West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Don Jacob on May 02, 2006, 02:51:18 PM
-
this is in response to all the countless threads infinite has been making twords christianity, in no way is this meant to offend or insult any other muslum poster. i'm just doing this to show infinite that it can easily go both ways
By Ali Sina (former muslum)
The following is a description of what cult is:
A cult is a religious group with extreme beliefs and practices - beliefs that are often contrary to science and logic but they are believed as "obvious" truth by the cult members.
The members of cults often isolate themselves from friends, family and society and use deceptive and unethical recruiting techniques
Use manipulative methods to control the minds of followers
Venerate a human leader or leaders
Recruiting work is performed by all of the members
People are not allowed to criticize the leader, the doctrine, or the organization, or read information that is critical of the cult.
Members are trained to reject and disbelieve criticism of the cult as lies from Satan.
Members spy on one another and report improper activities or comments to leaders.
Members are taught to suppress anything which might reflect negatively to outsiders about the cult.
The doctrine is absolutist and the ideology is internalized as "the Truth."
Members are told to avoid contact with ex-members or critics, even their relatives.
Members are instilled with a deep fear about ever leaving the organization, and anyone who does depart is of the devil and sometimes severely punished.
Members are emotional controlled and warned of being caught and punished.
Disciplinary action is administered by group leaders, which may involve excommunication for such things as questioning organization policy or doctrine.
People are encouraged to sacrifice education, career and family interests to server the interests of the cult.
Advocate socializing only with other members in the organization and avoiding outsiders.
The belief in apocalypse and Dooms Day.
[Source]
All these traits are present in Islam.
Islam claims to be a religion with strong devotion to Muhammad and a set of unsubstantiated doctrines presented by him. Monotheism is used as a pretext to exert absolute control over the believers, leaving them no chance to question or investigate alternative paths.
Muhammad forced his followers to leave their families (8:72) and gathered them in Yathrib. He said: “And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes”. He warned those who did not follow him, leaving behind their families, will be cursed by Allah and “their habitation will be hell”(4:97). Muhammad went as far as to order his followers to murder those Muslims who defected his barricade.(4:89) In Yathrib he banished and killed the Jews who did not believe in him, thus eliminating the chance of his followers coming in contact with outsiders and being influenced by anyone. In this way he exerted absolute control over the lives and the minds of his followers. Jim Jones did the same. He called his town "Jonestown". Muhammad changed the name of Yathirb to Madinatul Nabi (Prophet’s Town)
He used manipulative methods to control the minds of his followers. These methods ranged from threat of hellfire, and promises of paradise, to exhaustive rituals of prayers and fasts, devised to numb the thought, and threat of physical punishment including execution and constant warfare, keeping his followers in perpetual state of agitation.
He established himself as the sole authority among his followers and the only source of guidance to the extent that they looked up to him for every detail of their lives, including how to dress, how to shave, how to pray and even how to urinate and how to clean after bowl movement. Ostensibly the worship was to God but effectively he was the only object of veneration of his followers and the only authority. Nominally God was to be obeyed but he was God's proxy, thus assuming the authority of God.
All believers were asked to promote his cause through Jihad, propaganda or by giving generously from their wealth. 4:95, 9:20, 49:15, 61:11
The criticism of Muhammad and Islam was totally prohibited and if anyone dared to question him or his decisions, Omar swiftly unshielded his sword and threatened to slash the throat of the intrepid questioner forcing him to apologize. The message was sent in a very clear tone that no one must question Muhammad and his authority. 1400 years later, the message remains the same. If you question Islam you will be killed.
Muslims are told to dismiss any criticism of Islam as coming from Satan and they often avoid reading critical views about their Faith. I have received testimonies of apostates who confessed that at first when they came across this site they stopped reading it and dismissed it as the work of Satan. See this I myself never read any book critical of Islam and once frowned at a friend who expressed her curiosity about Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses.
Muslims are encouraged to spy on each other and report any sign of dissent. Amr bil Maroof wa Nahi anil Munkir (Commanding to follow the religion and preventing from doing what is prohibited) is a tenet of Islam. Every Muslim is required to poke his nose in the private lives of others, spy on them and tell them what they should do and what they should not do. Every Muslim is an enforcer of religion and the moral police for others.
Muslims suppress anything that might present Islam in negative light. Preserving the image of Islam is of utmost importance and Muslims lie with clarity of conscience to misrepresent their religion and make it look good. For example women in Islam are treated like animals and are considered as deficient in intelligence. Every Muslim knows that including the women, who blame the men for it but not the Islam. But they lie through their teeth bragging about the "elevated" status of women in Islam. Jihad means aggressive war to expand Islam. Every Muslim knows that. Yet all of them lie and say Jihad means "self defense". A couple of years ago I received a very angry email from a Muslim who cursed me for revealing the fact that Muhammad had slept with a 9-year old child and at the end he said “the damage is already done” and I will be certainly punished for what I had done. The fact that Muhammad slept with a child did not bother this Muslim but what bothered him was revealing this fact.
Islam is extremely absolutist and Muslims believe that it is the only true religion. This “truth” however is not self evident. It is "true" because Muhammad said so.
Muslims are told to shun the apostates and the critics of Islam. New converts are often circled and are isolated from their non-Muslim family and friends. They are showered with love and receive a lot of emotional support until the brainwashing is complete.
Muslims are instilled with the fear of leaving Islam. This fear comes in two forms. One is the fear of Hell and of eternal punishment and the other is the fear of being caught and put to death by fellow Muslims, including their best friends and family.
Those who leave Islam must live in constant threat of being discovered and killed. In Muslims’ Comments section of this site you can see that Muslims often talk about this fear and say they pity me for having to look over my shoulders all the time and live in fear of being assassinated. The values are so distorted that they do not pity themselves for being the assassins but pity me for having to live in their fear.
In Islam disciplinary action includes beating, maiming, stoning, beheading or jail. Excommunication is for minor offenses. The poet Ka’b and two others were excommunicated for fifty days and during that time no one spoke to them. Ka’b’s wife was told to leave him and wherever he went people ignored him as if he was invisible. All this, because he did not accompany Muhammad in the war of Tabutk.
Muslims are told to sacrifice their comfort, their wealth and including their lives to promote Islam. Young men are encouraged to leave their studies and work, wage Jihad, and commit suicide bombing to make Islam dominant. Family and even children are regarded as "tests" of the believers. To prove their loyalty to Allah, they must be able to forgo all these "worldly attachments" and get ready to sacrifice their lives in the cause of Islam.
Muslims are discouraged to take friends from amongst the unbelievers even if these unbelievers are their kin. 3:28 They are told the unbelievers are najis (filthy) 9:28 and that the believers should not associate with them.
The belief in the Day of Judgment and the Dooms Day is one of the pillars of the Islamic Faith.
Based on the above, Islam is a cult. It is the biggest and the most successful cult. It practically reunites every feature of cult. Other cults may not be cultic in some of the above points. But Islam is cultic in every way and it would be a gross mistake to number it among religions just because 1.2 billion benighted people call themselves Muslims.
-
fuck Islam being a cult
religion altogether is a god damn cult
-
Islam definitely has some cult like tendencies. One is the fact that they try to prohibit any criticism of the religion, usually through threats of violence like in the cases of the Mohhamed cartoon and also with Theo Van Gogh. They also make it illegal for other religions to compete for followers by making conversion punishable by death. They are just backwards.....
-
fuck Islam being a cult
religion altogether is a god damn cult
i hear that
-
i didnt even read the post past the first sentence b/c the first one is ridiculous
-
^are you or is someone you know a prisoner of islam?
-
^are you or is someone you know a prisoner of islam?
you need to get over ur islamaphobia. u hate and hate and hate, but dont care to learn about TRUE islam
-
can i get pills for it?
-
can i get pills for it?
idk i dont hate on religions
-
i dont negotiate with terrorists.........lol
-
"Members are taught to suppress anything which might reflect negatively to outsiders about the cult. " this is a perfect example.
i think to understand religion in it's totality, first you must realise that no religion is perfect.
infinite may have a great understanding of the qu'ran, but he is blinded, by the fact that it's not a perfect religion. he is blindly following it, by thinking it is perfect.
-
i didnt even read the post past the first sentence b/c the first one is ridiculous
ofcourse you didnt read it champ ;D
Muslims are told to dismiss any criticism of Islam as coming from Satan and they often avoid reading critical views about their Faith.
-
The following is a description of what cult is:
let's work with the basic definition of a cult:
cult - (noun)
1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
1b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
almost all religions start off as cults to some extent. most if not all religions are founded around the "enlightened" teachings of one individual. the only real distinction between a cult and a religion is typically whether or not the cult continues on after the founder is no longer active (dead, imprisoned...etc); and also if it reaches some critical mass.
throwing around the label of cult is largely a semantic argument on the usage of the word. you look at the bible, abraham started a cult, moses restarted a cult, jesus started a cult, paul started a new cult around his interpretation of jesus...etc.
it's just a label. appreciate the definition for what it is. can a cult be based on true knowledge? can a cult be good? the label "cult" doesn't answer any of those questions; and those are the real issues.
we can look at ali sina's description of cult--like attributes of islam.
half of them are redundant. redundant in that core beliefs of islam are defined as cult-like. believing in "a last day" is just that; if you believe in a last day and that there is judgement for one's actions; then islam is the way. the qu'ran can provide direction.
part of these attributes that are criticized are attributes that are necessary to hold together the core beliefs. the same attributes are found in society in general, and is largely how order and respect for the rule of law is maintained within modern societies.
some of those claims are completely outrageous and unfounded:
Muslims are encouraged to spy on each other and report any sign of dissent.
the qu'ran states directly do not be suspicious of one another.
sura 49:12
O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear God: For God is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
that's just a poorly researched argument.
the argument that islam is absolutist is unfounded:
The doctrine is absolutist and the ideology is internalized as "the Truth."
Islam is extremely absolutist and Muslims believe that it is the only true religion. This “truth” however is not self evident. It is "true" because Muhammad said so.
this is false. the qu'ran states directly that true believers among the christians and jews will also see heaven. the qu'ran embraces other monotheistic religions that preserve the principles of islam.
sura 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
sura 5:69
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
who do we believe? the text of the qu'ran or this guy's ideas?
the suggestion that the qu'ran engages in demagoguery to avoid criticism is also unfounded:
Members are trained to reject and disbelieve criticism of the cult as lies from Satan.
actually, within the qu'ran for the most part, it's only those that are malicious that are guided by evil jinns.the sceptism is condemned largely as it is a result of conjecture. satan, evil jinn's...these attempt to lead people astray; but the criticism from disbelievers is typically associated with conjecture on their behalf.
sura 6:116
And if thou obey most of those on earth, they will lead thee astray from ALLAH's way. They follow nothing but mere conjecture, and they do nothing but lie.
sura 10:34-5
Say, `Is there any of your associated-gods who guides to the truth ?' Say, `It is ALLAH alone Who guides to the truth. Is then HE Who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not the way himself unless he be guided ? What, then, is the matter with you ? How judge ye ?'
And most of them follow only conjecture. Surely, conjecture avails naught against the truth. Verily, ALLAH is well aware of what they do.
this is not the sort of demagoguery that buddy is suggesting. the qu'ran is telling it's followers to question and assess the source of the disbelievers ideas. it's a message that demands critical analysis; and rejects fanciful, convenient and contrived ideas. the exact opposite of what this guy is saying.
this guy clearly does not like muslims and resorts to slanderous rhetoric:
Muslims lie with clarity of conscience to misrepresent their religion and make it look good.
this is nothing but a slanderous statement. amusing? sure. how can this sort of generalization be taken seriously?
the nature of islam itself and the status of the prophet muhammad are distorted:
Islam claims to be a religion with strong devotion to Muhammad and a set of unsubstantiated doctrines presented by him.
islam is a principle.
there are muslims that only follow the qu'ran and not hadith (which are the teachings and accounts of the prophet muhammad & associates). there are muslims that don't even follow the arabic qu'ran. if you look at noble drew ali and the moorish science temple (the basis for much of the noi); they actually have their own book (the circle 7 koran) that is basically "the principles of islam from the perspective of jesus" + direction by noble drew ali.
gross blasphemy (from a qu'ranic disposition) is charged without basis:
Ostensibly the worship was to God but effectively he was the only object of veneration of his followers and the only authority.
this is simply a blasphemous and inflammatory statement.
the qu'ran states directly that muhammad is simply a prophet, no greater than other prophets...etc. the characterizations regarding the devotion to the prophet muhammad are ill conceived.
contrast that with christianity where they worship their guy (jesus). christians claim to believe in god, yet at the same time they worship a man. jesus' own brother [james] did not worship him; yet he is still worshipped by many christians. it reminds me of the rastafarians worshipping haile selassie while the ethopians never considered there king to be a god. if you want to see an irrational devotion to a leader, look to the religion that worships a prophet; not the religion that states within it's holy text not to worship any prophets.
the real questions are "is islam good or bad"? and "is islam true?".
i submit that islam is both good and true.
i also submit that the teachings of christ are good and true; but paul, catholicism and derived religions have distorted those teachings and are both bad and false.
now we can analyze the qu'ran and debate it's goodness, or we can study the distortions that paul and the catholic church introduced to christianity and discuss the potential badness there.
but the real issue is not what is cult-ish or cult-like; that is largely irrelevant; that is largely relying on negative stereotypes associated with cults. so let's throw aside the labels, and analyze those connations directly on their merits. i've submitted and maintain that those connotations are untrue, and unfounded when applied to islam.
-
"Members are taught to suppress anything which might reflect negatively to outsiders about the cult. " this is a perfect example.
i think to understand religion in it's totality, first you must realise that no religion is perfect.
infinite may have a great understanding of the qu'ran, but he is blinded, by the fact that it's not a perfect religion. he is blindly following it, by thinking it is perfect.
2 corinthians 6:14-15
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
romans 16:17-20
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.
For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
here you have the bible saying the exact same thing this guy is criticizing the qu'ran for saying. is he not also criticizing the bible then?
-
Do you guys realize you can go back and forth with this shit for the rest of your lives and nothing productive will ever come out of it? Anybody ever take a history class?
And to think, I used to have hope in humankind
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=109246.0
^ ya problem solver
-
ya seriously, I was just about to say, do u guys fuckin listen to yourselves?
u all sound ridiculous arguing about some shit that neither has an idea if it's true or not :laugh:
-
I'm no athiest. I got beliefs, but who the hell cares what I believe. It's not fact...it's hardly even theory. It's all based on faith, and you can't fight faith with faith because there is no right or wrong answer.
Going back and forth with scriptures, you're wasting your time. All religious texts have errors and flaws in them. For one they were written by man. Secondly, they're thousands of years old.
-
lol at this shit....
islam is not a personality cult, islam never worshipped a human being, islam never gave 2 shits about material possessions
islam commands you to question islam! do you dumb fucks not understand this? the quran says dont blindly follow the faith of ur parents. seek the truth on ur own initiative!
-
ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
here you have the bible saying the exact same thing this guy is criticizing the qu'ran for saying. is he not also criticizing the bible then?
Paul said that and just like Moses I believe he adds things to appease the times and maybe himself. That's the difference. One is written by a man out of his will while the other is written by God, and that's why I critisize.
As for your long responses. I think it was made clear at the beginning of this thread that this was not a critique of Islam. It was a response to Infinite to show him that you can make any religion look evil, like Infinite goes out of his way to make Christianity look bad. Yes some of the stuff posted may have been wrong, just like Infinite posts false facts about Christianity. You didn't have to take all that time to respond to the original post because it was just a jab at Brian.
-
Paul said that and just like Moses I believe he adds things to appease the times and maybe himself. That's the difference. One is written by a man out of his will while the other is written by God, and that's why I critisize.
so you disagree with paul? that's interesting. because it's largely the ideas about christ that paul introduces that causes the split between islam and christianity on many issues, particularly the nature of christ. ofcourse, you also disagree with the more judaic aspects to christianity as well which is what constitutes the common ground with christianity and islam.
also, the qu'ran was delivered to muhammad by the angel gabriel, and represents instruction given to muhammad over a period of time.
sura 2:97
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe
gabriel also interprets a vision for daniel in the old testament. gabriel does these sorts of things. so i think it's more accurate to say "the qu'ran is the instructions gabriel gave the prophet muhammad" rather than god's direct word.
As for your long responses. I think it was made clear at the beginning of this thread that this was not a critique of Islam. It was a response to Infinite to show him that you can make any religion look evil, like Infinite goes out of his way to make Christianity look bad.
i understood the original point of the post, i was challenging that in itself. i disagree with this notion that people should hide behind their "beliefs" and not defend them.
without question, things like whether or not moses or muhammad actually spoke with god, or whether or not jesus was not conceived but god's spirit directly entered into mary...no debate that there is no proof for ideas like that.
at the same time there is historical evidence and information about muhammad, early islam and how that spread, early christianity, the apostles and how that church grew. there are alot of facts that can be debated. and if people have a qu'ran or a bible, why shouldn't you be able to question whether or not they completely believe that doctrine, and whether or not they believe that religious institutions or movements are actually consistent with that doctrine?
aside from the pure belief stuff (that starts with the nature of god and how various prophets have obtained their inspiration...) there are alot of facts that can be debated and clarified.
i responded to the original post to demonstrate that if accusations are levied, people shouldn't try to hide from it, they should address it.
if infinite has the wrong idea about aspects of christianity, if i have the wrong idea as well...then correct those misperceptions if you will.
-
Christianity is worse IMO.
-
lol at this shit....
islam is not a personality cult, islam never worshipped a human being, islam never gave 2 shits about material possessions
islam commands you to question islam! do you dumb fucks not understand this? the quran says dont blindly follow the faith of ur parents. seek the truth on ur own initiative!
<scratches head laughs and thinks if the tables were to be turned....lol>
::impersonating tech::
^ look at this chump over here yo, he be gettin all butt hizurt over the some nigga attackin hiz religion like he's serious or something B, word is BORN yo. shit i'm straight off the streets i'm king tech betta recognize, i rep T town....what what!! GREAT WHITE NIZOOOOORTH.
::impersonates robert stack::
if you, or anyone you know has been over taken by the Ithinkimfromthehoodandblackidous viris please contact 1-800-i-need-to-get-back-in-touch-with my roots
-
lol at this shit....
islam is not a personality cult, islam never worshipped a human being, islam never gave 2 shits about material possessions
islam commands you to question islam! do you dumb fucks not understand this? the quran says dont blindly follow the faith of ur parents. seek the truth on ur own initiative!
<scratches head laughs and thinks if the tables were to be turned....lol>
::impersonating tech::
^ look at this chump over here yo, he be gettin all butt hizurt over the some nigga attackin hiz religion like he's serious or something B, word is BORN yo. shit i'm straight off the streets i'm king tech betta recognize, i rep T town....what what!! GREAT WHITE NIZOOOOORTH.
::impersonates robert stack::
if you, or anyone you know has been over taken by the Ithinkimfromthehoodandblackidous viris please contact 1-800-i-need-to-get-back-in-touch-with my roots
Jake youre my carnale. I fucks with you no Jomo. But Im hurt. Really I am :-\.
Not because youre dissing me. Or cuz youre impersonating me, but because youre doing it wrong. Cmon now, you know I dont post like that. At least impersonate me with style. >:(
-
Paul said that and just like Moses I believe he adds things to appease the times and maybe himself. That's the difference. One is written by a man out of his will while the other is written by God, and that's why I critisize.
so you disagree with paul? that's interesting. because it's largely the ideas about christ that paul introduces that causes the split between islam and christianity on many issues, particularly the nature of christ. ofcourse, you also disagree with the more judaic aspects to christianity as well which is what constitutes the common ground with christianity and islam.
also, the qu'ran was delivered to muhammad by the angel gabriel, and represents instruction given to muhammad over a period of time.
sura 2:97
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe
gabriel also interprets a vision for daniel in the old testament. gabriel does these sorts of things. so i think it's more accurate to say "the qu'ran is the instructions gabriel gave the prophet muhammad" rather than god's direct word.
As for your long responses. I think it was made clear at the beginning of this thread that this was not a critique of Islam. It was a response to Infinite to show him that you can make any religion look evil, like Infinite goes out of his way to make Christianity look bad.
i understood the original point of the post, i was challenging that in itself. i disagree with this notion that people should hide behind their "beliefs" and not defend them.
without question, things like whether or not moses or muhammad actually spoke with god, or whether or not jesus was not conceived but god's spirit directly entered into mary...no debate that there is no proof for ideas like that.
at the same time there is historical evidence and information about muhammad, early islam and how that spread, early christianity, the apostles and how that church grew. there are alot of facts that can be debated. and if people have a qu'ran or a bible, why shouldn't you be able to question whether or not they completely believe that doctrine, and whether or not they believe that religious institutions or movements are actually consistent with that doctrine?
aside from the pure belief stuff (that starts with the nature of god and how various prophets have obtained their inspiration...) there are alot of facts that can be debated and clarified.
i responded to the original post to demonstrate that if accusations are levied, people shouldn't try to hide from it, they should address it.
if infinite has the wrong idea about aspects of christianity, if i have the wrong idea as well...then correct those misperceptions if you will.
I see Paul the same way I see Moses, and I disagree with a few things he says and think if Jesus were to return he would go against much of what Paul says. Jesus in the Gospel is much more philosophical where as Paul is more instructional. I'm not quite sure what you meant when you said I disagree with the judaic aspects and the common ground so I'll have to ask you to explain. As for the nature of Christ and Paul, the Gospels themselves make it very clear as to what the nature of Christ was that he was of God, and if I'm not mistaken many of the Gospels not accepted by the Church said the same thing. So I'm not sure if the idea that Jesus was God came about because of Paul. But who knows for sure? (the answer is nobody).
With regards to you responding to the thread in debate, I just meant the thread was made not for debate or to raise question but to make a point to Infinite. You more than have the right to defend Islam and point out misconceptions. I just don't think anyone on this thread was buying into those misconceptions and that's why I said it was pointless. As for Infinite. He doesn't have misconceptions. He has agendas. He knows when he is wrong, he just wants to insult people.
-
Also, I know about Gabriel. Gabriel acts as the voice of God and as far as anyone is concerned it isn't Gabriel's words but God's words so in theory you are talking to God if you are talking to Gabriel.
-
*burns a u in the intersection screaming "when will it stop?!?!?"*
-
As for the nature of Christ and Paul, the Gospels themselves make it very clear as to what the nature of Christ was that he was of God, and if I'm not mistaken many of the Gospels not accepted by the Church said the same thing.
shallow, there are three issues here, but for the most part i think we are in agreement.
a) after having re-read several books of the gospel, i can mostly agree with a metaphorical interpretation of jesus life; such as the one proposed by john. jesus is referred to as the word; elsewhere as the light. the word representing god's will, god's laws...etc; the light representing wisdom of the path towards godliness. a human that embodied those attributes for a short time on earth.
for the most part, i see no problem if all of the seemingly literal references to jesus as a person, including his return and future reign; are interpretted metaphorically as a global return of love, peace, harmony and god's natural order. i can agree with the epistles of paul and john...etc. after interpretting their statements about christ metaphorically as a reference to the metaphor for god's word.
i maintain my disagreement with literal interpretations of the new testament which suggest that the physical form of the man should be worshipped; but accept the metaphoric interpretation which i believe is what is being suggested. i have not thoroughly gone through each book, applied the "word"/"light" metaphor and interpretted the meaning in that context; but for the most part i feel comfortable saying i can agree with that.
So I'm not sure if the idea that Jesus was God came about because of Paul. But who knows for sure? (the answer is nobody).
b) there is some level of historical understanding of how the books of the new testament were compiled, who authored them...etc. paul himself wrote half of the new testament, luke was one of his pupils. matthew, john and [simon] peter actually knew jesus, luke and mark did not. james was jesus brother (half-brother); and there was a difference in how they delivered their various messages if not within the messages themselves. so there are some facts to know there.
Gabriel acts as the voice of God and as far as anyone is concerned it isn't Gabriel's words but God's words so in theory you are talking to God if you are talking to Gabriel.
c) i'm wary of taking too literal of an interpretation of the meaning of gabriel talking to muhammad or daniel, and exactly what "god's words" means. is it a disembodied voice? does the angel appear? is it a voice in one's head or a vision? i remain uncertain how to literally interpret these things. it seems to me that the person being spoken too has to somehow translate/relay/interpret this...etc. i'm not 100% clear on the nature of angels; they are described in many ways.
additionally, messages are relevant for their time. i interpret messages as guidance that pushes people in the direction they need to be moving; rather than the absolute representation of what needs to be. surely if a particular action exceeds (in someway) the guidelines proscribed that isn't a bad thing.
-
Are you responding as a Muslim or as a seeker of truth or agnostic? Because as a Muslim I'd think you'd believe that Gabriel talking to the Prophet would be literal.
As for what Jesus was and how he was connected to God. I don't believe in it metaphorically. While I am open to anythign and don't discoint anything, I believe that it was the word of God that entered the body of the baby and that the body of Christ was a vessel for that word to be heard and that light to be seen. The idea of why is very simple; God had spoken to prophets in the past and he kept sending them and they kept getting it wrong afterwards and skewing it for their own sake or for the sake of what they thought was right, so he sent the word down and put it in a body so that the word could be heard unaltered. That's how I believe it and it suits me fine to believe it that way. If when I die I am told that it was not that way then I'll gladly accept that, but until I have solid reason to believe otherwise I'll believe this way.
As for how the book was written or by whom; it has never really been figured out historically. The Gospel of John may not have even been written by him. No one can know for sure. As for half brother James. I used to think he was a half brother in that he was the a son of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, but it was told to me that he was the son of Joseph with a previous wife. It doesn't say if he is an older or younger brother as far as I know, so I am not sure if it is step or half brother.
-
Are you responding as a Muslim or as a seeker of truth or agnostic? Because as a Muslim I'd think you'd believe that Gabriel talking to the Prophet would be literal.
i cannot speak for all muslims. the qu'ran states that all muslims should seek and only be guided by the truth. thus i would consider myself both a muslim and a seeker of the truth.
i accept that the angel gabriel spoke to muhammad several times, and this was through visions. to emphasize the wariness i mentioned earlier, this is what the qu'ran says:
sura 16:102
Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
sura 2:97
Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-
you will notice that it doesn't explain the nature of angels or how they communicate with and get direction from god. it does not explain how angels instruct people and prophets specifically.
in sura 18:60-82 the qu'ran tells a story of how moses observed an enlightened servant of god and did not understand much of the direction he was given. similarly it would be arrogant for me to state that i completely understood: the nature of angels, the exact nature and purpose of how gabriel instructed muhammad, and exactly how to interpret that instruction.
the qu'ran itself states that god uses allegory to communicate ideas:
sura 2:26
GOD does not shy away from citing any kind of allegory,* from the tiny mosquito and greater. As for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord. As for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did GOD mean by such an allegory?" He misleads many thereby, and guides many thereby. But He never misleads thereby except the wicked
thus i am hesitant to adhere to such strict literal interpretation and conclusions as you drew earlier.
As for what Jesus was and how he was connected to God. I don't believe in it metaphorically. While I am open to anythign and don't discoint anything, I believe that it was the word of God that entered the body of the baby and that the body of Christ was a vessel for that word to be heard and that light to be seen.
as jesus was the word (and this is also confirmed in the qu'ran) and the light; thus his life is the example for others to follow. the word of god being god's law, god's natural order...etc. we don't disagree here.
if i look through the rest of the new testament; and replace "christ jesus" with "the word of god"; now the writings of john and paul are more acceptable to me; as they are not invoking worship of a man who lived and died; but what that man represented: which is the word of god. that is the metaphor of which i was speaking; the same metaphor confirmed within the qu'ran.
As for half brother James. I used to think he was a half brother in that he was the a son of Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, but it was told to me that he was the son of Joseph with a previous wife. It doesn't say if he is an older or younger brother as far as I know, so I am not sure if it is step or half brother.
this was something the catholic church made up as it maintains that mary was always a virgin, even after her marriage to joseph. what's the purpose of getting married if to stay a virgin?
matthew 13:55-56
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
so according to matthew, who actually knew jesus; jesus had several brothers (who are named) and sisters as well (who being women need not be named).
the bible mentions his mother, father and brothers and sisters. the catholic church decides that his father had another wife (unworthy of mention) and his mother always remained a virgin.
how is the catholic church taken seriously?
-
So you believe that the word of God that Muhammad received may have been an altered word of the angel? If so, doesn't that go against what Islam is? I'm not sure I'm just asking.
Even if you replace Jesus with The Word in te letters of Paul I still disagree with much of what Paul says. What with this whole worshipping a man business? Know one worships a man in Christainty. We worship God. The same God that created the Universe. The same God that lives inside each of us. And the same God that entered Mary's womb and told the people how to live. That is how Christians see it. Jesus for us wasn't some guy who the Lord spoke to. He was the Lord in flesh form for 33 years or whatever it was, but he existed long before those 33 years years and long after. It's never a question of worshipping a man with me.
How do you know the church just made up the step bother theory? And if the Church made it up and changed the Bible then why wouldn't they leave that out? Also, just like John there is no roof that Matthew himself wrote that (just getting the info out there).
The verse you quoted still shows no proof that they were younger brothers and sisters or that they were Mary's children. It says that He was the son of Mary, but not that the others were. The Bible also never explains what happened to Joseph, leading many to believe he was a much older man who died when Jesus was still rather young. It is very plausible that he was an older man with children who had lost his wife and needed a younger woman to mother his children and that's how he was arranged to Mary. I am not saying I know for sure that this is the case. I am not so bold that I can pretend to know something like this for certain.
-
So you believe that the word of God that Muhammad received may have been an altered word of the angel? If so, doesn't that go against what Islam is? I'm not sure I'm just asking.
i'm not saying it was altered. i believe it was unaltered. that does not mean i understand everything i need to know about the message and the purpose and nature of that message.
islam is a principle, or a group of principles; and those principles are inherently true. the qu'ran describes those principles both directly and through allegory; and would be true even if the angel gabriel had not delivered it.
and i do believe that the angel gabriel delivered it.
Even if you replace Jesus with The Word in te letters of Paul I still disagree with much of what Paul says.
you've touched on those disagreements before. i agree with you that paul's messages were the ideas of man and a message for the times. my concern was worshipping a man, or separating elements of god into their own entities; looking at it metaphorically eliminates that separation.
What with this whole worshipping a man business? Know one worships a man in Christainty. We worship God. The same God that created the Universe. The same God that lives inside each of us.
i don't disagree with worshipping god. i don't disagree with your ideas here.
but i hear people pray to jesus, or in christ jesus name. i see images of a baby, a man and that man's mother. catholics pray to saints and mary. the catholic church claims that is an intermediary between christians and god. people say that christ will return and rule on earth for some period of time. suggesting that during this period he will be worshipped as god. these are the ideas that i disagree with.
And the same God that entered Mary's womb and told the people how to live. That is how Christians see it. Jesus for us wasn't some guy who the Lord spoke to. He was the Lord in flesh form for 33 years or whatever it was, but he existed long before those 33 years years and long after.
i took a closer look at the gospel of john, and it does state clearly that the word was god. thus it does imply that jesus was god incarnate in the flesh. this is not idea that i accept.
and thus i was wrong, for that is not an idea that i can agree with; even metaphorically.
How do you know the church just made up the step bother theory? And if the Church made it up and changed the Bible then why wouldn't they leave that out? Also, just like John there is no roof that Matthew himself wrote that (just getting the info out there).
they couldn't change the book of matthew as it existed before the catholic church was formed. people knew the gospel of matthew before the catholic church.
The verse you quoted still shows no proof that they were younger brothers and sisters or that they were Mary's children. It says that He was the son of Mary, but not that the others were. The Bible also never explains what happened to Joseph, leading many to believe he was a much older man who died when Jesus was still rather young. It is very plausible that he was an older man with children who had lost his wife and needed a younger woman to mother his children and that's how he was arranged to Mary. I am not saying I know for sure that this is the case. I am not so bold that I can pretend to know something like this for certain.
the reason this is a debate is because the catholic church insists that mary was always a virgin. the perpetual virgin. otherwise noone would actually care how james and jesus were related. the point that i was making earlier was that as brothers they lived in the same household, and surely james own understanding of jesus' nature should be favored over others and not discredited. whether or not they shared the same mother is only an issue of contention for catholics, who pray to mary and insist she was always a virgin.
the catholic church has invented numerous theories to support their doctrine which could easily be proven as blasphemous.
are jesus and james even brothers at all if they have both different fathers and mothers as you suggest? these ideas of the catholic church and the orthodox church suggest that matthew is the one who is wrong for even suggesting that jesus has any brothers and sisters