HZGN.COM
welcome to my space

Search:

NAVIGATION -

HOME

Religious Belief-systems 101

Published by: wktd 2009-01-07

This thread will be for the purpose of discussing and mildly debating doctrine, practice, history and co-relations between and of the major and minor religious belief-systems in our world's history.

This thread will not be for the purpose of pressuring to convince, convert or de-convert towards or away from any personally held religious belief-system by any member.

This thread will not be for the purpose of arguing for or against any percieved truth value that a statement in a religious belief-system's holy text may or may not say. For example:

In the Mahabharata, Bhishma Parva XLIX.V, it is written that Krishna had said, "The embodied soul merely casts off old bodies and enters new ones, just as a person discards used garments and puts on new clothes." This thread is not to argue the historicity of the claimed event, nor the truth value of the reported words, but rather, for example, that that belief-system text carries those words, that those words or that idea may correspond to those carried by the text of a different belief-system, or may be contradicted by others, and so on.

In the first century Christian writings, John 17:3, it is written that Jesus had said, "This means everlasting life, that they take in knowledge of you, the only true god, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." While we may discuss arguments given by scholarship on textual matters, early Christian liturgical matters, and as mentioned above, corresponding or non-corresponding statements by other texts, this thread would not be to prove the a personally accepted truth value on the statement.

This thread is for the purpose of education, sharing knowledge, and having a good time doing so. It is not for preaching. I will suggest that this thread will be closely moderated to prevent anything other than what the thread is for. (a margin for error should be allowed herein, and please do mention any found. Thanks. MM)

Now, wasn't that a boring first post. SO. . . let's begin. I'll go first, if I may. . .The Man from Mars :bow:

Thanks for that scorpion da black san. I'd hope to take at look at it in some detail. Before that, however, I wonder what explanations there may be among Muslem scholarship for Islam's not adopting the Mosaic Law while considering Moses a true prophet of Abraham's god?
After that, I'd hope to look at some detailed comparisons

i will suprise you.
the islam is not bad religion-and i worked with musleam-we were been ok for each other-and had a good realationship between each other.
i even met one time in the past kadi when i was at the i.d.f as a soldier and we were speaking each other-and he was speaking very wise advise.
the true the jewish and the musleam have no hate inside israel.
but for outside the boarden we have real hate-between each other.
and this is strange you can know one friend(zalame)you know from the gamaha-but maybe he has a relative in the other side of the boarden.
i even read a bit in the koran -and i can tell you -there are alote of think from the real life that we should taking for our self.
avshalom charly cohen
israel/haifa
icarus5

Depends on your point of view. A Christian would say the same about Christianity, a Jew the same about Judaism. On a like for like basis all three Abrahamic religions have similar goals. The Qu'ran even mentions the similarities:
Sura 2:62 -
Taken from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
One could argue that all three are a beacon of light.

it is just a poem i say about Islam...
i agree to you, every one has his point of view and it should be respected.

as for me this is how i perceive my religion ...these are few lessons i learn from my faith...not that other faiths aren't great!
i hope you like the poem :blush:

One of the many short comings which has arisen in the West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done - judge a religion by the conduct of its people - then we too could say that all Christianity is about is child molesting and homosexuality [1] whilst Hinduism was all about looting and breaking up mosques [2]. Generalising in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islam.

How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism ::
many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Atheism 101: Common Questions Answered. Common Myths About Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/AtheismKilled.htmHOME

more if you wish (http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=63)

if someone interested
http://www.iiie.net/
http://www.islam-guide.com/

one can say it is just propaganda and whitewashing... but i advise to look for the log in the eye of Christianity first, before jumping to the conclusion about other religions

islamic and jewish gods are identical as is a lot of their basic fundamental scriptures but they branch out in the interpretation and values considered by their scholars
Muhammad moved to a Jewish city during his exile from Mecca and had a lot of contact with Jewish scholars. This is most likely why Islam has a lot in common with Judaism when dealing with the fundamentals. The differences between the two are the influences from Christianity, they do recognise Jesus as a prophet and also the virgin birth, and also from the pre-islamic mythology that Muhammad grew up with.
christian theology though is considered very pagan by jewish standards(muslim too probably though i by no means speak for or have an extensive knowledge of islam) as is their view of god.
Is the the doctrine of the Trinity that is the main reason for this? I would like to know more on this, thanks.

A follow up, recap, and conclusion will come soon.

And...that was a pretty slow soon.

What can be gotten through the sifting process of just the intial language and usge, is that the early writers gave the entirety of the human being as being that nephesh in total. To that degree, the being as is, is the total being; no dualism, no neo-platonism.

When the being dies, the being is no more--that's the end of the line.

What is interesting, is that although Zoroastrianism may have had some influence on very early Judaism, it obviously did not here--as far as can be determined. The later rabbinic interpretations surely did, it appears.

This concept, then, seems to match much better what we can see through our understanding of nature today. Since most other religious belief-systems do teach that consciousness never ends, or that personal essence never ends, this particular element of early Judasim is unique.

I worry about the few radicals more than the rest. I don't think it's brainwashing, I think it's trying to prevent it!

Before the line of discussion wanders too far from general topic for too long a time--and I am not complaining here, but trying to apply a gentle touch so as to adjust course just enough to prevent future problems on down the thread line--what might be some theories/ presentations on what has lead Islam to generally allow extremism to the degree, even, that it appears to have allowed today?

We know that in Christendom there have been the extremist from time to time, but what kind of underpinnings are there in the separate doctrines to seemingly make the present day situation so different. (I hope to have worded this well enough to allow room for a greater degree of Christian extremism than usually meets the eye, AND for there being less of such in the Islam world)

Any reasearch done on this, anyone? Please take the floor first. MM

The roots of pagan belief in Judasim can be found in one of the most known stories that is in all three faiths and that is Noah and the flood. The myth pre-dates Judasim and is Akkadian/Sumerian in origin and found in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Recommended reading for people interested in myth).
yeah but thats not part of our commandments nor do we read any customs or laws from it in fact quite the opposite we see noah as a man who refused to partake of the pagan and debauched actions taking place around him.

where we differ is in one point that has many branches. Judaism believe them selves to be the people of God, chosen people , sons of God..
Judaism is a religion built on race (sons of Issac, Jacob ) . you can only be born Jewish.
as for Islam it is not a religion of race, it is built on embracing belief system. any one can be Muslim, not only the sons of Ismael (Arabs).
as Islam also doesn't define any race as chosen by God. any person who embraces Islam is a servant of God.

you are both right and wrong
people can convert but we dont encourage it since it is very difficult and you are right you are born jewish.
were you are wrong is that judaism extends beyond jews as well and holds all the nations to account.
and all are subject to certain laws. see the B'nei Noah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%27nei_Noah)

jews simply accepted a more responsibility and agreed to act as an example for mankind "a light unto the nations" it doesn't mean that no one else can, it just means we decided to.

pugtm is right...

Islam and Judaism believe only in God without having any other being sharing this supreme position with.
where we differ is in one point that has many branches. Judaism believe them selves to be the people of God, chosen people , sons of God..
Judaism is a religion built on race (sons of Issac, Jacob ) . you can only be born Jewish.
as for Islam it is not a religion of race, it is built on embracing belief system. any one can be Muslim, not only the sons of Ismael (Arabs).
as Islam also doesn't define any race as chosen by God. any person who embraces Islam is a servant of God.

as for Christianity...Christians assume that Jesus is the son of God..
that is the main difference between Christianity and Islam.

Myth: Science is a Religion for Atheists that Requires Faith - Does ::
religion and differentiate religious belief systems from other belief systems. Atheism 101: Common Questions Answered. Common Myths About Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/ScienceFaith.htmHOME

the Elias forum: Digests – Table of Contents::
see also accepting self (belief systems) - see also you create your reality the religious era - see also belief system of religion (spirituality)
http://eliasforum.org/digests.htmlHOME

Muslims consider Jesus as a prophet , while Christians give him a Godly position.
the trinity in Islamic perspective is a sign paganism.
as for Judaism, they don't believe that the Messiah was even sent.
neither was he is a prophet nor he is a God in Jewish perspective.

that is as academic as it can get.

oh and mars man.
as mr. Cohen said here.
it is not very often that a Lebanese and an Israeli can talk and can do so in a positive constructive way. as a matter of fact it is almost never seen.
it is a sign of good will. i think you should encourage that more often rather than deleting our conversation.

scorpion da black
dont write this think-it will make you with great dangerous-you know hizballa.
if someone that know you see that you are speaking with israeli -it could put you with great dangerous.
i wish you all the best-and peace-but becarefull-you know just say the israeli are bed people that knowing only more-this is more safe for you.
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
icarus5

i mean knowning war not more

in hebrew you say god by the name "aluhim"--or by the name "aluhha"
in arabic you say "alla"-this is very close name-if you say those word then you can see this is the same one-but have a little change.
maybe the arab get that name from someone that gave the name at the arab since he was hearing this before.
icarus5

yes Hebrew and Arabic are so similar also eastern Christian language( i don't know what it is called in English we call it seryeni).
they have similar words and grammar and they are the only languages written from right to left.
Allah ...and Alluhim are used in Arabic..Alluhim is when some one is praying as in talking to God...
many words sound the same due to same origin like shalom/ salam.

You are not the first Muslim I have encountered on the forum who has said this. To set the record straight origins on the name Allah.
(bold mine)
Also see:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm It is a Christian site though and they have a tendency to view Islam with contempt, but the article ahs some interesting points.
http://www.muslimhope.com/OriginsOfIslam.htm For a more balanced view
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/554692/posts. Another fair point.
The problem with searching for info is that it does throw up a lot of pro-muslim sites and anit muslims sites (read christian evangelism)

i did give you examples about similarities with pagan and Islamic practices with explanation in case you want to make clear some faulty translations to Islam...reread what i wrote previously :)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether their opinion is worth anything or not is up to you to decide. :wave:
The entire reason religion exists is to explain where we come from, our purpose, and where we'll be going after we're gone. (spiritually, I mean)
Therefore, many religions feel that if you don't believe in what they believe, well, you're a "non-believer." They think that their idea of our creation and our purpose and our life after life (or rebirth, or ascension, etc.) is the ONE way, the only way. This means that if you don't agree with a part of their way, then you're not one of them.
Anywho, what I'm trying to say about all this is that with religion, because of the serious nature of the issues they deal with, you're either in or you're out. No sitting on the fence or toeing the line here. Just a little exlanation on why most religions are so "black and white." :wave:
I don't know where you're getting this "many" that you keep throwing around but many if not most, certainly all the major belief systems and traditions encompass a huge range of opinion from liberal to conservative and everything under the sun -- on all aspects of church life from theological and scriptural intepretations to social and ecumenical issues.

Certainly there are some practioners or segments of the population that can be quite rigid in their approach to believers of other faiths if that is what you have in mind. That doesn't by any means implicate the entire religion or church of which they are a single thread. And if a member doesn't adhere to its central tenants of a biblical teaching, by definition I would also say they are a 'non-believer' in that church...

jewish making diffeclt for join them-the answer is yes.
Judaism is not missionary religion.and she is claiming that there are place for other religion.(not everyone should be jewish).
they even making hard for people who like to join this religion(it could happen-but the jewish people think that to change other people from the born religion is bad for the people).
in the bible there are 2 blass:one for the sun of ismael(musleam today)-it is saying that god will make them be a lote of people and they will have alote of area.
and one for the sun of izik(izchac)-to israel people-that they will be not having more area or a lote of people -but they will be more sparkling-that mean more knowlege..
the 2 blass were being given togther-that main that one without the other will cancel they both.
i think there are alote of think that people dont know a bout jewish tradition.
and some of the information is base on stereotype.
about jesus-i found somethink that is very amazing-and i hope soon it will be publish with order-that will show the connection that jesus has for the old bible(appearance at the book of Deuteronomy (fifth book of Pentateuch) )in hide way-but very clear for understanding.
now someone is working on that for me.-and soon may be some other more-this is connecting to the bible code.
cohen avshalom charly
israel/haifa
icarus5

MM, can you give a few examples of their "sola scriptura" approach to biblical evidence as well as places that allow for a more liberal admission of possible inconsistencies or "metaphorical understanding" ?

Thanks for that correction on the term, Sola Scriptura. If I may answer in two (or maybe three) posts, I'd be thankful. (It's late now, I've been busy, and want to go to bed earlier than the last few days.)

First of all, for any who may not be familiar with the above term, it is used primarily to distinguish the Protestant Movement of taking the written text--or Bible--as the source of authority rather than the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church.

While there will be a tendency for most protestant groups to adhere to some degree of scriptural authority alone, and even for the Vatican to do so, the way that is reached is different. In short, the Vatican will say that a document is of divine source because the Vatican says it is, whereas the Protestant group will say that a document is of divine source because the document says it is. (this is a very general summary)

We could therefore say that the first step is seeing the Bible as having divine authorship. (this also has degrees) As an example of the strictness that the WS (Watchtower Society) has shown in the past, I'll point to the statement at 1 Cor. 7:25,26, where Paul says, "...I give my opinion..." I still have it over in my files, but one WS article claimed that even though it was Paul's opinion, its being in the Bible means that it's YHWH's opinion too.

Another, probably well known point would be the combination of Mk 6:21~29 (see Mt 14:6~11) with Gen 40:20 from which the teaching against birthday celebration largely originated. There was a time when that organization at first did celebrate birthdays, but then reasoning on these 'bad examples' (examples of what was of bad taste in YHWH's eyes...it is claimed) gave birth the present--it's against YHWH's will to celebrate birthdays.

These two points would serve to give a sample space of the strictness which is applied to 1--the concept of the Bible being a single book with one mind behind it, and 2--the need to observe all internal and interlocking or corresponding details as keys to seeing the 'big picture' and application.

With that in mind, examples can be given on some of the more symbolic or historical elements where the concept of Sola Scriptura is very overbearing.

One thing I have always found interesting is a portion of the concept of human make-up that seemingly some earlier lines of Jewish thought contained. We may not be able to determine variances or additions to some texts that may have occured during the second temple period, but it is more than fair to posit that some lines of thought (if not most) did come through from the pre-exilic Israel belief-system.

The portion, or line of thought, that I'd like to share (and open for discussion) is that which can be said to basically start up from Genesis 2:7--
. . . and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.(New World Translation)

The Hebrew words ruach, nephesh, and nephesh-khiya come up in that short passage, and kind of set the stage for following through on that concept. The essence of what more easily appears to have been understood at Gen 2:7, is that that living-soul (Adam in this case) had been animated by the life-breath (or life-wind; life-force) To that degree, the newly formed clump of earth (a'dam) consisted of two principles, viz earth and life-breath.

It is only realistic, as far as what has been gleaned from discoveries in biological, neurological, and genetical sciences, that this is the same for all animate beings, as well as us homo sapiens--and that is just what can best understood from those ancient Jewish statements as well.

And, with that point, I'll pick up next time.

Still in reply to Elizabeth san, I will provide some more details.

The group of people which started the line of 'organization' (so to speak) which eventually became the Watchtower Society got started off not too soon after the American Civil War--a time of religious proliferation (especially in the south--as historical records tend to show). The founding fellows could be said to have had a great 'Seventh Day Adventist' kick start-like inspiration.

Perhaps initially for that very reason, there was almost from the beginning, a strong 'This is the end !' lean in Russell and Rutherford's (the first two presidents in respective order) messages. Things didn't work out on that day when the early group had gone out on the Brooklyn Bridge--no end; no Jesus coming. 1

When the 'Millions now living will never die' campaigne never realized the expected outcome, a shift was made in the 'understanding' so as to cast off any major debt caused by error.

As the 'Stay alive 'till '75' slogan lost steam with the passing of October, 1975, another major shift was sought after by the then acting president--can't recall his name--to adjust for the loss. (and quite a few dropped out of the ranks...especially in Mexico, if my memory serves me well)

Why all these 'It's coming now, on this date....' type teachings? Well, it's because of the essence of the impact on what I've been talking about in these posts here. At 2 Peter 3:8, you'll find something to the tune of, 'however let not this one fact be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with the lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' This cliche is a Jewish one which echos the likes of Psalm 90:4.
In all likelihood, these expressions simply evidence the concept of open time that the early Hebrew religionists concieved of (maybe due to linguistical matters? Hebrew had no future nor past tenses, really)

The WS took these as being absoute and literal statements of fact, and applied them to time calculations that can be found in the canonical Daniel. They then made a time line based on the figures provided and reasoned on in OT and NT, and came up with a return of Jesus in spiritual form, to an office (not return to earth, per se) in 1914.

To kind of make a long story short, this is why 1914 is given, is why 1975 had been given as the end of six thousand years (the seventh thousand to be the period of rest, after the great tribulation), and is part of why the WS is still trying to say it will be very soon--which brings me to my second case in point on this 'Sola Scriptura' and the two points at the end of my previous post.

I will expound on that second example in the next post.

1. The reason for thinking that Jesus would be coming then, will be touched on in the next post.

JHWH or Jahve i believe not Allah. Although its pretty much the same.

Have you heard of Meister Eckhard?

Mars Man sama, by any chance have you read a book by David Rohl 'Legend. The Genesis of Civilization' ?

oh and mars man...
i think you should encourage that more often rather than deleting our conversation.

Yes, I do appreciate that, yet we must not lose sight of the rule of thumb on the forum here, that discussions within a thread are to stay as closely on topic and theme as much of the time as can humanly be, and that chit chat be done through other means. . . such a PMs. While I do understand some of the troubles, the war, and all the long, long history of trouble in, around, and via the Middle East, I moderate here according to the Forum Rules and certain rule-of-thumbs.

Now, I hope to get involved here soon too, please give me some more time. I will go to original sources as much as possible. I will have to ask those who have a copy of the Quran and Sirah (spelling?) to help out in that area. The original documents supporting all interpretation, to the largest degree possible, should be our guidlines.

In the thread What Religion Do You Belong to, on page two, some interesting discussion came up about why most--if not all--mainstream Christian bodies regard the Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses bodies to be non-Christian.

Mycernius had pointed out that for the former, their using the Book of Mormon instead of the 'traditional' Bible was the cause, while for the latter, their lack of belief in a 'virgin birth' was the cause.

Elizabeth added, among other points,that the Watchtower Society's (the legal entity for the Jehovah's Witnesses) non-acceptance of a 'physical resurrection' was another reason that the big players in Chrstendom consider that group to be non-Christian.

Goldiegirl mentioned once having 'friends' who were associated with or members of the WS (Watchtower Society) who later shunned her when she no longer joined them in attending their meetings. Why? What are the reasons for this.

While we wouldn't be solely discussing these groups here, I thought it would be a fairly relevant place to pick up from--since the matter had come up on that thread, and was actually bending towards an 'off topic' line.

Now, I'm not certain that I have heard of the WS's not teaching the virgin birth, but I do know why they do not teach the Trinity or why they do not generally go with the immediate salvation for believers, so I hope to present where the WS gets that stance from--not argue for or against, you know, that's that's not the purpose of this thread, but simply to show the whats and whys behind it. I'll get to that tonight...I've go some other things pending at the moment. MM

I It is sad to say this, but most of what is displayed on American television puts Islam in a bad position, just because of a few radicals.

Condensed - The unfortunate reality is that those who are most extreme in a religion are usually the stereotype for all those who practice that religion.

They are stereotype just because television puts few radicals on top news. Brainwashing... The circle is looped :p :D

dear mars man i will answer you in the areas of my knowledge.
as for shari'a:
well some rules are not able to be changed, meaning that a person will have to obey them in any time and place ,disregarding whet ever changes.
and some rules are bendable meaning it can be re-edited to fit the modern life and changes in the way of life between different eras and places.
and some rules are just oral code of conduct, as in polite tradition,
and that can be changed.

Thanks for that scorpion da black san. I'd hope to take at look at it in some detail. Before that, however, I wonder what explanations there may be among Muslem scholarship for Islam's not adopting the Mosaic Law while considering Moses a true prophet of Abraham's god?

After that, I'd hope to look at some detailed comparisons of the two law systems.

Therefore what gives me or anyone else the right to say someone is going to hell or whatever?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether their opinion is worth anything or not is up to you to decide. :wave:

I hate the strict black or whiteness of so many religions. Either your in or your out and if your out you're going straight to hell.
The entire reason religion exists is to explain where we come from, our purpose, and where we'll be going after we're gone. (spiritually, I mean)
Therefore, many religions feel that if you don't believe in what they believe, well, you're a "non-believer." They think that their idea of our creation and our purpose and our life after life (or rebirth, or ascension, etc.) is the ONE way, the only way. This means that if you don't agree with a part of their way, then you're not one of them.

Anywho, what I'm trying to say about all this is that with religion, because of the serious nature of the issues they deal with, you're either in or you're out. No sitting on the fence or toeing the line here. Just a little exlanation on why most religions are so "black and white." :wave:

Have you heard of Meister Eckhard?
Sorry, I can't say that I have.:relief:

I want to keep track of the radicals...I need to know about them not the others. So if that means the radical members of any religion oare on my tv, great...I know what they are up to. People have the ability to look up any religion they want to know about. To suggest if all they see is something bad is all they will believe is an insult. I think with the internet we are all able to discover all sides of any religion.

There are extremists is every religion, but as an American it is one religion in particular that I KNOW I have to watch out for.

I have not read that book, Void, but it does sound as though it would be a good read. Maybe one fine day, I'll be able to do so.

Then, going back to look at that verse in the writting entitled 'Genesis'--verse 7, of chapter two--we find one more word which is a bit specific and which has already kind been talked about in the previous post.

This word is, ruach-khiyim (khiyim is plural of khiya--as seen earlier) which is rendered in English as 'breath of life' or 'breath living.' This term is more precise than the simply ruach.

Therefore we see that the author is saying that with the additive of 'ruach-khiyim' the simple 'nephesh' becomes 'nephesh-khiya,' or living nephesh. (I will use the term nephesh here on out to save interference from preconceptions often attached to the term 'soul.')

As pointed to in the earlier post, we can find the exact thing for all animate life forms. 1 The concept is clearly applicable to all animate life forms.

Then, there is another very practicle feature of this nephesh, namely, as it is not a 'nephesh-khiya' until it has 'ruach-khiyim, without 'ruach-khiyim,' it is merely a 'nephesh,' without 'khiya'--or life-force.

In other words, a non-living 'nephesh is distinguishable from a living 'nephesh. 2

Further supporting this concept are those found in the descriptive functions of essentially all animate beings. I will touch on those in the next post.

1. Gen 1:21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10-16; Lev 11:10, 46; 24:18; Eze 47:9; Prov 12:10 (used for 'life' as a nephesh); etc. 2. Gen 19:19,20; Lev 19:28; 21:1; 22:4; Num 23:10; Josh 2:13, 14; 11:11; Judg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1 Ki 20:31, 32; Pslm 22:29; Hag 2:13--also see and compare Gen 17:14; Ex 12:15; Lev 7:20; 32:29; Josh 10:28-39; Job 7:15; Pslm 78:50; Eze 13:19; 22:27; 33:6; etc.

also take notice that prophet Mohamed adopted some Jewish practices ..
like in the date that Muses and the people of Israel crossed the Red sea, Jews fast. and so Muslims did so as well, since they consider Muses as their prophet as well, and believe that he is a true Allah's messenger.
we actually have a celebration on that day not fasting...

we actually have a celebration on that day not fasting...

well you celebrate and we fast ...
point is we both celebrate that great day where the followers of God were saved from pagans.

Islam believes in Jihad. However so do many others such as the Tamil Tigers a secular organisation with Hindu roots and Kamikaze. Suicide bombings is the last desperate tactic. Instead of surrender that is what they choose. So did the Native Americans. This has nothing to do with Islam. However Americans think so because of the 9-11 trauma.

After 9-11 Americans supported Israel even more and justified the Iraq invasion all in the name of fighting Islamic terrorism.

Suicide bombing is a strong weapon for the weak. Israel fuels lots of anger.

I belive US is the most fundamentalistic imperialist nation on earth today. They go around bombing countries including a pharmacy plant in the name of freedom in Sudan. Americans love Israel despite it carrying out severe discrimination, ethnic cleansing, segregation, apartheid and oppression because they have a funky angle on their bible hence when some Americans start to talk about Islam I will ask them more questions than they can answer and CIA as I am typing this.

don't worry, we live in a democratic country...
i can say what ever i wish...
and every person is eager for peace here..
that doesnt mean Israel isn't an enemy still....it will be in our perspective until the occupation ends

Are you confusing Jihad with violent acts? If so, you are incorrect in your idea of what a Jihad is. A jihad is not a holy war against the infidel, but more a struggle to improve yourself aginst the devil or what you percieve as a imperfect way that could be bad for you. You could call a diet a jihad against a weight problem, or taking a class as a jihad against your ignorance in a subject. It can be used as a way of preserving Islam against evil ideas that could threaten the Islamic way of life, and it is this which gives a lot of people the idea that jihad means war in violent means. It appears now to be used as an excuse by Islamic fundamentals to commits acts of aggression against any non-muslim. This is not Jihad, it is cowards and petty warlords, such as Osama Bib laden, using it to gain power for themselves or revenge against what they perceive as a slight against them, and not for the good of Islam. In fact it damages it and leads the non-muslims to see Jihad as violence and nothing else. Those that call for it now are using it for their own selfish needs.
Muslims aren't the only ones using it as a form of aggression. The Christian fundies are just as bad by using the threat of violent jihad to fight wars that are really about money. Might as well use the good old Christian title "Crusade".:okashii:

I hate the strict black or whiteness of so many religions. Either your in or your out and if your out you're going straight to hell. Just my complaint...I have a hard time commiting to anything.

As mentioned above, this second point ties in with that first one, and pivots almost entirely around Matthew 24:34--which I will provide here for convience:

Truly I say to YOU (plural) that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.

The WS takes this all within the contextual setting of Matt 24:1~25:46, and conflates it with the similar scenes presented by the other gospel authors who report on said monolog, AND with other points made by other documents that relate to or build on that theme--for example Thes. 2:1~3.
1.

They then apply the Jewish religious tendency to provide for double or triple application of prophetic statements--for example as the first century evangelist gives double application of Joel in Acts 2:16~21--and reach the conclusion that the term 'this generation' had been referring to those who were old enough to understand what was happening on the world scene in 1914.

This later was adjusted to those living in what could be an 'age' which came about that time. If there have been any adjustments since I last studied their doctrine, I don't know. (but wouldn't be surprized at all!) The idea had be 'reasoned from the Scriptures' (as they always intend) that the great tribulation would happen while those alive in 1914 were still living.

So, these are two examples that show where the principle of Sola Scriptura, combined with the concept of a single mind behind all the documents in the Bible (as held canonical by Protestantism), and taking as much in a very literal sense as allowable, has caused error in understandings.

1. Contradictorily, while doing this other factors and points were overlooked. For example the fact of the writing of an instrument of correspondence between one human to another--which they do accept, of course--has to have time locked statements in them which make sense to the persons involved in the communication. That will automatically be a minimum of a time-locked matter.

Therefore, when the Paul said that 'the time left is reduced' (1 Co 7:29) he is doing so in relation to his understanding as seen also in other places. (Phil 1:6, 10; 3:20,21; 1Thess 1:10; 311~13; 4:15~18; 5:1~4; 1 Tim 4:1,2,11; 2 Tim 3:1~7,9,14--also compare similar statements at James 5:7,8; 2 Pet 3:3~14; 1 John 2:18; etc.

Good thread MM

Now, I'm not certain that I have heard of the WS's not teaching the virgin birth, but I do know why they do not teach the Trinity or why they do not generally go with the immediate salvation for believers, so I hope to present where the WS gets that stance from--not argue for or against, you know, that's that's not the purpose of this thread, but simply to show the whats and whys behind it. I'll get to that tonight...I've go some other things pending at the moment. MM
I used to work with a JW and he mentioned the lack of the virgin birth. It is to do with the translation that Russel Taze went and used. They maintain that the original Greek word used means maid not virgin. A bit of a cheek when they use the word Jehovah in their name, which is a copyist mistake.

Depends on your point of view. A Christian would say the same about Christianity, a Jew the same about Judaism. On a like for like basis all three Abrahamic religions have similar goals...
One could argue that all three are a beacon of light.

Now there is a statement well made, well considered, and well presented !

Let's compare these three here then. Let's look at the whole (as far as we can determine) systems of each one, from the oldest thoughts to the newer, from the variant readings to the common, and see where they agree, where they differ. Let's do it as academically as we can, please.

AND...let's control our more negative and rash behavior here, I intend to keep this balanced and fair, free of personal attacks or jabs, slurs, or obvious insults--and I'm sure Mycernius is right there with me. ALSO, there is no need to see just anything at all, which you do not like, as being insulting. . . that simply reflects badly on ones own position. Let's discuss this in good will !!

One thing that interests me is the god-models presented by the three systems. Let's take a look at these ! (and I will soon enough get started on that too)

The nephesh-khiya eats and desires to eat,1 and of course, after all that eating, can become fat, 2 but luckily, it can fast--and thus loose weight.3 It can be punished for touching unclean things, 4 and of course it works.5 And, among a number of other things that a nephesh-khiya can do, it can be refreshed by cool water, when hot and tired.6

In Biblical Hebrew, the idiomatic style of the word nephesh with the possessive suffix, is invariably rendered as a personal pronoun in English. So, to say something like 'my nephesh' is to say 'I'--if used in a reflexive situation, 'myself.'7

Then, as brought out in the last posts, and built upon here, we find that since we do have the concept of nephesh-meth (Lev 21:11--and notice the proof texts given in the last post) along with that of all animate life forms being nephesh-khiya, it is clear that the concept of the term nephes is that of the very entity itself--the very life form in its totality.

We can verify that by looking at Genesis 7:22, where we will find:

khol esshar ni'shimath-ruach-khayim be'ephou

Here, all animals with the 'breath of life in their nostrils, are the subject. It can be reasoned that ruach goes hand in hand together with ni'shimath (breath) to make nephesh-khiya, but that the word ruach--usually rendered 'spirit' in English--can be contrasted (in essence) with ni'shimath-ruachas at Job 27:3-5. (KJV shows this best in translation) 'Breath' and 'spirit', as a group within a nephesh-khiya are contrasted with the absence of such in the 'nephesh-meth.' (verse 3 against verse 5; also see Job 34:14, 15 (KJV); Psalms 104:29; Isaiah 42:5)

With just a little bit of the further detail being skipped over, we can quite conclusively say that the conception was that of 'ruach (usually rendered 'spirit') being the 'priciple force of life' which we find in every cell of the body of things, and, especially in the case of animated forms. (since that was all the Jewish religious writers of that day knew, obviously) And, as expected, this was evidenced in the act of breathing, so 'breath' was very closely related to having the 'life force' within the 'nephesh' and thus being a living being--both human and non-human.

A follow up, recap, and conclusion will come soon.

1. Lev 7:18,20,25,27; De 12:15; 23:24; Ps 19:15; 27:7; Isa 29:8; 56:11; 58:10; Jer 31:25; etc. 2. Prov 11:25. 3. Ps 35:13. 4. Lev 5:2; 7:21; 17:15; 22:6; Num 19:13. 5. Lev 23:30. 6. Prov 25:25. 7. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. by Brown, Driver, and Briggs; Oxford Press 1951; p 660. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros ed. by Koehler and Baumgartner; Leiden, 1958; p627.

Ok...the torah. According to the documents, it is the law that had been given to the descendents of Israel. It was a way of behaving and living. Whether there had ever been an oral law at that time is totally lacking in record, so one can only guess.
Here is one similarity between Judaism and Islam. Christianity, as given through the documents that we do have (and not all of them are in the New Testament) evidence a 'code of conduct' but part of that seems to be based on a matter of conscience--within a given range there is some flexibilty to act based on ones conscience. Otherwise, Christianity has no law.
How much, or what areas is freedom of conscience within a certain limit given in the Mosaic Law or the Sharia (sp?)?

dear mars man i will answer you in the areas of my knowledge.

as for shari'a:
well some rules are not able to be changed, meaning that a person will have to obey them in any time and place ,disregarding whet ever changes.
and some rules are bendable meaning it can be re-edited to fit the modern life and changes in the way of life between different eras and places.
and some rules are just oral code of conduct, as in polite tradition,
and that can be changed.

The Lord's Prayer says that .....thy kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. The JW's teach that for most of us after we die and are resurrected when Jesus comes again we will not go to Heaven but rather will come back to the Earth we know and love, just as it is written in the Lord's Prayer. Although they do not pray the prayer they do use it as an example. I have to say that I kind of agreed on that teaching. It makes sense if you believe in the prayer.

Also the whole shunning thing was so sad. These people I thought were my friends. Then one day at the grocery store I walk up and say "hi"and they just turned their backs and walked away. My friend who told me that I was shunned said that they weren't judging me as only God can judge but they didn't need to be around people of bad influence or who were non-believers. I am a believer in God, just not how it's taught necessarily. Oh well.....

Certainly there are some practioners or segments of the population that can be quite rigid in their approach to believers of other faiths if that is what you have in mind.
I did not mean to say that an entire religion would go around deeming that non-believers will rot in fire or whatnot. Unfortunately, in "many" cases, it is those very groups and segments of a religion's practitioners that are most rigid in their views of non-believers that are put forth in the public eye. From my own experience with what I'm able to see on the news and hear from the people I talk to, many religions end up getting put in a bad light because of this. Right now, the main religion that has this happening to them *in my area at least* is Islam. Most people in our town only watch the news and believe what they see, therefore thinking that many, if not most, Muslims want to "kill the infidels" and "destroy America" and so on and so forth. It is sad to say this, but most of what is displayed on American television puts Islam in a bad position, just because of a few radicals.

Condensed - The unfortunate reality is that those who are most extreme in a religion are usually the stereotype for all those who practice that religion.

Again, this is simply from the observations I have made of the town in which I live.

Is the the doctrine of the Trinity that is the main reason for this? I would like to know more on this, thanks.
no actually the trinity just makes it worse the reason is jesus himself. to jews worshiping anything other than god is pagan, even if he was a representative of god(which he wasn't) cannot be worshiped.
it can be best explained like this. in the talmud a question is posed, can we channel prayer through an idol to god or in other words to help us focus know we are praying to god but pray to an idol to represent it. the answer is still no because that is still not god and it demeans both us and god for a person to pray to it.
even so emperor Constantine paganized Christianity during his reign and a lot of changes have happened since then too. in our point of view Christianity has more in common with paganism than it does with Judaism.

Islam is truly the beacon of light ..........
when all the material things seem so cheap...
and all the hate fades no matter how deep.
and all pain is endurable despite all weeps.
and all sadness fades, though darkness creeps.
Depends on your point of view. A Christian would say the same about Christianity, a Jew the same about Judaism. On a like for like basis all three Abrahamic religions have similar goals. The Qu'ran even mentions the similarities:
Sura 2:62 -
Those who believe (in the Qu'ran ) and those who follow the Jewish (scripture), and the Christians and the Sabians - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work rightousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve
Taken from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
One could argue that all three are a beacon of light.

Mars Man:
you dont understand peoples from israel and lebanon not speaking with each other -not so ofen-only last year we had a war with missile between the 2 country-with dead people and much hate.this small talk that we had done-is not very -ofen happened.
this is not which, god is right or not.
icarus5

well here's a case were you get to do only 2/3rds the work for full credit.
islamic and jewish gods are identical as is a lot of their basic fundamental scriptures but they branch out in the interpretation and values considered by their scholars
christian theology though is considered very pagan by jewish standards(muslim too probably though i by no means speak for or have an extensive knowledge of islam) as is their view of god.

Lets just say most of christendom, but not all. Arianism for example was not trinitarian. So they simply considered Jesus as someone who was created, and has no unity with God and the Holy Spirit, although they consider Jesus a divine being. And this isn't a fresh view either, Arianism was around at the Nicaean synod. Basically it was the faith of goths. Theodosius comes to mind.

yes i am aware of that.
some groups and religious sects have similar views about God as Islam.
as the one and that has no partner in the supreme position.

a sect that is called Sabi'a are more ancient than Arabs. they call them selves the followers of prophets recognized in Islam. as Idris, Yunis...etc

they have many similarities with Islam like pre-wash before prayers , preying three times a day ( we do so five) ..
fasting ..etc

I would have to say that when I do go to church (Catholic) I always laugh when I see all the one and two children families. Birth control is a major "no no" yet I would guess most all the couples in the child bearing years certainly use it. I feel that most of them are doing what they believe is right but by the church they are wrong. I hate to use the word hypocrite because I think it's a little harsh. I think it's kind of like the don't ask, don't tell policy. (are they all non-believers then?) I find it terrible that the Catholic church doesn't even allow the use of condoms, even if one partner of a married couple has a disease that they could pass to their spouse. Sorry for the rambling nature...I do that a lot. To me I think the bible was written to handle life at the time it was written. It's a guide now, not a "user's manual".

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether their opinion is worth anything or not is up to you to decide. :wave:

aye. But whether or not my opinion is if someone is going to hell, i hope i recognise it as my opinion and don't go around preaching at ppl or telling them they will certainly go to hell! :p or maybe, just putting it another way, to remember that, improbable it is, there is the miniscule possibility that i might be wrong. :blush:

I would have to say that when I do go to church (Catholic) I always laugh when I see all the one and two children families. Birth control is a major "no no" yet I would guess most all the couples in the child bearing years certainly use it.

i'm not saying that you are wrong here, but you are aware that natural methods of family planning are highly effective when used correctly, right? In fact, as effective as using the pill. (with 'used correctly' being the operative phrase... it isn't counting days... :okashii: )
but of course, neither of us can know what ppl are doing, cos it's their personal life... :relief:

please take notice that the word Allah is not a name...
so it is not a name carried on from pagan times.
You are not the first Muslim I have encountered on the forum who has said this. To set the record straight origins on the name Allah.
The exclusive monotheistic deity in Islam. The name is derived from 'al-ilah', which literally means "the god". The Prophet Muhammad declared Allah the one and only god (of the Islam) in the 7th century CE.
In pre-Islamic times, Allah was the supreme creator-god of the Arabs. The goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza were considered to be his daughters.
(bold mine)
Also see:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm It is a Christian site though and they have a tendency to view Islam with contempt, but the article ahs some interesting points.
http://www.muslimhope.com/OriginsOfIslam.htm For a more balanced view
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/554692/posts. Another fair point.
The problem with searching for info is that it does throw up a lot of pro-muslim sites and anit muslims sites (read christian evangelism)

Thank you Pugtm and Scorpion. I knew it was something to do with Jesus.
As Derfel pointed out there where different sects of Christianity that did not see Jesus as the personification of God. It has to do with the phrase "Son of God". It seems that it was taken at face value, especially by Paul of Tarsus, instead of the view others took that all humans are sons or daughter of God. After all doesn't the term Our Father seems to be used a lot.
As for Pagan roots, both Islam and Judaism have their own pagan roots that can be found in scripture. The best example of that within Islam is the name Muslims give to God, Allah. It is a name that pre-dates Islam and is the name given to a pre-Islamic deity that Muhammad used to identify with the God of Christians and Jews. The original Allah had three daughters; Allat, Manat and al-Uzza, whose worship gave rise to the mythical Satanic verses.
The roots of pagan belief in Judasim can be found in one of the most known stories that is in all three faiths and that is Noah and the flood. The myth pre-dates Judasim and is Akkadian/Sumerian in origin and found in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Recommended reading for people interested in myth).

please take notice that the word Allah is not a name...
so it is not a name carried on from pagan times.
Allah is a word that means God..
in Islam we don't name God , we just call him in his ambiguous identity as Allah-God.
to make it clearer, Arab Christians and Jews call God:Allah,
Allah means God, it is not a name defining God, it means God in Arabic.
so Arabs both before and after Islam call God Allah.

but you are right , there is many things that are carried by Islam from paganism.
but also take notice that Arab paganism is originally paganism based on prophet Abraham's teachings as he and his son Ismael are the fathers of Arabs. Muslims believe that Arabs deviated the true teachings and twisted them to suit their interests. and as Islam was found, prophet Mohamed kept the practices that he said are truly carried out from Abraham's teachings and discarded practices that were not related to true Abraham teachings.

example on these practices, in Hajj the prayer walk between the Safa and Marwa..
the calender based on the Lunar year where month Ramadan is defined for fasting.

also take notice that prophet Mohamed adopted some Jewish practices ..
like in the date that Muses and the people of Israel crossed the Red sea, Jews fast. and so Muslims did so as well, since they consider Muses as their prophet as well, and believe that he is a true Allah's messenger.

Thanks for joining in pugtm san. I'd like to examine this then. It is exactly one thing to sum up in so many words that the Judaic god-model and the Islamic god-model are the same, and another thing to put it out on the table in details and presentation.

I will take the position that the three god-models presented by the three branches of the Abrahamic belief-systems are all three different models. . . with only a little overlap.

I hope you would be interested in taking part in this fully and in an academic mode of presentation and debate, and hope that the others who had joined in will be too. Thanks !!

I worry about the few radicals more than the rest. I don't think it's brainwashing, I think it's trying to prevent it!
then how about this - you give those handful of radicals a prime time. Thus you blow up the bubble and MAKE people to believe that the certain religion is ONLY like this (people on both sides, don`t forget). This creates distorted image and promotes only ugly side of the matter (religion in our case). And they get the idea - the more ugly they are - the more attention they will be given

How about promoting modrate members of the religion for a change? To prevent smth you shoul show people how the thing should be ( consequently and in-depth). Just saying "booo" doesn`t change a bit (except fueling your fear)

And it is barinwashing. It deprives layman from exploring all other sides of the matter (you know, we tend to trust that information what "officials" have to say). Besides this withdraws the attention away from many other touchy issues. Just psychology of social influence, whether you like it or not

The Jehovah's Witnesses, first of all, take the principle of sola scripta (if I have that worded correctly) to the extreme. Things that are quite clearly metaphorical or symbolic in nature they take a such, but many things which likely are, they take literally.

The Watchtower Society contends that the Bible is a single work from a single author--who, of course they teach is YHWH. Therefore the OT is used to interpret the NT, and the NT is said to be built upon the OT. Some of the more likely theories presented by scholars in the field tend to support that way of seeing it--in that the NT writers often copied the symbolism and culturalisms of the older works.

There are some places that can be seriously questioned, however, in that procedure. The reason they give for that 'shunning' stance is built upon the interpretation, and more so, application (and sometimes out of historical context) of the likes of: (with summaries of texts as taught by them)

John 14:30; 17:16; Luke 3:6; 1 Jn 5:19--The advisary is the ruler of the world.
2 Cor. 6:14~18; James 4:4 (see Jn 15:18,19); 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 5:6~11; Jude 22; etc.--A Christian should not mix with non-Christians on a friendly basis. Of course these are always backed up with 'proof texts' from OT as well. (or at least such effort is made)

That may well be from the in-group/out-group mentality of the Jewish culture which had prevailed up until that time. Historically, Chrisitanity did open up more--since as we all know, it freed itself from the Mosaic Law.

Sabro san, regarding the councils of Nicene (which Constatine (sp?) pretty much instigated) the results which were more solidified by the second could be used as a snapshot of the major state of Christian doctrine at that splice in time, I'd agree. I think it would be hard to show that earlier states of Christianity would measure up to the creed of those councils.

For that reason, I would question whether the Nicene Creed would best be held as a yardstick at all--because it can hardly be used as such previous to the mid-second century.

Those are some good observations there Clawn, Kinsao, Goldigirl.

The Nicene Creed is a good benchmark that gives the basic outlines of Christian beliefs... beyond that set of basics a religion could be Christian related, Christian influenced or Christian-like... but not Christian.

as for Christianity...Christians assume that Jesus is the son of God..
that is the main difference between Christianity and Islam.

Lets just say most of christendom, but not all. Arianism for example was not trinitarian. So they simply considered Jesus as someone who was created, and has no unity with God and the Holy Spirit, although they consider Jesus a divine being. And this isn't a fresh view either, Arianism was around at the Nicaean synod. Basically it was the faith of goths. Theodosius comes to mind.

I hate the strict black or whiteness of so many religions. Either your in or your out and if your out you're going straight to hell.

Yes, I have a problem with that too, not so much because of it's 'black or whiteness', but I think problems arise when people start thinking they are somehow able to judge other people. Of course it's possible to judge people's actions, but essentially not to judge people as such, because there are so many factors we can't know about. Therefore what gives me or anyone else the right to say someone is going to hell or whatever? :souka:

I suppose you'd say I'm a proponent of the 'judge the sin, not the sinner' line of thought, as I do believe there are some actions/behaviours that are morally wrong, but never (I hope!) 'judge' or condemn people based on their actions.