Islam a religion of Peace?

Catherineanne · Jun 18, 2006

arunma said:
YahwehisHisname was not using vulgar speech. His post contained a Biblical allusion.

This is a non sequitur. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
My opinion stands; vulgarity degrades Christianity.

Catherineanne · Jun 18, 2006

arunma said:
Are you sure on this one? I believe it was Bishop Saint Augustine who wrote on the concept of a just war, saying that a war was just only if it was made in self-defense, or in an effort to reclaim lost territory. And Saint Augustine lived well before the middle ages.

I am sure that any soldier returning from the Crusades had to confess and do penance, yes.

Augustine may have discussed the concept of just war, but that does not mean that the church itself actually declared any war just. I believe this did not happen until relatively modern times.

LittleLambofJesus · Jun 18, 2006

YahwehisHisname was not using vulgar speech. His post contained a Biblical allusion.
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. (Revelation 3:15-18)

YahwehisHisname was not using vulgar speech. His post contained a Biblical allusion.

Catherineanne said:
This is a non sequitur. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
My opinion stands; vulgarity degrades Christianity.

Even when one quotes it from the Scriptures

Catherineanne · Jun 18, 2006

LittleLambofJesus said:
Even when one quotes it from the Scriptures

Depends on the reason for quoting. But he did not use a direct quotation. He extrapolated, in a way which contradicts Scripture.

arunma · Jun 18, 2006

Catherineanne said:
This is a non sequitur. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
My opinion stands; vulgarity degrades Christianity.

I don't believe that what I said was a non sequitur. Vulgarity greatly depends on the context of the words. YahwehisHisname used specific language in order to refer us to a Biblical quotation, probably in order to compare certain modern Christians to the backslidden Laodicean church. Whether his comparison was accurate or not is a separate issue, but I wouldn't call it vulgarity.

Catherineanne said:
Depends on the reason for quoting. But he did not use a direct quotation. He extrapolated, in a way which contradicts Scripture.

Not exactly. Many great literary works make indirect Biblical allusions. Even the New Testament makes indirect allusions to the Old Testament.

peaceinislam · Jun 18, 2006

YahwehisHisname was not using vulgar speech. His post contained a Biblical allusion.

U have to be rather blind not to see that theres a difference between discussing disagreements respectfully, & with hatred spewing out of almost every word u utter in both tone & content. Muslims in principle would all disagree that jesus(p) taught any1 to speak disrespectfully to others. I believe this is just ones own hatred & mindset that is justified thru scripture. it is a combination of arrogance, ignorance, & spiritual pride. Well, at least this is the islamic perspective.

19:30-34 "He (Iesa (Jesus)) said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
"And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salat (prayer), and Zakat (alms-giving), as long as I live."
"And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.
"And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"
Such is Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).

29:46 And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses)
22:34 And (O Muhammad SAW) give glad tidings to the Mukhbitin (those who obey Allah with humility and are humble from among the true believers of Islamic Monotheism)
7:55 Invoke your Lord with humility and in secret. He likes not the aggressors.
25:63 And the slaves of the Most Beneficent (Allah) are those who walk on the earth in humility and sedateness, and when the foolish address them (with bad words) they reply back with mild words of gentleness.

At that time pilgrimage formed a very important part of Christian faith, as it does for Moslems today.

Moslems seem to get very het up about this one, but if you want a parallel, imagine that Mecca were to be overrun by - well, tree worshippers say - and all Moslems were in danger of being denied access to their holy city.
It is very likely that all Moslems would rally to the cause, and leave family and friends to go to save the city.

This is what happened in the Middle Ages in relation to Jerusalem.

When did muslims ever prophibit Christians from pilgrimage to jerusalem? They lived there under muslim rule.

The point is, that was a long time ago. We have all moved on from there. To equate any action, by any country, at this point, with the Crusades, and to say because Christians then behaved in this particular way, Moslems are entitled to do the same six or seven hundred years later, is plain ludicrous.

Moslems need to realise what year it is, by whatever calendar they like, and to accept that they are not going to enforce their views on everyone else. And the rest of us really need to chill, and realise that wearing a beard, or a veil, does not take away a person's humanity.

R u trying to justify the crusades by making a parallel with islam? The islamic empire was nothing remotely like the crusades. Look at how salaahudeen(ra) conducted himself in relation to the crusaders. U r only imagining this comparison to justify the crusades to yourself. & Islam doesnt allow muslims to enforce religion on any1. the quran puts it plainly.

2:265 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.

If any1 is forced into islam, islam gives them the right to revert back to their religion. it is outright prohibited. Outside of the Arabian peninsula it is historically documented that no1 was ever forced into islam by force, where there is no evidence of even a single occasion where it happened. That rumour is a myth from people who couldnt understand how people could embrace islam in their thousands, & how it could happen so rapidly. Today no muslim is fighting to convert anybody. The quran also says this is pointless anyway, since only god puts faith in some1s heart. No human being has that power.

The Church at the time held that killing broke one of the ten commandments, and that if a soldier died without repenting and confessing his sin, he would not die in a state of grace. Each soldier on return had to confess in this way, and do penance for any deaths he was responsible for.

The pope said as long as u where this garment with this cross all your sins will be forgiven. & u dont do the sort of things they did & then boast about it if u actually thought it was wrong.

-peace.

Adeeb · Jun 18, 2006

let me ask one straightforward question to chrsitians who claim that the crusaders were not christian.

-Why exactly were the crusaders not considered christians?

Ronnee743 · Jun 18, 2006

Adeeb said:
Adeeb said:

let me ask one straightforward question to chrsitians who claim that the crusaders were not christian.

-Why exactly were the crusaders not considered christians?

Click to expand...

Martin Luther left the RCC after God revelead to him that we are saved by GRACE alone, not works, so all the things the Catholics have always believed in and practice is not what Protestants believe in.
Catholics believe the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, the Peter of the church, and Protestants do not agree with that.

Even their Bible is different from ours, where it has 72 books, ours has 66.

Totally different.
The one thing we all agree on is that Jesus is GOD.

AlanGurvey · Jun 19, 2006

the islamophobia on this forum.. is actually making me lose a little faith in mankind every time i come here.

AlanGurvey · Jun 19, 2006

Ronnee743 said:
Catholics are not Christians in the Christian's belief.
I am a Christian, but do not consider a Catholic a Christian, but a Catholic.

Wow.. you really must vote republican...

Malikshabaz · Jun 19, 2006

Ronnee743 said:
Catholics are not Christians in the Christian's belief.
I am a Christian, but do not consider a Catholic a Christian, but a Catholic.

Martin Luther left the RCC after God revelead to him that we are saved by GRACE alone, not works, so all the things the Catholics have always believed in and practice is not what Protestants believe in.
Catholics believe the pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, the Peter of the church, and Protestants do not agree with that.

So we have it clearly here the Pope is an apostate, a disbeleiver. better close down the vatican then.

Ronnee743 said:
Martin Luther left the RCC after God revelead to him that we are saved by GRACE alone, not works, .

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. {alone: Gr. by itself}18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. {without: some copies read, by}

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

*** 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. {reprobate: or, void of judgment}
so where do you get the concept that works are not required by just Blind faith is enough.
Malik shabaz
X

arunma · Jun 19, 2006

AlanGurvey said:
Wow.. you really must vote republican...

Here are two points that I feel I should mention:

1.) Political platforms do not come with required theology. It is true that theologically orthodox Christians, and even some brands of theologically orthodox Jews, tend to vote Republican, but this is not necessarily so. I, for example, consider myself to be a very theologically orthodox Christian. I'm even pro-life. Yet as you can see, I vote Democrat.

2.) "Republican" ought not to be used as a dirty word. Let us remember that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Republican political platform. These individuals are not communists or Nazis. They have different fiscal or social views, but compared to all the various political philosophies that have existed throughout history, they are actually not very different from Democrats. Are there some "bad" Republicans? Certainly. But there are equally many bad Democrats. For every Ann Coulter, there is an Al Franken. Both of these individuals make a habit of blatently insulting the other political party, claiming that God is on his or her side, and holding to a specific political platform to almost the point of fundamentalism. But I think you'll find that most Democrats and Republicans tend to be closer to the center.

YahwehisHisname · Jun 19, 2006

AlanGurvey said:
the islamophobia on this forum.. is actually making me lose a little faith in mankind every time i come here.

Would you please give me an example of this islamophobia? I have asked before and you seemed to disappear. You also accused me of things and when I addressed you, you also ran away. Let me put it to you like this: If I say serial killers are usually white men, can a person cry foul even though it is a fact? No they can not. Well, they can, but without merit- just like you. Everything I have said is verifiable, irrefutable and rationally undeniable. Point to an error! If you can't, how the hell can it be islamophobia? Since you can not substantiate your foolishness, and since the word Islamophobia doesn't even exist( you must vote Democrat), I consider your post a personal attack soooooo perhaps the moderators should erase this entire thread because of it.

YahwehisHisname · Jun 19, 2006

Adeeb said:
let me ask one straightforward question to chrsitians who claim that the crusaders were not christian.

-Why exactly were the crusaders not considered christians?

That would be a historical fact. They couldn’t have been Christians. Four centuries had passed since the last sermon was given in a language common to the people of Europe. The first Bible to be printed in the vulgar tongue, John Wycliffe’s, wouldn’t find quill for another four centuries. To be a “Christian” one must know Christ. He could not have been known to the men who fought. It's as simple as that, but this will be selectively forgotten by some here and posted again elsewhere.

YahwehisHisname · Jun 19, 2006

Catherineanne said:
I have nothing in common with a person who can use such crude language, and consider that God sees us in this way.

quote]

Many people errantly think we are to be tolerant of all manner of evil. Like you, they do not know the message contained in His scriptures and get angry at the ones who do. The words I wrote and the ones that got you so angry come from the Bible. Since those are His words, you are admitting that you have nothing in common with Yahushua(Jesus).

Even after someone showed you( thanks guys-arunma, LLOJ) it came out of scripture, you still had to say you were right.
No one seems to have the ability to admit they were wrong. Very sad indeed. Pride and arrogance at its finest.

YahwehisHisname · Jun 19, 2006

double post

DharmaBum · Jun 19, 2006

YahwehisHisname said:
That would be a historical fact. They couldn’t have been Christians. Four centuries had passed since the last sermon was given in a language common to the people of Europe. The first Bible to be printed in the vulgar tongue, John Wycliffe’s, wouldn’t find quill for another four centuries. To be a “Christian” one must know Christ. He could not have been known to the men who fought. It's as simple as that, but this will be selectively forgotten by some here and posted again elsewhere.

One does not need to be literate to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist.......

Oral tradition can and does work.

Sermons and preaching in Europe at that time were always given in the vulgar tongue. How else would the common peasant know that he was being called to a crusade?

Druweid · Jun 19, 2006

YahwehisHisname said:
Adeeb said:

Why exactly were the crusaders not considered christians?

Click to expand...

That would be a historical fact. They couldnt have been Christians. Four centuries had passed since the last sermon was given in a language common to the people of Europe.

Oh Really? And how do we account for "Deus lo Vult" being the battle cry of the crusaders (translation: "God Wills it")?

There may not have been a "Sermon" per se', but the speech given by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, in France, on Nov. 27, 1095, seems to be pretty clear:

The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land. The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war. God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!

Comments?

Respectfully,
-- Druweid

Catherineanne · Jun 19, 2006

YahwehisHisname said:
That would be a historical fact. They couldnt have been Christians. Four centuries had passed since the last sermon was given in a language common to the people of Europe. The first Bible to be printed in the vulgar tongue, John Wycliffes, wouldnt find quill for another four centuries. To be a Christian one must know Christ. He could not have been known to the men who fought. It's as simple as that, but this will be selectively forgotten by some here and posted again elsewhere.

This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but you couldn't be more wrong if you took a Masters degree in rewriting history and calling it truth.

The Crusaders were Christians. Just as Moslem extremists are Moslem. Both were driven to do what was alien to them, by the extremity of the threat they perceived towards their whole existence. The religions they follow, in both cases, bear responsibility for what is done in their name, and in ensuring that such things do not continue to happen.

I am not justifying either behaviour, but it does not help anyone to say that people who act in a particular way as an expression of their faith, are not then to be regarded as adherents of that faith.

To claim otherwise is to misunderstand both history and the present time to an unbelieveable extent.

Catherineanne · Jun 19, 2006

peaceinislam said:
R u trying to justify the crusades by making a parallel with islam?

There are parallels with Islam in the importance that medieval Christianity paid to pilgrimage. That much is certain. As is the fact that the Crusades happened to protect access to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims.

However, explaining about the Crusades is not the same as justifying them. If you read what I said, you will see that I deplored the actions carried out during the Crusades.

Similarly, finding a reason for Islamic extremism is not the same as justifying it. Imo, we all have a responsibility not to write such behaviour off too glibly as terrorism or evil, and to look to find what drives people to such extremes. All harvests have a seed time. If Islam is a religion of peace, and someone somewhere has sown the seeds of violence instead, then it is vital to find out who that someone is. If there were people in my faith killing in the name of Christ, then I would want to know who they are, and deal with them. That is what I am looking for when I hear Moslems talk; not just yet more complaints about the West, but complaints about the people within Islam, who are degrading the faith, and bringing it into disrepute for all to see.

Both faiths have a commandment not to kill. As far as I am aware, that commandment has not been cancelled.

Islam a religion of Peace?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Flaming Calvinist

peaceinislam

Guest

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Malikshabaz

Guest

Flaming Calvinist

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

DharmaBum

Guest

{insert witty phrase}

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency