament) and mohammed (islam-the koran) can 'coexist' is to say that they are not mutually exclusive, their doctrine do not contradict. I find this hard to fathom. I've often observed the tendency for the 'modern', western christian to pick and choose (and in some cases, completely transform) the parts of the bible- the source of their faith- that accord with their own personal prejudices. This new, pc, seemingly liberal fad of combining those three faiths and giving them equal claim to 'truth' is either a case of unabashed theological ignorance, or friendly feel-good atheism.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are organized religions. They have strict, documented doctrine and they do not allow alternatives. For instance, Jesus is not reported to have said 'I am one way, one truth, and one life. People can come to the father whatever way they want'. Nor did he finish his speech by saying, 'but that's just what i believe - your faith may be different'.
Many more examples abound, as I'm sure everyone knows.
Tolerating and respecting one anothers differences is fine, but twisting and misconstruing different faiths/opinions isn't fair to those that truly abide by them. Surly peace does not require
uniformity.

I agree 100%.

 

[starsgoblue]

Ok, but what do we make of Romans 4 in light of this discussion then? (Message version translation, items in bold are my emphasis)

Romans 4
Trusting God
1So how do we fit what we know of Abraham, our first father in the faith, into this new way of looking at things? 2If Abraham, by what he did for God, got God to approve him, he could certainly have taken credit for it. But the story we're given is a God-story, not an Abraham-story. 3What we read in Scripture is, "Abraham entered into what God was doing for him, and that was the turning point. He trusted God to set him right instead of trying to be right on his own."
4If you're a hard worker and do a good job, you deserve your pay; we don't call your wages a gift. 5But if you see that the job is too big for you, that it's something only God can do, and you trust him to do it--you could never do it for yourself no matter how hard and long you worked--well, that trusting-him--to-do-it is what gets you set right with God, by God. Sheer gift.

6David confirms this way of looking at it, saying that the one who trusts God to do the putting-everything-right without insisting on having a say in it is one fortunate man:

7Fortunate those whose crimes are carted off,
whose sins are wiped clean from the slate.
8Fortunate the person against
whom the Lord does not keep score.


9Do you think for a minute that this blessing is only pronounced over those of us who keep our religious ways and are circumcised? Or do you think it possible that the blessing could be given to those who never even heard of our ways, who were never brought up in the disciplines of God? We all agree, don't we, that it was by embracing what God did for him that Abraham was declared fit before God?

10Now think: Was that declaration made before or after he was marked by the covenant rite of circumcision? That's right, before he was marked. 11That means that he underwent circumcision as evidence and confirmation of what God had done long before to bring him into this acceptable standing with himself, an act of God he had embraced with his whole life.

12And it means further that Abraham is father of all people who embrace what God does for them while they are still on the "outs" with God, as yet unidentified as God's, in an "uncircumcised" condition. It is precisely these people in this condition who are called "set right by God and with God"! Abraham is also, of course, father of those who have undergone the religious rite of circumcision not just because of the ritual but because they were willing to live in the risky faith-embrace of God's action for them, the way Abraham lived long before he was marked by circumcision.

13That famous promise God gave Abraham--that he and his children would possess the earth--was not given because of something Abraham did or would do. It was based on God's decision to put everything together for him, which Abraham then entered when he believed. 14If those who get what God gives them only get it by doing everything they are told to do and filling out all the right forms properly signed, that eliminates personal trust completely and turns the promise into an ironclad contract! That's not a holy promise; that's a business deal. 15A contract drawn up by a hard-nosed lawyer and with plenty of fine print only makes sure that you will never be able to collect. But if there is no contract in the first place, simply a promise--and God's promise at that--you can't break it.

16This is why the fulfillment of God's promise depends entirely on trusting God and his way, and then simply embracing him and what he does. God's promise arrives as pure gift. That's the only way everyone can be sure to get in on it, those who keep the religious traditions and those who have never heard of them. For Abraham is father of us all. He is not our racial father--that's reading the story backwards. He is our faith father.

 

[MissMoo]

Just another thought, from a nonreligious person: To say that it's modern to look at what parts of different religions are the same and point these things out makes sense to me. The fact there are other pieces that diverge, well, maybe some of those pieces are no longer relevant? I just notice how many things have been dropped by followers of the Bible (ie. not cutting hair, stoning people who sleep with someone's wife etc.) and yet, other things people are dead set on holding onto. This is a different world than the world that the Bible was written for, not all changes are bad.

 

[BVS]

To say that jesus (christianity), jew (rejection of the new testament) and mohammed (islam-the koran) can 'coexist' is to say that they are not mutually exclusive, their doctrine do not contradict. I find this hard to fathom. I've often observed the tendency for the 'modern', western christian to pick and choose (and in some cases, completely transform) the parts of the bible- the source of their faith- that accord with their own personal prejudices. This new, pc, seemingly liberal fad of combining those three faiths and giving them equal claim to 'truth' is either a case of unabashed theological ignorance, or friendly feel-good atheism.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are organized religions. They have strict, documented doctrine and they do not allow alternatives. For instance, Jesus is not reported to have said 'I am one way, one truth, and one life. People can come to the father whatever way they want'. Nor did he finish his speech by saying, 'but that's just what i believe - your faith may be different'.
Many more examples abound, as I'm sure everyone knows.
Tolerating and respecting one anothers differences is fine, but twisting and misconstruing different faiths/opinions isn't fair to those that truly abide by them. Surly peace does not require
uniformity.

Wow you've missed the point by 100 miles.

 

[Bad Templar]

This is exactly why I stopped responding to your posts you hide behind your rudeness, anger, and judgement and call it virtue.

You didn't even accept my apology (seems to be a common trait here) ...you seem to want to keep the anger going.

Re-read the first two pages and you'll find I was very courteous, YOU however, were coming up with statements like....

Would you rather see him support war between the religions?

Misrepresenting what I'd said.

Thanks for bringing some sanity [to someone else], I'm glad there are some that get it.

Meaning me........This brings so many fallacies of relevance together........the poster and you have a special shared knowledge that only you understand and I'm left on the outer with my inferior opinion and intellect.

You said you'd lose respect for Bono is coexistance is what he was getting at. We all live on this planet. We have to co-exist, if we don't co-exist then we wipe out the others. This is exactly what's taught by religious extremest groups. Extremest don't want co-existence, they want their religion and that's it.

I'm not sure why this is hard for some to understand.

Yeah, I'm so unintelligent because I don't agree with you (even though I support coexistence). Poor me.

No wonder I became 'rude'.


In light of this, what moral authority do you have left to criticise me with?

 

[Bad Templar]

To say that jesus (christianity), jew (rejection of the new testament) and mohammed (islam-the koran) can 'coexist' is to say that they are not mutually exclusive, their doctrine do not contradict. I find this hard to fathom. I've often observed the tendency for the 'modern', western christian to pick and choose (and in some cases, completely transform) the parts of the bible- the source of their faith- that accord with their own personal prejudices. This new, pc, seemingly liberal fad of combining those three faiths and giving them equal claim to 'truth' is either a case of unabashed theological ignorance, or friendly feel-good atheism.
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are organized religions. They have strict, documented doctrine and they do not allow alternatives. For instance, Jesus is not reported to have said 'I am one way, one truth, and one life. People can come to the father whatever way they want'. Nor did he finish his speech by saying, 'but that's just what i believe - your faith may be different'.
Many more examples abound, as I'm sure everyone knows.
Tolerating and respecting one anothers differences is fine, but twisting and misconstruing different faiths/opinions isn't fair to those that truly abide by them. Surly peace does not require
uniformity.

Some really great points here. Thanks.

 

[Bad Templar]

I just notice how many things have been dropped by followers of the Bible (ie. not cutting hair, stoning people who sleep with someone's wife etc.) and yet, other things people are dead set on holding onto.

The examples you use are interesting:-

Not cutting hair (cultural): when interpreting scripture Christian thought takes into account the political, historical, social and cultural impact on the text. Something like this is clearly a matter of the culture of the times and has little relevance today.

Stoning offences (legal/moral): For Christians, Jesus reinterpreted the Jewish law. An example of this is in John 8 where Jesus stands between the mob and an adultress and says, 'you who is without sin first throw a stone at her'. So the concentration is shifted from a legalistic and judgemental concept of sin to a introspective examination and awareness of sin in the individual.


The real controversy exists when 'theology' or aspects relating to God and his relationship with humankind are called into question.

Example: When Christians embrace other faiths as having essential truth and leading to God (pantheism, Unitarian Universalism) and denying Christ's deity etc. when these beliefs are in direct contradication to their own scriptural text, the Bible, and the basis of the Christian movement.

 

[Bad Templar]

This new, pc, seemingly liberal fad of combining those three faiths and giving them equal claim to 'truth' is either a case of unabashed theological ignorance, or friendly feel-good atheism.

This is otherwise known as the 'Oprah-isation' or 'group hug' approach to uniting religions.

 

[BVS]

You didn't even accept my apology (seems to be a common trait here) ...you seem to want to keep the anger going.

Re-read the first two pages and you'll find I was very courteous, YOU however, were coming up with statements like....

No I accepted your apology but usually after one apologizes they try and change their tone, but you didn't you continued to be rude to many others.

Meaning me........This brings so many fallacies of relevance together........the poster and you have a special shared knowledge that only you understand and I'm left on the outer with my inferior opinion and intellect.

No that comment wasn't about you, it was about the direction of the thread in general, sorry to dissapoint.

Yeah, I'm so unintelligent because I don't agree with you (even though I support coexistence). Poor me.

I never questioned your intelligence just your demeanor.

I asked you to clarify your stance at the beginning of the thread because I was unclear as to what exactly you were trying to communicate and you did.

In light of this, what moral authority do you have left to criticise me with?

You are the only one in here claiming any moral authority with your comments like "seems to a trait in here" and "doesn't seem to be a virtue in here". You've made blanket judgements about everyone in this thread. I just find it very ironic for someone who's talking about Christianity with words filled with such anger and judgement.

 

[popsadie]

I suppose co-existance can be a political or spiritual thing. I suppose, at the concert, I took it as a political co-existance- in other words, an agreement for all three faiths to exist without attempts at a coersive conversion. I believe that Christianity's example of conversive techniques is conversational rather than by force and I know that Judaism doesn't believe in conversion by force....so based on my knowledge of these two faiths, I believe that they could co-exist on the political plane.

 

[Bad Templar]

You are the only one in here claiming any moral authority with your comments like "seems to a trait in here" and "doesn't seem to be a virtue in here". You've made blanket judgements about everyone in this thread. I just find it very ironic for someone who's talking about Christianity with words filled with such anger and judgement.

I'm finding your attempts to discredit me quite pathetic...I also note you've abandoned the discussion to 'play the man and not the ball' to use a footballing analogy.

You're trying to intimidate me with words like 'anger'. I don't believe in the 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' Victorian era Jesus with golden locks, blue eyes and a white nighty who goes around loving everyone like he's giving out lollies/candy. I believe in the carpenter from Nazareth, the Son of God, who lived love and compassion...but violently drove the money changers out of his Father's house and abused the hypocritical Pharisees and high priests with acidic language.

You also use the word 'judgement' to intimidate me. I haven't judged anyone's life, morality, actions or anything else. There are provisions in the New Testament to assess false teaching and false doctrine.... it's what I've been doing.... you call it 'judgement', fine.

I've merely challenged theological opinions which have been expressed here and when the discussion degenerated I've questioned the methods of some posters.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not perfect. Unlike others I've been contrite and my apologies have gone unanswered.

But if you find irony in my alleged 'anger' or 'judgement'....don't.....if I'm strongly defending the integrity of the Christian Gospel and if I am 'judging' the merits of what others say.....it's very much intended.

 

[beli]

Bad Templar, the reason I asked earlier if you had posted here before under a different username is because you remind me so much of another poster, NotAnEasyThing. He/she was also knowledgable of the bible but perhaps not so knowledgable of social niceties.

Whether you intend it or not, some of your posts in this thread come across as condescending.

 

[BVS]

I'm finding your attempts to discredit me quite pathetic...I also note you've abandoned the discussion to 'play the man and not the ball' to use a footballing analogy.

You're trying to intimidate me with words like 'anger'. I don't believe in the 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' Victorian era Jesus with golden locks, blue eyes and a white nighty who goes around loving everyone like he's giving out lollies/candy. I believe in the carpenter from Nazareth, the Son of God, who lived love and compassion...but violently drove the money changers out of his Father's house and abused the hypocritical Pharisees and high priests with acidic language.

You also use the word 'judgement' to intimidate me. I haven't judged anyone's life, morality, actions or anything else. There are provisions in the New Testament to assess false teaching and false doctrine.... it's what I've been doing.... you call it 'judgement', fine.

I've merely challenged theological opinions which have been expressed here and when the discussion degenerated I've questioned the methods of some posters.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not perfect. Unlike others I've been contrite and my apologies have gone unanswered.

But if you find irony in my alleged 'anger' or 'judgement'....don't.....if I'm strongly defending the integrity of the Christian Gospel and if I am 'judging' the merits of what others say.....it's very much intended.

I'm not trying to discredit you at all, I just think a different approach would be much more productive. I'm not "playing the man", I've said what how I feel on the subject at hand and don't think I need to say anymore at this point. I agree very much with Popsadie that the comment is more political in nature than spiritual.

I also believe in the Jesus that was a calloused hands carpenter that lived a life of nothing but love. Yes he was angry at times but never abusive. He did believe in meekness and humility. He spoke to the hypocrites of the church with insightful truth that was made to make them think, on their level and never abusive or down to them. He healed the ear of the one that wanted him dead.

Judgement is very tricky thing, very few can righteously judge, most of the time they self righteously judge. All I was saying is that you may be a little more careful with blanket statements and selling absolutes.

 

[financeguy]

Cave isn't ambiguous about his faith and hasn't gotten into trendy unitarian thinking. This is from a recent article...

Unitarianism isn't "trendy", it's been around for hundreds of years. How would you react if someone described Christianity as "trendy"? Heck, Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years - not that long considering the age of the world.

But, no I don't think that Bono has adopted "trendy" Unitiarianism
, he is still a Christian so you can sleep easy.

Oh and by the way, Catholicism is considered a Christian religion last time I checked.

 

[Bad Templar]

But, no I don't think that Bono has adopted "trendy" Unitiarianism
, he is still a Christian so you can sleep easy.

I'm caring less and less everyday, actually.

 

[financeguy]

I'm caring less and less everyday, actually.

Why?

 

[financeguy]

This new, pc, seemingly liberal fad of combining those three faiths and giving them equal claim to 'truth' is either a case of unabashed theological ignorance, or friendly feel-good atheism.

There is nothing "friendly" or "feel-good" about atheism, I can assure you. Atheists, in my view courageously, face up to the numerous arguments against the existence of God, and the scientific lack of evidence for the afterlife. Atheists honestly face up to the realisation that we are probably alone, that their is in all likelihood no "saviour" or spirit in the sky waiting to "save" us from our sins, and proceed to live their lives accordingly.

On another point, atheists would most certainly not give the three religions equal claims to 'truth'. Quite the opposite in fact.

Please do not misrepresent atheists or atheism.