TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why DO they call Islam: The Religion of Peace
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Maybe if you actually knew what you were talking about and didn't have an anti-religion bias, you might be able to tell a glaringly obvious difference amd answer your own question. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and maybe if you didnt have an ant-isreal bias or pro-conspiracy bias you'd be able to see the elements in either of those questions that are also glaringly obvious. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN arent you always criticising me for my central-ness? well, here's an issue im taking sides on. are you all proud of me? |
.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Stop lovin' Lira and make another mix you... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Maybe if you actually knew what you were talking about and didn't have an anti-religion bias, you might be able to tell a glaringly obvious difference amd answer your own question. |
Re: Why DO they call Islam: The Religion of Peace
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX After reading about how Islam has been so called corrupted by the fanatics... A 12 year boy is used to cut the head off a spy... Taleban use 12-year-old boy to behead man accused of spying all in the name of thier God  I started to compile a list of Teaching from Mohammed and a some that Jesus stated. Below is just a sample of what is in the Koran, I added several passages from the New Testement to show,,,, read below, study on your own and decide what prophet was teaching peace and tollorance..... It was jesus that stated, "He with no sin cast the first the stone" However, it looks like the so called, Religion of Peace's prophet used violence and death to spread his teachings..... if any one wants to add any more please feel free to... ----------------- It is also worth noting that when the "angel" visited Mohammed, Mohammed was afraid and remained that way. In the Bible, whenever anyone was visited by an angel of the Lord (Joseph, Mary, etc.), the very first thing the angel did was to assure them that there was nothing to fear and they were calmed. .....interesting..... Even though I do not consider my self a christian, it is hard to over look the violence that seems to be praised in the Koran. And I know that many may say, but, but, but what about the Old Testement?? Jesus taught peace, love and to turn the other cheeck. Islam teaches "We (muslims) shall certainly strike terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved. .. and certainly Allah had made good his promise to you when you were slaying them to pieces by his permission.� He only reason why I posted this, is because, We need to know the teachings of both sides... It is obvious that Islam & the West(christian basically) are headed to conflicts that will spill over into the streets soon. Turning a blind eye to this religion and the part Christanity plays in our word today is stupid. Even atheist should learn what these religions think and teach. I also find it pretty frigging funny that most of the Athiest on this board seem to team up with the Muslim's on this board to knock on Christanity.... Just remember what the Koran says about athiests: and here is what Jesus says about athiests: also note, this is not a thread to knock on either religion, I just wanted to share some passages about the present situation this world is in when it comes to these two religions.... discuss: |
| quote: |
| "Just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led government[s] in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe. This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States' principles are universal, and in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe." (emphasis added) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX You see pkcRAISTLIN, with Z, I have decided to treat him like I do everyone I am friends with. My Old Pa Pah told me this: Never talk Religion, Politucs or Egg Laying Hens in Public....and by doing so, you will get along with everyone..... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX I also find it pretty frigging funny that most of the Athiest on this board seem to team up with the Muslim's on this board to knock on Christanity.... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX so basically what you guys are saying is that, a deaf, blind and dumb person cannot be muslim? That person has no concept of language, so with out it, he cannot understand. Does this mean that he is not enlightend? |
| quote: |
| The only reason why I ask is due to christanity's whole deal with Soveriegn Grace... and predestination.... it basically states that a person is chosen to be saved even before they are born. "Jacob I Loved, Esau I Hated, when they were still in the womb." Does Islam have that basic premise?? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo that's spot on...and can be proven scientifically. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i dont think islam is necessarily more guilty than christianity when it comes to blood-thirsty holy text. the text isn't the problem imo. religion itself, and its lack of evolution to modernise its archaic writings is the problem. but of course, you cant modernise a holy book can you? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade I don't think I've ever defended the theology of Islam specifically, but I have - and will continue to - point out that it is no more or less insiduous as a theology than that of Judaism or Christianity. Far more terrors have been committed in the name of the Bible, remember, than have ever been committed in the name of the Qur'an. |
| quote: |
Firstly, I think you're wrong on the issue of predestination. According to Paul, salvation requires faith in Christ and a triumph of the "spirit" over the "flesh" whereas for Peter and James, specific works are also necessary to acheive salvation. There is no scriptural basis, so far as I am aware, to support the idea that salvation doesn't require specific acts in the "Earthly" life. I don't think Jesus ever shared such a concept of heavenly "salvation" in his eschatology either, but then Christianity has always been more about Paul than it has been about Jesus. |
| quote: |
| Romans 9 and Predestination Romans 9:9-24 is one of the most intriguing and thought provoking passages in the Bible. Yet, it is often not given the serious consideration that it needs when dealing with the issue of God�s sovereignty and our salvation. This short but powerful section asks some pointed and powerful questions often raised in the argument against predestination. . . and then answers them. In addition, there is a simple theological test that you can take. The test is not by my devising; rather, it is imbedded in the passage and is authored by God. Let�s begin. (Note: all scripture quotations are from the NASB.) "For this is a word of promise: 'At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.' 10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God�s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12it was said to her, 'The older will serve the younger.' 13Just as it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" (NASB) In verse 10 Paul speaks about Rebekah having Jacob and Esau. Historically speaking, Esau was born first, then Jacob. Through a series of interesting events (Gen. 25:19-34), the older served the younger, an unusual arrangement in those days. Paul then adds, "Just as it is written, �Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.�" This was by God�s choice as is stated in verse 11. Some might quickly assume that God loving Jacob and hating Esau had something to do with their behavior, that one was good and the other bad, and that God looked into the future and saw what they would do and then showed favor based on that foreknowledge. This is incorrect for several reasons. First, this position would mean that God looked upon them and saw what they would do and loved/hated them based on something in them. This is unscriptural. There is nothing in us that merits any favor with God. We are, after all, by nature, children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), do not seek God (Rom. 3:10-11), and are slaves of sin (Rom. 6:16). Also, God shows no partiality (Rom. 2:11). Second, it circumvents the cross. The only reason that God would look favorably upon us is because of what has been done by Jesus on the cross. It is only though Jesus, and by Jesus, and because of Jesus, that any of us have any standing before God at all. Third, it doesn�t fit the context. If you look at verse 11, it says "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God�s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, �The older will serve the younger.� Just as it is written, �Jacob I love, But Esau I hated.�" Both, the older serving the younger and Jacob and Esau are put together under verse 11 which states " . . . in order that God�s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls . . . " In other words, God�s choice is the deciding factor, not man�s, on who serves who and who God loves. This section of scripture clearly shows that God is sovereign. Sovereignty means that God is supreme in authority and power, that He is independent of all others, and that He does as He wishes. He can love whom He chooses and He can hate whom He chooses. His sovereignty means that has the right to be merciful or not based on His own will. The question is, "Is that what He is doing?" Verse 11 says, "for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, ir order that God�s purpose according to His choice might stand . . . " Clearly, it should be seen that God is not basing his love or hate upon the two based upon anything that either of them had done. The text refutes that clearly. Paul anticipates the reader�s concerns in the next verse and asks the question, "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!" Paul asks this because of what he has just written down in the previous verses. His question is logical only if you understand what he is saying. We need to ask it, too. "Is God unjust in loving one and hating another?" The obvious answer is "No!" Then Paul goes on to answer the question in verse 15. "For He says to Moses, �I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.�" Notice that Paul does not answer with a feeling. He answers with scripture. Are we understanding what Paul is saying here? Is he saying that God is merciful and compassionate to whom He wishes? It would seem so. Remember verse 11? "...in order that God�s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls . . . " It is God who calls according to His purpose. Also, consider Ephesians 1:5, "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will." You see, God�s choice of predestination, mercy, and compassion are "according to the kind intention of His will," "because of Him who calls." Paul draws a conclusion that needs to be taken very seriously. Verse 16 says, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." What does not depend on the man who wills? The answer is, God�s mercy. God does not look at a person to see what or who he is and then decide to show mercy, love, or save that person based on what He sees in that person. To say so would be say that we are somehow worthy of something before God on our own. This is unbiblical. But some will say that God looks into the future to see who would pick him based on the calling of the Holy Spirit that is working through Jesus, and ultimately, the cross. But this passage is refuting that precisely. Just go over it again. Paul then quotes Exodus 9:16 about the Lord raising up Pharaoh for the very purpose of having God�s "name proclaimed throughout the whole earth." Then Paul says in verse 18, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." We are forced to a conclusion about God�s mercy. Is God sovereign to whom He shows His mercy, or is it based upon something in man? This raises an important issue about the greatness of God and the sinfulness of man. Are we capable of meriting mercy? Are we able to see that we need God? Are we somehow free enough to be able to want God? Or does our sinful nature make that impossible? We must ask and answer the question, "Is God, the "only sovereign" (1 Tim. 6:15) the One who chooses how and upon whom His mercy is bestowed? Again Paul anticipates the possible objections to his teaching about God�s sovereign mercy and grace. He says in verse 19, "You will say to me then, �Why does He still find fault, for who resists His will?�" In other words, if God is merciful to whom He wishes, He hardens whom He desires, and it does not depend on anything in man, then how can He judge anyone? How can we still be held responsible for our sins? Paul�s answer to this question is an appeal to the direct sovereignty of God. He says in verses 20 - 21, "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, �Why did you make me like this,� will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?" God has the right to do as He wishes with His creation. God is sovereign. Paul is saying here that God makes one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use. He is differentiating between the vessels and their use...all based on God�s sovereign right to do as He wishes. Paul doesn�t stop there. He makes sure that we understand what he is saying. So he continues in verse 22, "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles." Does God prepare vessels for destruction? Would God actually do such a thing? The answer is, "Yes." Isn�t this what sovereignty is? But some have said that this is a hypothetical situation, that even though God has the right make some vessels for mercy and others for destruction, He would never do so because it would mean that he was not loving. Some have said that, but it is not a satisfactory reply. The reason is because Paul says in verse 23, "And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among the Gentiles." Did you catch the beginning of that verse? It says that God did it. As you can see, this is a difficult passage. It can be a powerful shock to some and a confirmation of God�s character and sovereignty to others. Still, some will simply respond with denial. But if I am wrong, then please show me from the passage where and how. A Test: As I said before, there is a test in this passage. If you did not ask the same basic questions that Paul did throughout this passage, then that means that you did not understand what he was saying. But, if you did ask the same basic questions that he did, then that means you did understand what he was saying. Let me ask you, did you understand what Paul was saying? If so, do you believe it? If not, why not? Objections: This passage is not speaking of individuals but a class of people. This cannot be true because specific people are mentioned: Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh. Also, vessels are people. The word �vessel� in Greek is �skeuos.� It is used in different senses and means utensils and containers of ordinary household use. But when it is used of people it means individuals. Acts 9:15, �Go, for he is a chosen instrument (skeuos) of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.� 1 Thess. 4:4, �that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor." This usage means either �own body� or possibly �wife.� Again, it is speaking of individuals. 2 Tim. 2:21, �Therefore, if a man cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work." You can see here too, that the usage is of an individual. Not a class of people. 1 Pet. 3:7, �You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman...� Even though husbands is plural, vessel is singular. God�s election is not for a class or type of people, but of individuals. That is why Jesus said in John 6:39, �And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.� Jesus was not given a class or group of people but a the elect, the ones chosen, the individuals. If you think about it, it couldn�t be any other way. After all, is God only guessing at who will be saved and, therefore, prophesied a �group� of people? Not at all. He is omniscient. He knows exactly who are His. This doctrine of sovereign predestination makes God unloving. On the contrary. Because of man�s sinful nature, no one would ever come to God. Remember, it is man who cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23); does not seek for God (Rom. 3:11); is lawless, rebellious, unholy, and profane (1 Tim. 1:9); and is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). If it were left up to man, no one would ever be saved. God, in His loving predestination, assured to Himself His people, the ones who He called and predestined: �Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.� By God�s own words, predestination is a loving doctrine. |
| quote: |
Besides, are you offering this as a point in favour of Christian theology? The idea that our eternal destiny is decided for us before we are even born? As a lay-existentialist, I can think of few things more repugnant. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by M.Johan |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Far more terrors have been committed in the name of the Bible, remember, than have ever been committed in the name of the Qur'an. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r That is VERY debatable considering how the Muslim religion was spread by the sword for so many centuries. I'm not excusing the Christian religions here but they pale in comparison, especially in today's world. |
Re: Why DO they call Islam: The Religion of Peace
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX don't let your eyes roll out of your head little buddy.... |
What I really dont understand about all this.. ALL THIS.. is why the hate?
I dont believe in religion, but whenever a certain race/religious group does something bad, I would never point a finger.
You guys seem so caught up in defending who worships the better god, or this group of people didnt do something as bad as this group of people.
If you believe in a certain religion, practice it and ignore other religions for "GOD's" sake
If you pray 5 times a day, good for you, peace be upon you and hope u end up in heaven.
Simple as that. If you have some personal vendetta against a certain religion, then thats a pity, cause frankly, ur no better than those who commited crimes in the name of religion in the first place.
Christianity is much more moral than Islam, in Australia for fifty five years they stole generations and generations of children from Aboriginal families to have them raised the good �ol Christian way in internment camps, orphanages and other institutions rife with child abuse and preistly pedophiles, but think of the alternative.... these children may have been raised pagan? 
Thank god Constantine and the Roman Empire adopted and bowdlerised Christianity after they spread their hegemony by the sword
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trewqy What I really dont understand about all this.. ALL THIS.. is why the hate? I dont believe in religion, but whenever a certain race/religious group does something bad, I would never point a finger. You guys seem so caught up in defending who worships the better god, or this group of people didnt do something as bad as this group of people. If you believe in a certain religion, practice it and ignore other religions for "GOD's" sake If you pray 5 times a day, good for you, peace be upon you and hope u end up in heaven. Simple as that. If you have some personal vendetta against a certain religion, then thats a pity, cause frankly, ur no better than those who commited crimes in the name of religion in the first place. |
| quote: |
A MUSLIM leader has told his students that it is "obligatory" for all Muslims to engage in jihad if an Islamic country is under attack, even if it means killing the enemy's children. Teachings Sheik Shady Suleiman, a youth leader at Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's southeast, told his students in a one-hour Arabic and English lecture that it would be "self defence" to kill children who were attacking them in battle. Muslim leaders yesterday attacked the 29-year-old cleric, who has a substantial following in Sydney and is deputy to leader Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali. They accused him of delivering a message contrary to that of Prophet Mohammed who said children should not be killed in war. Prominent Sydney-based imam Khalil Shami said Sheik Shady's message was "dangerous" because it was open to being misconstrued by young Muslims. "It is very dangerous," he said. "Because ... he puts in their minds that they have to do this, and he prepares them for something wrong for sure." Opposing views among Muslims The nation's leading spiritual Muslim woman Aziza Abdel-Halim said Sheik Shady's message diverged from Islamic teachings that prohibit the killing of children. In a lecture titled Rulings on Performing Jihad, obtained by The Australian, Sheik Shady differentiates between defensive and offensive jihad and quotes the Prophet by saying anyone who fights to defend their land, soul, and wealth was considered a "Shahid" (martyr). "If attackers or invaders want to invade a Muslim country or attack a Muslim country then it's obligatory on every Muslim ... to fight and protect the country," he says. Sheik Shady says while the Prophet condemned the killing of children, "if they are involved then you have to stop them". "If you have a child carrying a knife and coming to you, or a sword and coming to kill you in the middle of the battle, they (the fighters) are going to look at him and say 'the Prophet said not to touch him' - no, that's wrong." Sheik defends claims Sheik Shady, who is lecturing in Britain, yesterday defended his message on jihad, saying it was a part of a series of lectures delivered in 2002, before the Iraq war - and focused on the collection of the traditions of Mohammed - although a copy of the lecture appears on his website dated May 2004. He said the lecture was delivered to 60 young men who were advanced in Islamic studies and would not take it out of context and was "not an open lecture", despite being on his website. "When I said children, I did not mean, of course, if you're going to get a five- or seven-year-old coming to attack you, you can stop him," he said yesterday. "I was talking about self-defence. If you get attacked by someone, then you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't mean you go kill them, especially if it's someone young." Sheik Shady said that while it was obligatory for all Muslims to defend an Islamic nation under attack, there were no Muslim countries living under Sharia law that were currently under attack. |
why don't leading muslims seem care about non-muslim states under attack?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.