# Are Muslims who do not...



## ted_BSR (Oct 10, 2010)

Are Muslims who do not practice Sharia Law really Muslims?


----------



## earl (Oct 10, 2010)

Are Protestants who disagree with Catholics really Christians ? Are Catholics who disagree with Protestants really Christians ? Are Messianic Jews who disagree with Catholics and Protestants really Christians?
Things that make you go hmmmmm.


----------



## SneekEE (Oct 10, 2010)

the word  muslim means "one who submits to Allah". If Allah says to adher to Sharia and they dont, then they are not submitting to allah, and could not be defined as a muslim I would say. So does Allah require a muslim to adher to sharia law ?


----------



## Thor827 (Oct 11, 2010)

According to what I have read, it is permissible to live outside of Sharia in order to further the cause of islam.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Oct 11, 2010)

Yes.


----------



## pnome (Oct 11, 2010)

Does it really matter?

If they call themselves Muslim, they are Muslims.  At least as far as I care.  Same thing with Christians.  If you self identify as a Christian, I'm going to call you a Christian.  You may be "unorthodox" in your beliefs, but as long as you call yourself one, you're one in my book.


----------



## Lowjack (Oct 11, 2010)

earl said:


> Are Protestants who disagree with Catholics really Christians ? Are Catholics who disagree with Protestants really Christians ? Are Messianic Jews who disagree with Catholics and Protestants really Christians?
> Things that make you go hmmmmm.



Another non sensible Gibberish.
It is not about disagreeing within the same faith as there are several Muslim faiths, but they all subscribe to Sharia.
All Christians subscribe to the New Testament even if they make a mockery and misunderstand what they are reading.


----------



## earl (Oct 11, 2010)

Now that's just silly LJ. There is only one God and only one Allah.
There are quite a few ''versions'' of the New Testament. Google Bible Gateway . I think there are more than 50. And before you make a silly reply like ''they are all the same'', take a minute and remember all the KJV wars that have been fought in these very pages. 

Take it a step further and tell us that all Jews believe the same . You ,of all people , know better.
 You may want to look up the big words like gibberish before using them.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 11, 2010)

I watched a "Town Hall" on ABC’s “This Week” hosted by Christine Amenpour where this guy, Anjem Choudary, who is a former British solicitors and Muslim cleric and spokesman for the group Islam4UK, stated that eventually Sharia would be global law, even here in the US.  He envisions the flag of Isalm flying over the white house.  He also said something to the effect that if you are a Muslim, but don't practice Sharia Law, you are just like a vegetarian that eats fish.

Christine Amenpour's jaw was on the floor.


----------



## SneekEE (Oct 11, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> I watched a "Town Hall" on ABC’s “This Week” hosted by Christine Amenpour where this guy, Anjem Choudary, who is a former British solicitors and Muslim cleric and spokesman for the group Islam4UK, stated that eventually Sharia would be global law, even here in the US.  He envisions the flag of Isalm flying over the white house.  He also said something to the effect that if you are a Muslim, but don't practice Sharia Law, you are just like a vegetarian that eats fish.
> 
> Christine Amenpour's jaw was on the floor.



I saw that as well, notice they didnt return to him for comments, lol, he was not afraid to stand up for his faith and tell the truth.He even said 9-11 was a reaction to the US attacking them. And that Islam will dominate the world.

Search youtube for ....
Anjem Choudary - "The Flag of Islam Will One Day Fly Over the White House - 4th Oct 2010


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 11, 2010)

earl said:


> Now that's just silly LJ. There is only one God and only one Allah.
> There are quite a few ''versions'' of the New Testament. Google Bible Gateway . I think there are more than 50. And before you make a silly reply like ''they are all the same'', take a minute and remember all the KJV wars that have been fought in these very pages.
> 
> Take it a step further and tell us that all Jews believe the same . You ,of all people , know better.
> You may want to look up the big words like gibberish before using them.



You gotta layoff the Google Earl.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 11, 2010)

Thor827 said:


> According to what I have read, it is permissible to live outside of Sharia in order to further the cause of islam.



I think it is more like, it is permissable to decieve your enemies in order to conquer them, but I am no scholar.  Well, I kind of am, but not on the Koran.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 11, 2010)

pnome said:


> We can compare you to a real chicken and see that you are indeed not an actual chicken.  But with religion, you have nothing real to compare to.



Good point PNOME, I really couldn't resist.  But you can compare a persons actions to the doctrine of the religion they claim to follow. Chickens who quack?


----------



## earl (Oct 11, 2010)

7th Day Adventist are said to quack like ducks but they can and do still claim to be Christian.
Weird how that works.


----------



## SneekEE (Oct 11, 2010)

earl said:


> 7th Day Adventist are said to quack like ducks but they can and do still claim to be Christian.
> Weird how that works.



LOL!! That is true Earl... but I like the claim Jesus makes concerning what a christian is.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 14, 2010)

sneekee said:


> lol!! That is true earl... But i like the claim jesus makes concerning what a christian is.



x2!


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 22, 2010)

The difference in arguing about the different Islamic varieties and the various christian denominations is like comparing apples and oranges.  The shia' and the sunni do not differ in the interpretation of the qu'ran, they differ in who should have succeeded Mohammad as ruler/caliph of the muslim peoples.  The sunni line of caliphes ended up being the ones that won in the end.  The shia' thought mohammad's nephew and husband of his daughter Fatima was the rightful sucsessor whereas the sunni did not.  

This split lead to two different schools of sharia law, the sharia that is based on the qu'ran is accepted by both, the difference occurs when the law based on the sunnah comes into play.  The sunnah is a compilation of accounts of mohammad's life as witnessed by those around him, in other words, he was allah's choosen so therefore what he did and said was how allah wanted people to live.  The haditha (individual stories that make up the sunnah) collected by Aisha  (mohammads child bride and favorite wife) were given great importance by the sunni, because if my memory serves me correctly, her father was the first caliph after Mohammad and she did not want Ali to be caliph.  The shia' place importance on the haditha compiled by both ali and Fatima and ignore the haditha compiled by Aisha (due to political considerations) so that is where the sharia differs.  

As for whether a muslim can live outside of sharia law.....there are justified occassions, but not many.  Muhammad made it plain that no muslim should willingly leave the Dar al-Islam (islamic lands) and live in the nonmuslim Dar al-Harb (literally translated into House of War).  A muslim believes that there are no just laws of man, nor any just governments of man, the goal is for all the umma (muslim people) to live in the caliphate (a government of allah with no national boundries) under sharia law.  If a muslim leaves Dar al-Islam he has a duty to convert as many folks as he can and should not intentionally live outside sharia law if he can help it at all (only exceptions are for war, trade or being a captive, later the scholars allowed it for educational purposes during the 19th century).  

One major difference is that islam is as much a political movement as it is a religious one and sees no distinction between religion and state (there is no organized church in islam hence religion and state as opposed to church and state).  The shia'/sunni split was not originally religious in nature, but political only and dealt with political sucsession alone, because it was so close to the death of muhammad, religious significance developed over which were the proper sunnah to follow. In islam the will of Allah prevails in all aspects of life and his law over rules the law of man. We all have heard of the draconian punishment that sharia law has for many offenses, but the most telling is the crime of apostacy, it is a capital offense to leave islam and it is EVERY MUSLIM'S duty to dispense with justice for an apostate.  That by far is the most telling about whether sharia law should prevail over a muslim in all cases.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 22, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> The difference in arguing about the different Islamic varieties and the various christian denominations is like comparing apples and oranges.  The shia' and the sunni do not differ in the interpretation of the qu'ran, they differ in who should have succeeded Mohammad as ruler/caliph of the muslim peoples.  The sunni line of caliphes ended up being the ones that won in the end.  The shia' thought mohammad's nephew and wife of his daughter Fatima was the rightful sucsessor whereas the sunni did not.
> 
> This split lead to two different schools of sharia law, the sharia that is based on the qu'ran is accepted by both, the difference occurs when the law based on the sunnah comes into play.  The sunnah is a compilation of accounts of mohammad's life as witnessed by those around him, in other words, he was allah's choosen so therefore what he did and said was how allah wanted people to live.  The haditha (individual stories that make up the sunnah) collected by Aisha  (mohammads child bride and favorite wife) were given great importance by the sunni, because if my memory serves me correctly, her father was the first caliph after Mohammad and she did not want Ali to be caliph.  The shia' place importance on the haditha compiled by both ali and Fatima and ignore the haditha compiled by Aisha (due to political considerations) so that is where the sharia differs.
> 
> ...



Thanks for an informative post.  I have to diasgree with your comment about apples and oranges though, there are as many if not more weird diversions of the Christian faith as there are of Islam.  Catholics have a different bible than Protestants, and on the far end there are snake handlers and stricnine drinkers.  Only God knows your heart, and only He can pass judgement on you (not my place).  I guess the scariest thing you have brought to light is that there is no distinction between government and religion for Islam.  It is a total way of life.  This removes my opportunity to worship freely as I see fit, and scares the heck out of me.

Also, the provision to live outside of Sharia Law frightens me because I believe they are all at war (however subtle) to achieve the goal that the whole of the earth is under Sharia Law.  Europe is falling fast.

Some Christians believe that The Second Coming of Christ will not occur until every corner of the world has heard the gospel of salvation.  That is very different from beilieve or be eradicated.

Thanks again for an informative post.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 22, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Thanks for an informative post.  I have to diasgree with your comment about apples and oranges though, there are as many if not more weird diversions of the Christian faith as there are of Islam.  Catholics have a different bible than Protestants, and on the far end there are snake handlers and stricnine drinkers.  Only God knows your heart, and only He can pass judgement on you (not my place).  I guess the scariest thing you have brought to light is that there is no distinction between government and religion for Islam.  It is a total way of life.  This removes my opportunity to worship freely as I see fit, and scares the heck out of me.
> 
> Also, the provision to live outside of Sharia Law frightens me because I believe they are all at war (however subtle) to achieve the goal that the whole of the earth is under Sharia Law.  Europe is falling fast.
> 
> ...



The reason I was saying apples and oranges is because there is only one qu'ran and only one interpretation of it amongst all muslims, regardless of their paticular sect.  They disagree on political issues and which sunnah and haditha(non-qu'ranic aspects of islam based on how muhammad lived or what he said) are the appropriate ones to follow.  Christians disagree over interpretations of the bible and as you said there are many versions of it (all muslims believe there is only one interpretation of the qu'ran).  All muslim prayers are in arabic even though most muslims have to take another's word as to what they are saying in their prayers.  There are no formal preachers as westerners know them in islam, they have clerics that are supposedly learned, but the educational requirements are only that they memorize the qu'ran in arabic.  The judicial scholars are clerics too, because the law is based in the religion, just as the politics is.  There are serious legal debates amongst islamic legal scholars on such matters as to the proper way to execute a homosexual, I kid you not, there is one school of thought that says they should be thrown to their death from a tall building, another school of thought is that a wall should be collapsed on them.  There was actually a huge legal debate recently in Iran when 5 teenagers were hung for the offense of homosexuality and many scholars were really upset that the court ordered them hung, because it was not a proper punishment.

As for worshiping freely under islam, there are provisions that allow the practice of christian, jewish and zoroasterism faiths under islam.  One thing about islam is you can not levy a tax on a muslim, and only non-muslims can be taxed, so they don't require those faiths to convert, but you live under some repressive restrains (no church bells, no public displays of your faith, etc....oh yeah, your testimony is no good against a muslim and you must provide a muslim shelter and food if they need it) Other religions besides the ones named are not allowed (hindus, and taoist are two examples that come to mind) because they are seen as blatantly polytheist and that is a big no-no.  Many muslims believe that christians are polytheist due to the trinity, basically that we believe in three deities but because Jesus is a prophet in islam, christians are considered people of the book and therefore are allowed some freedom to worship as christians.  

One of the biggest things to hit the muslim world in a long time was the discovery of qu'ranic manuscripts in Sa'na Yemen in the 70's.  They are the oldest known manuscripts and are written in an arcahic arabic script that has no vowels.  These are causing some concern because there appears to be some minor differences between them and the later qu'rans.  Even though it is just minor differences it has many islamic scholars worried.  Muslims do not believe the qu'ran is a work of inspired script, they believe it is the literal word of allah, via muhammad through gabriel.  They continuously are pointing out that it has NEVER changed, even one iota unlike the christian bible, starting with the council of nicea through the king james version.  The Sa'na manuscripts show that might not be the case.  Muslims have never acknowleged a history of the qu'ran, unlike christians.  Their scholars don't spend time interpreting, it is the word of god so therefore it means what it says and there is no human interferance involved, unlike the political considerations that were at play at nicea and with the protestant movement.  Right now the work with the Sa'na manuscripts has been kept pretty much hush, hush....one of the funny ones that I have been able to find though is the discription of paradise in the sa'na version; it does not talk about virgins......I reckon it would a whole lot harder to recruit mujahadeen were that to get out.....

Have you ever wondered about why muslim men wear beards?  The reason being is that allah made it so men would grow beards, therefore you are going against his will if you do not grow one, allah is perfect in all things and all creations and he must want men with beards if men grow them.  That is why the taliban required men to keep beards and it was a crime to shave one off. 

The salafi sects, such as the wahabbi's are very much into a  fundimental interpretation of islam and they are where the problems with western thought and islam are at their deepest.  The saudi government made a deal with the wahabbist back at the end of W.W.I when the royal family was unifying arabia (the saud' family), they would give them power if they supported their bid for the thrown.  The salafi movement (which includes the wahabbi of which Osama bin Ladin is one) gained strength through saudi oil wealth and the government funded, and still does, mosque and religious schools that are salafi in nature.  It is popular in Arabia because it is the land of the prophet, where he walked, waged war, and preached.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 23, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> The reason I was saying apples and oranges is because there is only one qu'ran and only one interpretation of it amongst all muslims, regardless of their paticular sect.  They disagree on political issues and which sunnah and haditha(non-qu'ranic aspects of islam based on how muhammad lived or what he said) are the appropriate ones to follow.  Christians disagree over interpretations of the bible and as you said there are many versions of it (all muslims believe there is only one interpretation of the qu'ran).  All muslim prayers are in arabic even though most muslims have to take another's word as to what they are saying in their prayers.  There are no formal preachers as westerners know them in islam, they have clerics that are supposedly learned, but the educational requirements are only that they memorize the qu'ran in arabic.  The judicial scholars are clerics too, because the law is based in the religion, just as the politics is.  There are serious legal debates amongst islamic legal scholars on such matters as to the proper way to execute a homosexual, I kid you not, there is one school of thought that says they should be thrown to their death from a tall building, another school of thought is that a wall should be collapsed on them.  There was actually a huge legal debate recently in Iran when 5 teenagers were hung for the offense of homosexuality and many scholars were really upset that the court ordered them hung, because it was not a proper punishment.
> 
> As for worshiping freely under islam, there are provisions that allow the practice of christian, jewish and zoroasterism faiths under islam.  One thing about islam is you can not levy a tax on a muslim, and only non-muslims can be taxed, so they don't require those faiths to convert, but you live under some repressive restrains (no church bells, no public displays of your faith, etc....oh yeah, your testimony is no good against a muslim and you must provide a muslim shelter and food if they need it) Other religions besides the ones named are not allowed (hindus, and taoist are two examples that come to mind) because they are seen as blatantly polytheist and that is a big no-no.  Many muslims believe that christians are polytheist due to the trinity, basically that we believe in three deities but because Jesus is a prophet in islam, christians are considered people of the book and therefore are allowed some freedom to worship as christians.
> 
> ...



That sounds like divine inspiration to me.  How have you learned so much about Islam?


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 24, 2010)

I have an undergrad degree in history with an emphasis on middle eastern studies.  There were about 4 courses on Islam, and 7 or 8 on middle eastern history to include zionism.  Dr. V. Eggar at Georgia Southern back in the mid-80's to late 80's was a great proffessor.  I also took a few middle eastern comparative politics classes (had dual degrees, one in Poly Sci too, with a minor in International Studies).

I have a huge library on the subject too, (to include a couple of translated qu'rans and a translation of the various haditha)  I found it interresting and I have attempted to keep up with what is going on.  

After about 2 years of me and a couple of other students pushing, we finally got arabic and farsi courses offered, but alas, they were offered my final quarter and I had been accepted in grad school so I was not able to take advantage of those classes.  I have often though that when I can retire I am going to re-enroll and get a degree in arabic.

I have always found Islam to be a fascinating subject, I was in the military prior to college and visited the middle east during a "bright star" deployment (Egypt).  The Lebanese civil war was going on at that time along with the Iraqi/Iranian war and the soviet occupation of Afghanistan and I figured we were going to be involved in that region of the world (both militarilly and economically) to a rather large extent in the future.  Pan-arabism was proving to be a failure and the rise of Iran's Islamic Republic and Hezobllah in Lebanon seemed to signal the wave of the future. The popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt along with the assasination of Sadat seemed to enforce my beliefs on this matter.

The soviet bloc was on the decline and everyone knew it and I figured our next major opponent was going to be the salafi islamic movement that was taking root within the world of islam (in the sunni dominated areas of Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, the southern Philippines and Pakistan)  so I wanted to learn all I could.  I also toyed with the idea of taking emplyment with ARAMCO as opposed to going to grad school for awhile, but in the end, due to the fact I was married at the time, I choose grad school.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 24, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> That sounds like divine inspiration to me.  How have you learned so much about Islam?



They will say the qu'ran is not due to "divine inspiration" that would mean it was partially a work of man or that man was inspired to write it. They say it is the word of allah reduced to text with no human intervention other than Muhammad relaying it verbatum to scribes (even though there are no qu'rans dated to the time of Muhammad).

That is why the Sa'na qu'ran is causing so much controversy, it is the oldest known manuscript and it has some differences (although minor) with the accepted qu'ran.  It has been both radio carbon dated and dated via the archaic script that was used, it was a "proto-arabic" script so to speak, there were no vowels used.  These minor differences would give the qu'ran a history, so to speak, just like we acknowledge with the bible, which is something that the muslims have always denied for the qu'ran.  They have always claimed that it has not changed one iota since the time of their prophet and it is a verbatum recitation of the revelations given to muhammad.

This belief of the qu'ran being a verbatum manuscript is why the qu'ran being translated is frowned upon, because you loose some meanings in translation and it is not man's place to alter the word of allah.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 24, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> I have an undergrad degree in history with an emphasis on middle eastern studies.  There were about 4 courses on Islam, and 7 or 8 on middle eastern history to include zionism.  Dr. V. Eggar at Georgia Southern back in the mid-80's to late 80's was a great proffessor.  I also took a few middle eastern comparative politics classes (had dual degrees, one in Poly Sci too, with a minor in International Studies).
> 
> I have a huge library on the subject too, (to include a couple of translated qu'rans and a translation of the various haditha)  I found it interresting and I have attempted to keep up with what is going on.
> 
> ...



Are you Christian? just curious. If not what do you consider yourself?


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 24, 2010)

Hmmmm, I was raised christian, I do not attend church because most churchs do not suit my attitudes about religion.  I believe my relationship with God is just that, my relationship with God. I do not believe in a strict interpretation of the bible, I believe it was God's way of telling a primative people very complex set of circumstances. (you know, creation and evolution) If I had to choose a christian denomination I would probably be more Gnostic than anything else. One of the gnostic beliefs is an individual's relationship with God, is just that...there is no need for organized churches to be near to God, they were also some of the first christians, they were rather widespread in the middle east prior to Constantine's conversion which created organized churches. They were considered heretical by the early church because it was dangerous to the heirarchy of the church, (Constantine wanted a rigid hierarcy for political purposes) remember that is the same reason protestantism were deemed heretical by the church also, it started as nothing more than a reform movement in the catholic church. It is my understanding of the history of the bible and the rise of christianity that leads me to my particular beliefs. One thing I find really funny with many Christians is they ignore what Jesus' role was, he led a reform movement in the jewish faith, he claimed to be a rabi. Paul is the one who set out to preach to gentiles (non-jews), he was a roman citizen who spread the faith outside of judaism, were it not for Paul there would be no christians today as we know them. The first couple of "christian" generations were almost exclusively jewish and they eventually split with judaism and were spared some of the problems with the revolt against Rome because they did not partake in it.  The pre-protestant bible as we know it was created by the council of Nicea after Constantine's conversion (many say for purely political reasons, there is evidence that he kept his pagan beliefs until his death).  He ordered it because he wanted a unified dominate religion for the roman empire and it was the one religion that could be found through out most of the empire to a small extent and it was gaining status in the middle east which was very important to the roman empire because that is where most of the wheat, which was the staple food of the empire, was produced. There are more texts that were ommited from the bible than there were that were included in it, such as the gospels of judas, mary, paul, etc..., though some of their writtings were included in some of the books such as Paul in the book of romans. A good bit of the jewish books were ommitted from the old testimant too.

I am not muslim if that is what you are asking. I find Islam a dangerous religious/political movement that has been at odds with the west since the capture of Mecca.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 24, 2010)

First off I just want to say that these are simply questions, I am asking them because I have no idea what you think, I am not assuming anything.


> I believe my relationship with God is just that, my relationship with God.


Does this include Jesus as your way to that relationship?


> I believe it was God's way of telling a primative people very complex set of circumstances. (you know, creation and evolution)


Do you believe that the primative people was the only reason for the bible? or do you think it was written for everybody in any time period?




> If I had to choose a christian denomination


I dont believe you do





> I am not muslim if that is what you are asking.


no I was not asking that, you knew alot about Muslims, that doesnt make me think your Islamic.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 24, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> First off I just want to say that these are simply questions, I am asking them because I have no idea what you think, I am not assuming anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 24, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Another non sensible Gibberish.
> It is not about disagreeing within the same faith as there are several Muslim faiths, *but they all subscribe to Sharia.*
> All Christians subscribe to the New Testament even if they make a mockery and misunderstand what they are reading.


 
This is an inaccurate statement.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 24, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Another non sensible Gibberish.
> It is not about disagreeing within the same faith as there are several Muslim faiths, but they all subscribe to Sharia.
> All Christians subscribe to the New Testament even if they make a mockery and misunderstand what they are reading.



The only sharia that would be universal amongst muslims are the laws contained within, and derived from, the qu'ran.  Most of sharia comes from the various sunnah and haditha and the various sects of islam have different sunnah and haditha that emphasis is placed on due to early political considerations (who is gonna lead the muslim nation/umma).  The divergance is due to political infighting amongst muslims after the death of muhammad over who should lead the muslim people politically. As stated earlier that was the cause of the shia'/sunni split.  There are other reform movements within the various sects, with suffism being the most widespread within the sunni section of islam. The widespread suffi beliefs in the Ottoman Empire (in antatolia proper) is one of the reasons it was able to become the first secular government within the muslim world and is why the "young Turks" revolution was able to succeed. That is also why there was widespread arab revolt against them in W.W.I. the arabs considered them heretics.  It is more mysitical and less literal than the dominate beliefs in islam.  The shia' have their reform movements too that are seen as the peak of heretical teachings amongst most muslims (many think they are down right apostates), they believe in bringing about the return of the hidden Imam and are what led to the cult of "assassins" and even the term assassin. 

Sharia just means Allah's law. All muslims believe in need for sharia law and are beholding to it, it is just that they all don't agree on what it is.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 24, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> stringmusic said:
> 
> 
> > First off I just want to say that these are simply questions, I am asking them because I have no idea what you think, I am not assuming anything.
> ...


----------



## Tim L (Nov 24, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Are Muslims who do not practice Sharia Law really Muslims?



Yes


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> At one time my folks thought I wanted to convert because I lived, ate and slept Islam, I was fascinated but never believed its teachings.  One of my proffessors refered to me as Lawrence Jr. (after T. E. Lawrence who was a famous "arabphile, you know, Lawrence of Arabia)  because I was so engrossed in my studies. I find most religion fascinating because religion has done more to shape cultures and mankind than anything else.  It fulfills a certain desire we have to know that there is something else bigger than us and our lives have some kind of meaning.  It gives order on a universal scale even better than governments and it is the basis for our morals.
> It lets us believe that once we die we become something more than worm food.  Without religion we, as a species, would be so afraid of death.... I wonder sometimes about the origin of religion and whether it was our attempt to over ride a fear of death , because we developed knowledge and understanding and because we UNDERSTOOD the basic concept of death, loss, sorrow and all that goes hand in hand with death.  Religion is what made us become human and somehow different from all other animals more so than anything else, even the use of tools and the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals. We are what we are because of religion...



These ideas fascinate me.  I would like to think on them and then engage you in conversation about them.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 24, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> These ideas fascinate me.  I would like to think on them and then engage you in conversation about them.



I have always been fascinated by this too.  Maybe one day we shall.  I have some preacher friends that love to talk with me, and others that swear I am a tool of satan.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> It fulfills a certain desire we have to know that there is something else bigger than us and our lives have some kind of meaning.  It gives order on a universal scale even better than governments and it is the basis for our morals.



Do you think that the desire you refer to is innate or do you think that it's origins are intellectual?  Why do you think that belief is necessary to give your life meaning?  It seems to me that such a belief gives order only when everybody agrees on what that belief is. If only belief in "God" were enough to get people to behave. Unfortunately, what actually happens is that people wage war in the name of their particular God.




redneck_billcollector said:


> It lets us believe that once we die we become something more than worm food.  Without religion we, as a species, would be so afraid of death.... I wonder sometimes about the origin of religion and whether it was our attempt to over ride a fear of death , because we developed knowledge and understanding and because we UNDERSTOOD the basic concept of death, loss, sorrow and all that goes hand in hand with death.



Absence of religion can give you peace as well.  As a matter of fact, those that take comfort in their religion are guilty of the utmost in intellectual dishonesty; claiming that they alone know what's going to happen to them, disregarding the possibility that someone else might be right.  The real fear of death is rooted in our survival instinct.  The manufactured myths about the afterlife are what create the emotional fear of death.  If your knowledge and understanding lead you to the conclusion that once you're gone then you're just gone, then that's comforting too.



redneck_billcollector said:


> Religion is what made us become human and somehow different from all other animals more so than anything else, even the use of tools and the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals. We are what we are because of religion...



How do you see religion as the driving force behind the advancement of humanity?


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 29, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that the desire you refer to is innate or do you think that it's origins are intellectual?  Why do you think that belief is necessary to give your life meaning?  It seems to me that such a belief gives order only when everybody agrees on what that belief is. If only belief in "God" were enough to get people to behave. Unfortunately, what actually happens is that people wage war in the name of their particular God.



It is both, innate and originating in the intellectual relm.  We know that it has been present since the begining of humankind.  The oldest burials show some ritual with pigments and grave goods.  It is innate and became a human trait as soon as man understood what death was.  It evolved in the intellectual and this is evidenced by all the debate that has accompanied religion ever since.  Yes people wage war in the name of religion, they wage it for every other human trait too.  Greed, hunger, any reason that motivates the individual also motivates groupings of people and in many cases towards war.  When has this country waged war in the name of religion?  We haven't as a nation, though some individuals might have joined the fray for religious reasons.  Laws come from religion to some extent or other because most religions deal with relationships between people to some extent or other.  It is ironic though, that most of the laws (though not all by any means)present in secular societies such as in the PRC or defunct Soviet Union are basically the same laws as those with their basis in judeo-christian societies other nations that had some religious guidance.



[/QUOTE]
Absence of religion can give you peace as well.  As a matter of fact, those that take comfort in their religion are guilty of the utmost in intellectual dishonesty; claiming that they alone know what's going to happen to them, disregarding the possibility that someone else might be right.  The real fear of death is rooted in our survival instinct.  The manufactured myths about the afterlife are what create the emotional fear of death.  If your knowledge and understanding lead you to the conclusion that once you're gone then you're just gone, then that's comforting too.[/QUOTE]

Maybe for some, but not the majority.  Intellectual dishonesty takes many forms, finding comfort in the fact that there is something bigger than you is no more intellectually dishonest than saying the individual is in ultimate control of destiny.     Some, if not most of the greatest minds known to man also held the belief that there is something after death and that there was a divine order to the universe.  I do know religious folks tend to accept death better than those that have no belief (at least in my experience).  I personally have my beliefs that give me comfort.  Folks tend to discount the imagination, but don't forget, most of what we know as science started with the imagination, art is created by the imagination in that part of the mind that can conceive something greater than "us".  The altar of the intellect is no more intellectually honest than the altar of any religion.  It forgets that it was religion that led to science and a sense of community, it was the glue that bound early man.  



[/QUOTE]
How do you see religion as the driving force behind the advancement of humanity?[/QUOTE]

Religion is what gave one man a relationship to another.  All early communities had religion for guidance, for cohesiveness and most importantly, for a sense of belonging in something bigger than the brutish life most people lived.  Most everything that folks think of as secular humanism was in response to religion, without religion there would have never been that debate. It is hard to explain, most religious folks would say, you would never understand and that is your loss.  My belief is that there is a force out there greater than anything man could make or conceive and it is there for all to see, if only they choose too.  I believe in creation yet I believe in the big bang, is that intellectually dishonest?  Intellectual honesty is ambiguous as anything can be.  Alot of what was scientific certainty when I was born has since fallen into the the wastebasket of ideas.  

Man is different from other animals when it comes to the survival instinct, we all the time knowingly sacrifice our lives to make it better for others, we do that, in part, because of religion.  It is the driving force that gave humans humanity, a willingness to sacrifice our lives for the betterment of others.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2010)

redneck_billcollector said:


> It is both, innate and originating in the intellectual relm.  We know that it has been present since the begining of humankind.  The oldest burials show some ritual with pigments and grave goods.  It is innate and became a human trait as soon as man understood what death was.  It evolved in the intellectual and this is evidenced by all the debate that has accompanied religion ever since.



What I see as innate is that organisms want to live.  There  are very strong survival reactions.  I think that the concept of something morphing into another thing could have readily been developed from observation of the natural world and then applied to humans.  Watching a log burn would seem pretty mystical to a primitive person.  I don't think one can definitively say if there is a hard wiring for a sense of the "beyond".  I know I was exposed to the notion, clung to it for some time, and then was able to replace it with another notion; with no residual inclinations to return to my previous way of thinking.  



redneck_billcollector said:


> Yes people wage war in the name of religion, they wage it for every other human trait too.  Greed, hunger, any reason that motivates the individual also motivates groupings of people and in many cases towards war.  When has this country waged war in the name of religion?  We haven't as a nation, though some individuals might have joined the fray for religious reasons.



Manifest Destiny wasn't a war, per se, but it was an atrocity fueled by religion.  It was also about greed and hunger as well. What other cause can people rally around that doesn't have be logical or reasonable that will allow them to justify atrocities other than dogma?



redneck_billcollector said:


> Laws come from religion to some extent or other because most religions deal with relationships between people to some extent or other.  It is ironic though, that most of the laws (though not all by any means)present in secular societies such as in the PRC or defunct Soviet Union are basically the same laws as those with their basis in judeo-christian societies other nations that had some religious guidance.



I don't think that's necessarily true.  I think most of the moral codes that came along aid in survival.  When put together, people will come up with guidelines for behavior to aid their survival.  Religion results from someone in the group claiming that they have been given guidelines by a God. If they can get others to believe them, they do well.




redneck_billcollector said:


> Maybe for some, but not the majority.  Intellectual dishonesty takes many forms, finding comfort in the fact that there is something bigger than you is no more intellectually dishonest than saying the individual is in ultimate control of destiny.



That there are things that are bigger than you is obvious.   That there are things that you don't understand is obvious as well.  Observing that things are not in your control is obvious.  The existence of God is not obvious unless you pre-suppose Him.   




redneck_billcollector said:


> Some, if not most of the greatest minds known to man also held the belief that there is something after death and that there was a divine order to the universe.  I do know religious folks tend to accept death better than those that have no belief (at least in my experience).  I personally have my beliefs that give me comfort.  Folks tend to discount the imagination, but don't forget, most of what we know as science started with the imagination, art is created by the imagination in that part of the mind that can conceive something greater than "us".  The altar of the intellect is no more intellectually honest than the altar of any religion.  It forgets that it was religion that led to science and a sense of community, it was the glue that bound early man.



The Divine; it is a compelling notion.  Once you give it credence, it's a difficult concept to look at objectively ever again, much less extricate from your consciousness.  I think the desire to learn fuels science.  I think the position of knowing ultimate truth does the opposite.




redneck_billcollector said:


> Religion is what gave one man a relationship to another.  All early communities had religion for guidance, for cohesiveness and most importantly, for a sense of belonging in something bigger than the brutish life most people lived.



Until they came across a tribe with a different religion.




redneck_billcollector said:


> Most everything that folks think of as secular humanism was in response to religion, without religion there would have never been that debate. It is hard to explain, most religious folks would say, you would never understand and that is your loss.  My belief is that there is a force out there greater than anything man could make or conceive and it is there for all to see, if only they choose too.



"There there are things that are inconceivable" is absolutely true.  That they exist is not.  What I don't get is that people believe that they have some privy to understanding the inconceivable that others do not.



redneck_billcollector said:


> I believe in creation yet I believe in the big bang, is that intellectually dishonest?  Intellectual honesty is ambiguous as anything can be.  Alot of what was scientific certainty when I was born has since fallen into the the wastebasket of ideas.



Scientific ideas don't always get completely scrapped.  They get built upon when new information comes along.  Religion never scraps anything, even when new evidence demonstrates it to be flawed, nor does it build upon new information because it assumes perfect authority on everything.




redneck_billcollector said:


> Man is different from other animals when it comes to the survival instinct, we all the time knowingly sacrifice our lives to make it better for others, we do that, in part, because of religion.  It is the driving force that gave humans humanity, a willingness to sacrifice our lives for the betterment of others.



I'll let Pnome tackle that one, if he ever shows up here.


----------



## pnome (Nov 30, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> I'll let Pnome tackle that one, if he ever shows up here.



You rang?



redneck_billcollector said:


> Man is different from other animals when it comes to the survival instinct, *we all the time knowingly sacrifice our lives to make it better for others*, we do that, in part, because of religion.  It is the driving force that gave humans humanity, a willingness to sacrifice our lives for the betterment of others.




When humans sacrifice themselves for other humans what are they sacrificing themselves for, exactly?  Isn't is so that the other humans can _survive_?  When a soldier falls on a grenade he does it to ensure that his buddies _survive_.  

Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2010)

pnome said:


> You rang?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I rang.

I'm sure there are examples of someone acting in a selfish way; letting many perish to save his/her own hide.  In those cases, what may have caused the moral compass to fail?  Perhaps they may have even been sickly or terminally ill.  How strong is the instinct for self preservation?


----------



## pnome (Nov 30, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> I rang.
> 
> I'm sure there are examples of someone acting in a selfish way; letting many perish to save his/her own hide.  In those cases, what may have caused the moral compass to fail?  Perhaps they may have even been sickly or terminally ill.  How strong is the instinct for self preservation?



Selfishness.  Sometimes this can be explained by irrational thinking.  But more often is the result of a lack of empathy.

Empathy plays a very important role in our moral decisions.  For instance, no one (at least that I know) would laud a soldier for diving on a grenade in order to save the life of Osama Bin Laden.   But we would give him the medal of honor if he did it to save a group of U.S. Navy SEALS.

When we think someone as being "selfish" we are saying that this person does not display the level of empathy we are expecting toward what we consider to be fellow "herd" (for lack of a better term) members.   We think that selfishness is a bad thing because non-selfish herd members are more conducive to herd survival than selfish ones.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2010)

pnome said:


> Selfishness.  Sometimes this can be explained by irrational thinking.  But more often is the result of a lack of empathy.
> 
> Empathy plays a very important role in our moral decisions.  For instance, no one (at least that I know) would laud a soldier for diving on a grenade in order to save the life of Osama Bin Laden.   But we would give him the medal of honor if he did it to save a group of U.S. Navy SEALS.
> 
> When we think someone as being "selfish" we are saying that this person does not display the level of empathy we are expecting toward what we consider to be fellow "herd" (for lack of a better term) members.   We think that selfishness is a bad thing because non-selfish herd members are more conducive to herd survival than selfish ones.



Does this support capitalism?  I digress....


----------



## pnome (Nov 30, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> Does this support capitalism?  I digress....



It does if our information tells us that capitalism is better for herd survival than communism. 

And my information certainly points in that direction.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> It does if our information tells us that capitalism is better for herd survival than communism.
> 
> And my information certainly points in that direction.



 An exception to the above rule?


----------



## pnome (Dec 1, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> An exception to the above rule?




Maybe an exception to the idea that selfishness is always detrimental to herd survival.  But when we are dealing with things that are society wide, empathy for individual participants is a lot less.

For instance, I may write a software program that ends up replacing a person's job.  That sucks for the person who gets laid off, and is certainly detrimental to his or her survival.  But I don't feel like I've done anything wrong or immoral.  But if I told some lie about that person that got them fired, the result would be the same.  But the morality of the situation is completely different.  

The same sort of thing is true in capitalism. There are winners and losers but in the end society as a whole advances.  Just like my hypothetical labor saving software program helps my client to produce their product or provide their service at lower cost.

Or another way to look at it is sexual selection.  It would be rather unselfish for Angelina Jolie to have sex with any guy who could use an ego boost.  And it's rather selfish of Brad Pitt to keep her all to himself like that.  But in this situation we would consider Angelina's actions highly immoral and Brad Pitt's actions moral.

This is because we have other information that tells us that such sexual promiscuity is not beneficial to survival.   Either for the individuals involved, or society as a whole.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2010)

pnome said:


> Maybe an exception to the idea that selfishness is always detrimental to herd survival.  But when we are dealing with things that are society wide, empathy for individual participants is a lot less.
> 
> For instance, I may write a software program that ends up replacing a person's job.  That sucks for the person who gets laid off, and is certainly detrimental to his or her survival.  But I don't feel like I've done anything wrong or immoral.  But if I told some lie about that person that got them fired, the result would be the same.  But the morality of the situation is completely different.
> 
> ...



Sexual promiscuity is a very positive survival strategy for males of many species, humans included.

Your example of the software speaks to the notion of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.  At an executive or ownership level, the motivations of capitalism are driven by the exact opposite.

I like capitalism for the most part.  At its best, it encourages excellence.  At its worst, it encourages short sighted destructiveness (I'm thinking of industrial pollution here).


----------



## TTom (Dec 1, 2010)

Promiscuity had until very recently the detriment of not being able to be sure who is the father of a child. And since inheritance and obligation to raise the child come into question it's a problem for group survival.

Long gestation and even longer raising the young to maturity time spans make such questions a serious issue for humans.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2010)

TTom said:


> Promiscuity had until very recently the detriment of not being able to be sure who is the father of a child. And since inheritance and obligation to raise the child come into question it's a problem for group survival.
> 
> Long gestation and even longer raising the young to maturity time spans make such questions a serious issue for humans.



If you have the resources, the best way to insure genetic diversity and the passing on of your genes is to cast your seed far and wide.  That strategy has different implications for the mother.  With her finite ovum, her best hope is to breed with the best genetic donor and have the offspring be raised by the best provider; who may not necessarily be one in the same.


----------



## TTom (Dec 1, 2010)

Sure but tough convince the "best provider" that they should pay the bill for the offspring of another.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2010)

TTom said:


> Sure but tough convince the "best provider" that they should pay the bill for the offspring of another.



That is a problem.


----------



## puddlehunter (Apr 24, 2013)

One misconception is who allah is, in Islam Allah means God, same god that christians believe in.  There is a difference with Mohammad and Jesus, Muslims believe they were both prophets, yes suprise, they know Jesus as well, not the same way that Christians do.  As far as believing and not believing in Sharia, I think its kind of like with Christians, they don't all follow to the letter everything the bible says, same with muslims and the Koran


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 24, 2013)

puddlehunter said:


> One misconception is who allah is, in Islam Allah means God, same god that christians believe in.  There is a difference with Mohammad and Jesus, Muslims believe they were both prophets, yes suprise, they know Jesus as well, not the same way that Christians do.



I highlighted the key phrase.




puddlehunter said:


> As far as believing and not believing in Sharia, I think its kind of like with Christians, they don't all follow to the letter everything the bible says, same with muslims and the Koran



I don't think that's an accurate analogy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 24, 2013)

Some people are Christian or Jewish, they just aren't practicing. I've heard people say they are Catholic but they aren't practicing.
I wonder how all the mostly black Muslims in this country fit into Islam of the Middle East.


----------



## piratebob64 (May 31, 2013)

I see people who "are" or only claim to be "good" muslims as future targets of opportunity!  The Koran says "to fight the enemies of Islam until they are subjagated and give up their preaching against Islam, otherwise put them to the sword and kill them"! Christians preaching the word of GOD is preaching against Islam!
It is impossble for a Muslims to be good American: Why, because America puts GOD first! Muslims will never put God or country ahead of Allah. Islam is the only religion that says  to lie about not being a muslim to further the faith!  So for all you people that feel it is okay to have them in this country you need to wake up! They are here for one reason and one reason only! to destroy the infidells who will not stop preaching against islam. They have already taken over the schools and are allowed to teach the history of islam in our own schools, are we alowed to the history of christianity in our schools! Try to stop a muslims from praying in whether in school or any other time and you will have the rath of allah brought down on you, You have seen christian prayer being banned from  almost every aspect of American life! 
                                    WAKE UP PEOPLE!  
I am telling you targets of opportunity is all they are when the time comes!!


----------



## ambush80 (May 31, 2013)

This was a good discussion.  Thanks for reviving it with your nonsense, piratebob.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2013)

In America your God can be whomever you believe God to be on no God at all. It's the price we pay as Americans for freedom. We take chances for Christ. 
If I see someone in need I will help them. They might kill me before I get a chance but it won't stop me from trying. This is within reason.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 31, 2013)

After you sell all of your worldy goods and follow Jesus, we'll worry about this little problem.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 3, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> I see people who "are" or only claim to be "good" muslims as future targets of opportunity!  The Koran says "to fight the enemies of Islam until they are subjagated and give up their preaching against Islam, otherwise put them to the sword and kill them"! Christians preaching the word of GOD is preaching against Islam!
> It is impossble for a Muslims to be good American: Why, because America puts GOD first! Muslims will never put God or country ahead of Allah. Islam is the only religion that says  to lie about not being a muslim to further the faith!  So for all you people that feel it is okay to have them in this country you need to wake up! They are here for one reason and one reason only! to destroy the infidells who will not stop preaching against islam. They have already taken over the schools and are allowed to teach the history of islam in our own schools, are we alowed to the history of christianity in our schools! Try to stop a muslims from praying in whether in school or any other time and you will have the rath of allah brought down on you, You have seen christian prayer being banned from  almost every aspect of American life!
> WAKE UP PEOPLE!
> I am telling you targets of opportunity is all they are when the time comes!!



pssssst:
(Allah=God)


----------



## jmh5397 (Jun 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> pssssst:
> (Allah=God)



And here I thought you were an atheist.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> pssssst:
> (Allah=God)


Pssssssst.
(Allah="a god" but not "The One True God")


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Pssssssst.
> (Allah="a god" but not "The One True God")



Muslims,Jews,Christians all start with worshiping the God of Abraham. The twists in the stories made after that God are what separate the three.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> And here I thought you were an atheist.



Point?


----------



## jmh5397 (Jun 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Point?



A person with your mental capacity shouldn't need this explained.... Here goes:  if you don't believe in (a) God or (any) gods, then how does the equation "Allah = God" come from your thought process?  There is no God, right?  Yes, I get your point, that from a biblical view, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian God are one in the same.  Doesn't it seem a bit trivial, on your part, to use God's existence to prove his non-existence?  At very least, almost hypocritical?


----------



## atlfishingnews (Jun 5, 2013)

Are christians who dont really practice Christianity still Christians


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 5, 2013)

atlfishingnews said:


> Are christians who dont really practice Christianity still Christians



No, they're called Buddhists.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> A person with your mental capacity shouldn't need this explained.... Here goes:  if you don't believe in (a) God or (any) gods, then how does the equation "Allah = God" come from your thought process?  There is no God, right?  Yes, I get your point, that from a biblical view, the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian God are one in the same.  Doesn't it seem a bit trivial, on your part, to use God's existence to prove his non-existence?  At very least, almost hypocritical?



Am I wrong? Is Allah also God or not?

It does not come from my thought process. It comes from knowledge of religious beliefs that I have studied. I do not have to believe what I am reading in order to discuss it.
No different than when you read your children fairy tales. Are you a hypocrite if you discuss the characters later? 


There are lots of things that I don't believe in but can hold a conversation about.
In this case we have a guy thinking that Allah and God are two totally different entities. Going by what I have studied, learned and discussed over the years, I am trying to clear things up a bit for him.
I have noticed that most non-believers seem to have more knowledge about religion(s) than most believers. Possibly because they take the time to study the history of one or more religions.

I don't know why having me give a correct answer in here somehow offends you or concerns you. Bottom line is don't worry about WHO is giving answers, just worry whether or not the info is correct. If the three religions, Islam,Judaism and Christianity do not worship the God of Abraham let me know. If your only concern is me being involved in the discussion then get over it. I am able to hold my own regarding religion, regardless of what I believe.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jun 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Am I wrong? Is Allah also God or not?
> 
> It does not come from my thought process. It comes from knowledge of religious beliefs that I have studied. I do not have to believe what I am reading in order to discuss it.
> No different than when you read your children fairy tales. Are you a hypocrite if you discuss the characters later?
> ...


Allah is the god (little 'g') of the Quran. He is known by 98 other names in the Quran (google it, it's not worth my time nor relevant to the discussion) One of the names he is never called in the Quran is "Father" and you will never see Jesus referred to as the Son of God (big 'G') in the Quran. To do so would be blasphemy and subject you to severe punishment. Allah is also not a gracious god. You will find in the Quran that Allah will not die for you, nor will he send anyone else to do so. Plus a multitude of other lies about Jesus.

Inversely, Yahweh is the God (big 'G') of Christianity and the Bible, and is many things that Allah could never be, including a Father and Gracious. God / Yahweh is the only God to send his Son to die for you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Allah is the god (little 'g') of the Quran. He is known by 98 other names in the Quran (google it, it's not worth my time nor relevant to the discussion) One of the names he is never called in the Quran is "Father" and you will never see Jesus referred to as the Son of God (big 'G') in the Quran. To do so would be blasphemy and subject you to severe punishment. Allah is also not a gracious god. You will find in the Quran that Allah will not die for you, nor will he send anyone else to do so. Plus a multitude of other lies about Jesus.
> 
> Inversely, Yahweh is the God (big 'G') of Christianity and the Bible, and is many things that Allah could never be, including a Father and Gracious. God / Yahweh is the only God to send his Son to die for you.



Like I said before:
"Muslims,Jews,Christians all start with worshiping the God of Abraham. The twists in the stories made after that God are what separate the three."


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 5, 2013)

SneekEE said:


> LOL!! That is true Earl... but I like the claim Jesus makes concerning what a christian is.



Wait a minute - how could Jesus say anything about what a Christian believes if the religion wasn't_ invented_ until after he died and was resurrected? 

He would have to come back now and then to monitor how the religion is going and keep the members on the right track.

Every good leader makes sure his orders are being followed.


----------



## JFS (Jun 7, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Allah is the god (little 'g') of the Quran.
> 
> ...
> 
> Inversely, Yahweh is the God (big 'G') of Christianity and the Bible, and is many things that Allah could never be




You are confusing language with religion.  Allah is just the Arabic word God.   Christian Arabs refer to the God of the Bible and purported Father of Jesus as "Allah".

And the Bible is a holy book for Islam, so the Muslim Allah is also the "God" of the Bible.


----------



## Rich Kaminski (Jul 3, 2013)

What came first; the religion or the law???


----------



## Manutdman (Jul 20, 2014)

Lowjack said:


> Another non sensible Gibberish.
> It is not about disagreeing within the same faith as there are several Muslim faiths, but they all subscribe to Sharia.
> All Christians subscribe to the New Testament even if they make a mockery and misunderstand what they are reading.



It was a 'nonsensible' statement, but, in Islam, there are 73 different sects, but Muhammad said that only one sect is the 'real' Islam......BUT, he failed to say WHICH sect was the one real sect. Shias say Sunnis are not 'real' Muslims ans vice versa, except when they are doing a head count to try to impress everyone with their numbers, and conveniently, they will THEN say all Muslims are the 'real' Islam. Sunni Muslims follow the hadiths, putting them almost on the same par as the Quran, that is if they are considered sahih(authentic), yet even then, they will argue about which ones are and are not authentic, based on expedience when it boils down to it, although they will claim there is a precise 'science' to determining their  authenticity. For example, Bukhari is considered the most authentic narrations, but when you quote book 60, about the initial collection of the Quran after Muhammad's death, due to the heavy losses of 450 qurras(reciters) killed at the battle of Yamama, who took with them, to their graves, portions of the Quran known only to themselves, which is why Abu Bakr and Umar who later became caliphates numbers 1 & 2, were prompted to gather what remained of the Quran , before even more was lost. Thus hadith destroys their claim of a perfect and unaltered book, so although they will tell you that Bukhari is the most authentic hadiths, suddenly this one gets questioned as to its reliability...why...because it is not supportive of their beliefs, not because it has no historical authenticity. Issues like this is why Shias reject the hadiths altogether. Muslims have been infighting since Islam's inception over this issue, as well as who should succeed Muhammad(as caliph) after he died, and by infighting, it goes a little further than the assembly of councils or denominational splits....it has involved all out wars with literally millions of deaths, with as many as 11 million since 1948 alone. Most of you will remember the Iran/Iraq war, and Sadaam Hussein's 35 year reign of terror in Iraq, where he as a Sunni, oppressed any and all other sects, involving many deaths, with as many as 5,000 Kurds having been massacred with experimental chemical weapons in one attack.


----------

