Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Seminole, I hope you're not suggesting that anyone was forced by the Prophet to obey Islam. There is no historical record of such. Just because he formed an army, doesn't mean he used force to make people convert. Armies can also be used for self-defense.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Peace USResident
Are you looking for his mustard grain? :)
You shouldn't be so smug.
"He will not enter hell, who hath faith equal to a single grain of mustard seed in his heart; and he will not enter Paradise, who hath pride equal to a single grain of mustard seed in his heart."
I am very comfortable with my faith and belief in God. Are you as sure about your seemingly unbounded pride?
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Slaveofallah - I think I understand what you are saying. Actually I thought that is what happened but wanted to confirm. If we consider God as a generic concept beyond particular religions (which in many ways is man made) then it becomes very easy to see that there is no particular time that God began. If then you add to that a belief that God said certain things and so those things he said always existed.....well there is a slight problem with that but we can certainly over look it since it is what was said rather than when it was said.
This is what Sanathana Dharma says about God too - no particular beginning or end. I like the concept of various names of Gods being simply language translations - if only everyone understood that there won't be conflict. Muslims can practice under Allah and Hindus can practice under Siva Vishnu Krsna and any other name and form they want to.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
My definition of prophet is probably different from yours. I believe God guided him as he did with the others I mentioned as well as thousands and millions of others, to varying degrees. Do I believe he was a continuation of the Christian-Judeo prophets that trumped their beliefs and scriptures? No.
That answers my question. Out of curiosity though, why do you not consider him a continuation of prophets. And the thousand or millions you mention, are those before or after Muhammad SAW?
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? … Att. Seminole
Long time no see. Nice to hear from you.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Walekum Salam,
Bro USR have been really really really busy, things should be fine Insha Allaah.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Slaveofallah - I think I understand what you are saying. Actually I thought that is what happened but wanted to confirm. If we consider God as a generic concept beyond particular religions (which in many ways is man made) then it becomes very easy to see that there is no particular time that God began. If then you add to that a belief that God said certain things and so those things he said always existed.....well there is a slight problem with that but we can certainly over look it since it is what was said rather than when it was said.
This is what Sanathana Dharma says about God too - no particular beginning or end. I like the concept of various names of Gods being simply language translations - if only everyone understood that there won't be conflict. Muslims can practice under Allah and Hindus can practice under Siva Vishnu Krsna and any other name and form they want to.
Regarding the first paragraph I agree with it, the second paragraph the concept of God remains the same everywhere God is Assamad i.e. God is eternal. I agree with you if everyone understands their wont be any conflict exactly.
We have to also understand these things build tolerance amongst individuals, the basic word missing is tolerance. If poeple stop mud slinging other religions then most of the problems rooted in our society by the politicians will be over.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
You shouldn't be so smug.
"He will not enter hell, who hath faith equal to a single grain of mustard seed in his heart; and he will not enter Paradise, who hath pride equal to a single grain of mustard seed in his heart."
I am very comfortable with my faith and belief in God. Are you as sure about your seemingly unbounded pride?
Peace Seminole
I see you have quoted the verse I had in mind. Thank you for clarifying, but I must hasten to add there was no malice in my response to USResident. I was merely saying that if he (i.e. you Seminole) believes then it is between you and God and we have no real reason to try and find each others stance. You know it's no inquisition. I read what you wrote and it was enough for me. I was asking USResdient if he really wanted to pursue the course he was on.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
That answers my question. Out of curiosity though, why do you not consider him a continuation of prophets. And the thousand or millions you mention, are those before or after Muhammad SAW?
God sends, influences and guides people everyday, from the beginning of time until today. Some have bigger parts to play then others. Just as in Islam where there is believed to have been 124,000 prophets, even though only 25 are mentioned int he Quran, "prohpet" is a term that is used in broad terms. But I don't believe God stopped sending them 1400 years ago. There is far too much for us to still learn. We are all still so far away from God. If that was the final message, it would be more perfected then is turned out to be.
As for Muhammad not being a continuation of the Judeo-Christian prophets, I think his message strays too far from the teachings of the Biblical Jesus. Even if one doesn't believe in the accuracy of the text, it was obviously influenced by God and I don't think He would ask us to throw that message away.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Peace Seminole
I see you have quoted the verse I had in mind. Thank you for clarifying, but I must hasten to add there was no malice in my response to USResident. I was merely saying that if he (i.e. you Seminole) believes then it is between you and God and we have no real reason to try and find each others stance. You know it's no inquisition. I read what you wrote and it was enough for me. I was asking USResdient if he really wanted to pursue the course he was on.
I think we do need to find each others' stance. That's why I am here. Not to judge, belittle or convert. I would never say that Islam or the belief of Muhammad as the last prophet isn't following the right path. But I believe life (this one and after death) is a continual journey to search for the truth. We need to strive our whole lives to become closer to God and I believe that means we shouldn't limit our discussions to only those who hold the same beliefs. That's not an education - it's limitation at best, indoctrination at worst.
Anyway, you started this thread by calling me a hater. After my responses, is that still my label?
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
As for Muhammad not being a continuation of the Judeo-Christian prophets, I think his message strays too far from the teachings of the Biblical Jesus. Even if one doesn't believe in the accuracy of the text, it was obviously influenced by God and I don't think He would ask us to throw that message away.
How is the message of Jesus PBUH in close proximity to his predecessor Judeo-Christian prophets yet far away from Muhammad SAW message? And for the record, Are you saying that Jesus PBUH was a prophet?
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Jesus' message was very different from the prophets and message that preceded him. That's why I have a hard time with the Quranical message that basically picks up where the Old Testament leaves off. It's as if the message Jesus preached didn't exist.
Yes, I believe Jesus to be a prophet. Sent by God as an example of what man can be.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Jesus' message was very different from the prophets and message that preceded him. That's why I have a hard time with the Quranical message that basically picks up where the Old Testament leaves off. It's as if the message Jesus preached didn't exist.
Yes, I believe Jesus to be a prophet. Sent by God as an example of what man can be.
So the Prophets came with different messages about God (before Jesus PBUH and including him), is that what you are saying?
This is a misconception that the Quranic message picked up where Jesus PBUH left off. If you look at the two under this pretext I wouldn't blame you for having difficulty.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
So the Prophets came with different messages about God (before Jesus PBUH and including him), is that what you are saying?
This is a misconception that the Quranic message picked up where Jesus PBUH left off. If you look at the two under this pretext I wouldn't blame you for having difficulty.
Jesus' message was different than that of the other Judeo-Christian prophets. I find the OT to be a book of Jewish history that represents a violent, vengeful, jealous, vindictive and boastful God. The NT portrays God as all-loving, forgiving and merciful who wants us to turn the other cheek. I only accept the NT as my guide as I believe the message of Jesus should have replaced the OT, not been added to it. I don't see how people reconcile the two different messages.
I realize the Quran is meant to replace *both *the OT and NT, but I feel it more represents the God of the OT. That's why I said it picks up where the OT leaves off. Not in timeline, but in the manner in which God is described. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims any more than I do Christians who profess faith in the OT. A different belief doesn't equate to hatred. And neither does my honesty for holding those beliefs.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Jesus' message was different than that of the other Judeo-Christian prophets. I find the OT to be a book of Jewish history that represents a violent, vengeful, jealous, vindictive and boastful God. The NT portrays God as all-loving, forgiving and merciful who wants us to turn the other cheek. I only accept the NT as my guide as I believe the message of Jesus should have replaced the OT, not been added to it. I don't see how people reconcile the two different messages.
I realize the Quran is meant to replace *both *the OT and NT, but I feel it more represents the God of the OT. That's why I said it picks up where the OT leaves off. Not in timeline, but in the manner in which God is described. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims any more than I do Christians who profess faith in the OT. A different belief doesn't equate to hatred. And neither does my honesty for holding those beliefs.
Peace Seminole
NASB translation of the Bible, reads (Jesus speaking):
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
The Lukan parallels (12:49–53,14:25–33) read:
NASB
" 49 I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)
KJV
"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53)
Verse comparison
NASB
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
And in Luke 22:35-38
"But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36 NASB)
And the related Gospel of Thomas 16 (non-canonical) (SV) reads:
"Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."
Seminole if you want to know the message of Jesus (AS) you need to read the
"Parable of the Wicked Tenants"
Luke 20:9-19
[9] He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. [10] At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. [11] He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. [12] He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
[13] "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.'
[14] "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' [15] So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? [16] He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others."
When the people heard this, they said, "May this never be!"
[17] Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written:
*" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone'?
[18] Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces,
but he on whom it falls will be crushed." *
[19] The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Jesus' message was different than that of the other Judeo-Christian prophets. I find the OT to be a book of Jewish history that represents a violent, vengeful, jealous, vindictive and boastful God. The NT portrays God as all-loving, forgiving and merciful who wants us to turn the other cheek. I only accept the NT as my guide as I believe the message of Jesus should have replaced the OT, not been added to it. I don't see how people reconcile the two different messages.
I realize the Quran is meant to replace *both *the OT and NT, but I feel it more represents the God of the OT. That's why I said it picks up where the OT leaves off. Not in timeline, but in the manner in which God is described. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims any more than I do Christians who profess faith in the OT. A different belief doesn't equate to hatred. And neither does my honesty for holding those beliefs.
So at the bottom of this selection lies an interpretation of what God should be and not what he is. Selective interpretation in other words. It appears you have not come to terms that God can possess attributes vastly opposite to each other i.e. love and hate, benevolence and wrath, merciful and vengeful, generous and with-holding etc. Or that Gods actions towards us should be the same regardless of what our actions are towards him.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
...
Thanks for yanking out the same old quotes out of context that people always do to try and paint Jesus as a man who advocated violence. I hope that makes you feel better about your own beliefs.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
So at the bottom of this selection lies an interpretation of what God should be and not what he is. Selective interpretation in other words. It appears you have not come to terms that God can possess attributes vastly opposite to each other i.e. love and hate, benevolence and wrath, merciful and vengeful, generous and with-holding etc. Or that Gods actions towards us should be the same regardless of what our actions are towards him.
Call it selective interpretation or the correct intepretation.
I have come to terms that God cannot hate or be vengeful since those are imperfect traits. Perhaps you havent come to terms that God is perfect. Man's books are not.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Call it selective interpretation or the correct intepretation.
I have come to terms that God cannot hate or be vengeful since those are imperfect traits. Perhaps you havent come to terms that God is perfect. Man's books are not.
Does being perfect mean benevolent and only good. Based on what you believe, attributes are selectively chosen and the definition of perfection revolves around only those attributes. My definition of perfection (or a muslims) hinges upon the possession of every attribute there is and the being (God) should encompass all of them.
How can God be perfect and complete if he does not possess every attribute that exists. By believing God only possesses a select number of attributes and his perfection revolves around those would mean we are closing our eyes to reality and balance of traits.
Imperfection is only bad when it lacks a desired trait. God doesn't lack any traits which is what makes him perfect. If he possesses traits of hate or wrath it does not make him bad. It would be bad if they existed without a balancing trait such as love or mercy.
Re: Do the Haters Know the Man? ... Att. Seminole
Does being perfect mean benevolent and only good. Based on what you believe, attributes are selectively chosen and the definition of perfection revolves around only those attributes. My definition of perfection (or a muslims) hinges upon the possession of every attribute there is and the being (God) should encompass all of them.
How can God be perfect and complete if he does not possess every attribute that exists. By believing God only possesses a select number of attributes and his perfection revolves around those would mean we are closing our eyes to reality and balance of traits.
Imperfection is only bad when it lacks a desired trait. God doesn't lack any traits which is what makes him perfect. If he possesses traits of hate or wrath it does not make him bad. It would be bad if they existed without a balancing trait such as love or mercy.
The same way a perfect game in bowling doesn't include any gutter balls. Or a perfect game by a pitcher doesn't include any walks. Or a perfect exam paper doesn't contain any typos or false statements. Or a perfect dinner doesn't contain any salmonella. You don't have to have bad traits to balance good traits. Good is good. Bad is bad. Perfection is perfection. Perfection doesn't contain flaws. There is no way I can believe that God encompasses the imperfect human flaws such as greed, envy, anger, hate, etc.