Topic: Has anyone ever been like "hmm har" about Islam?

[minasoliman]

I've yet to see (though everything is probably out there these days) an abusive relationship where someone said Christianity allowed it.

Only it does.

Jesus Himself only allowed divorce in the case of sexual immorality, and even then, the Church believes that only men possess the right to divorce their wives on the grounds of sexual immorality, not the other way around. A woman is not allowed to leave an abusive marriage in any circumstances.

Where in the world did you get that idea?  Heck no!  A man who is sexual immoral is grounds for a woman to divorce him.  She has that power in the Church.

James, please spare yourself any further damage before you misrepresent the Church.  Because very soon, I'm going to put on my green mod for asking you to verify every single thing you said now.

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Here is another experience I had. I was beaten for years by my former husband and accepted it. Islam said it was OK, it is in the Quran so I took it because I wanted to not always wear black and keep a non-Muslim friend. Women are told obey, and if they were to worship anyone but Allah it should be the husband since he is her heaven or hell (I forget exact wording). Since you want a not-shallow, reference backed source here it is.

Qur'an (4:34): "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

No offense, but if you're going to accuse Islam of misogyny, you may want to check up on what our Orthodox Fathers have to say about women as well. St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today. Canon law also says Jesus' words that two people can divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality only applies to men. In other words, a man can divorce his cheating wife but a wife is expected to stay with her cheating husband.

Again, the difference is that St. John Chrysostom is a fallible human being. The Qur'an is infallible and cannot be questioned, or changed.

[JamesR]

St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today.

Citation needed.

"For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre,"-St. John Chrysostom.

James, please give the exact place where St. John Chrysostom wrote this.  Thank you!

It is from a book of homilies I have. How do I source it?

[minasoliman]

"For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre,"-St. John Chrysostom.

This must be another John Chrysostom.  

If not, he most likely did not know that God took flesh from a woman! 

Apparently James did not know what hyperbole is, nor does he give context to these quotes.

[minasoliman]

St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today.

Citation needed.

"For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre,"-St. John Chrysostom.

James, please give the exact place where St. John Chrysostom wrote this.  Thank you!

It is from a book of homilies I have. How do I source it?

Give us the name of the book and the homily number AND/OR page number

[mike]

and even then, the Church believes that only men possess the right to divorce their wives on the grounds of sexual immorality, not the other way around. A woman is not allowed to leave an abusive marriage in any circumstances.

Wut?

St. Basil the Great's Canon makes it very clear that only a man can divorce his wife and that a wife is not allowed to divorce her husband, even in the case of sexual immorality.

I suppose they are a few other things written by hum that are stupid.

[JamesR]

I've yet to see (though everything is probably out there these days) an abusive relationship where someone said Christianity allowed it.

Only it does.

Jesus Himself only allowed divorce in the case of sexual immorality, and even then, the Church believes that only men possess the right to divorce their wives on the grounds of sexual immorality, not the other way around. A woman is not allowed to leave an abusive marriage in any circumstances.

Where in the world did you get that idea?  Heck no!  A man who is sexual immoral is grounds for a woman to divorce him.  She has that power in the Church.

James, please spare yourself any further damage before you misrepresent the Church.  Because very soon, I'm going to put on my green mod for asking you to verify every single thing you said now.

But I'm not misrepresenting the Church.

"The decision of the Lord with respect to the order of the sense applies equally to men and women so far as concerns the prohibition of divorce "except on ground of fornication" (Matt. 5:31J and 19:7), Custom, however, will not have it thus, but in regard to women it insists upon exactitude and stringency, seeing that the Apostle says that "he who cleaves to a harlot is one body with her" (I Cor. 6:16), and that Jeremiah says that "If a woman goes with another man, she shall not return to her husband, but shall surely be attainted" (Jer. 3:1); and again: "Whoever keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious" (Prov. 18:22, according to the Septuagint version, but not in the A.V. or R.V.). Custom, on the other hand, commands that men who are guilty of adultery or of acts of fornication must be kept by their wives; so that as regards a woman who is cohabiting with a man who has been left can be accounted an adulteress. For the fault here lies in the woman who divorced her husband, according to whatever reason she had for undoing the marriage. For whether it be that when beaten she could not bear the blows, but ought rather to have exercised patience, or to obtain a divorce from the man with whom she at the time was cohabiting, or whether it be that she could not afford to lose the money, neither is this any excuse worthy considering. But if it were on account of his living in a state of fornication, we have no such observance in ecclesiastical usage, but neither is the wife of a faithless husband commanded to separate from him, but, on the contrary, she has to stay with him owing to the fact that the issue of the matter is unknown. “For what knowest thou, Ο wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?" (I Cor. 7:16). So that a woman who deserts her husband becomes an adulteress in case she comes to another man. The man, on the other hand, whom she has left is pardonable, and a woman who cohabits with him is not to be condemned. If, however, a man deserts his wife and comes to another woman, he too becomes an adulterer because he is making her be an adulteress; and the woman cohabiting with him is an adulteress, because she has taken another woman’s husband for herself."-St. Basil the Great.

Source

[Romaios]

St. Basil the Great's Canon makes it very clear that only a man can divorce his wife and that a wife is not allowed to divorce her husband, even in the case of sexual immorality.

You should link to GiC's posts here.

Ecclesiastical canon law evolved past that point long ago. A woman can now divorce her man for sexual immorality, even if he were a priest. I know such a case, where the Church took the side of the wife against the adulterous man, who was deposed from the priesthood.

[JamesR]

St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today.

Citation needed.

"For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre,"-St. John Chrysostom.

James, please give the exact place where St. John Chrysostom wrote this.  Thank you!

It is from a book of homilies I have. How do I source it?

Give us the name of the book and the homily number AND/OR page number

Homilies of St. John Chrysostom by BiblioLife LLC, page 186.

[Poppy]

A bit like when we say, in sha'Allah (if Allah wills it). Humility/remembrance

It is also told that Christians should say that too (God willing - I can get the ref if you need it) every time they speak of future events or plans they have.

In old letters you can still find the acronym D.V., Deo volente - God willing.

It's beautiful isn't it? The remembrance of God in all we do.

It is. However is silly to do it in Arabic. Why not "God willing" instead of "insha Allah"?

Because illah means God so, it's not the same thing that I would be saying. If I say God willing, it's ambiguous but if I say Allah (swt) then I am making it clear that I am referring to The God with no partners or co-equals.

It's not just some superficial (ugh what's the term for the ppl with all vintage clothes and big glasses - fgot) well it's not just for some dumb reason. It's like transubstantiation and how the Orthodox don't use that word because it means something specific which isn't quite what you believe. But you don't have another word for that process so, you just say it's a mystery. But you don't use that word for that reason. It's not correct and it would be misleading depending on who was listening. Like ppl would think you were Catholic if they heard you use it. (If i remember right). But if I said God willing, everyone would think me Christian who heard it plus it's not correct for what I want to express. Plus it's not a statement for the hearer but for the speaker.

LBK, (in sha'Allah) will reply to it after out and back. Got to get some food in.

Poppy,

I did say God has no partners or co-equals.  In fact, we as Arab Christians also use "Allah".  In John chapter 1, it is written,  "فِي البَدْءِ كانَ الكَلِمَةُ   مَوْجُوداً، وَكانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، وَكانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ."  Fi al bidaya (In the beginning) kan el Kalima (was the Word), mawgoodan (exists) wa kan al Kalima ma'a Allah (and the Word was with God), wa kan al Kalima howa Allah (and the Word was God)."

This is a way of saying that Allah, who is the "first and the last", mentions how before all ages, was the Mind of Allah.  Before we were created, Allah thought of all of us.  Of course, Allah does not have a mind like we have a mind, but in eternity, in His infiniteness, we talk about and acknowledge the distinctness of the Mind of Allah and how this Mind is truly Allah.  He reveals to us His Mind through Jesus.  We believe in One God (Illah Wahid), His Mind, and His Spirit, who was breathed into all of Mankind (Surah 15.29).

And why is this important for Christians?  Because if we take every attribute or name of God, we recognize in this attribute three necessary things, the source of the attribute, the eternal framework or thought in the attribute, the action or life the attribute that is bestowed on creation.  Everywhere in the Quran, you read about Allah, His thought emanating from His eternal Mind, and His action emanating from His eternal Spirit.  This is the Trinity.

How can we call each "fully God"?  Take the analogy of the Sun.  If you can visualize the orb of the sun, you can identify it as the Sun.  If a blind man can feel warm in the morning, He will mention he is warmed by the Sun, or warmed by the Heat of the Sun, both meaning the same thing.  If a man from the dark comes out and sees because of light, He sees by the Sun, or He sees by the Light of the Sun.  The orb is Sun, the Light is Sun, the Heat is Sun, and these three are One Sun.

A consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4 and Exodus 24.

I remember from reading that there is no where a person can go where God cannot be there (Psalm139) so If I read that Qur'an searching for truth then if God can be there in hell, God can show me the truth of Himself even in a book that you do not believe to be truth. True mina?

God is omnipresent yes.  He is present at all times and at all places.  But that doesn't mean He's present in all religions.  There's a difference between the omnipresence of God, and agreeing with texts of a different religion that pertains to one's belief.  Otherwise, it makes no difference for us whether we are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew.  Might as well be a moral atheist and still find God's presence in that belief.  No?

I understand your point but hear my upset ok because, if someone can be persuaded into a religion, then they can be persuaded out from it too? It has to be way more than that.

Do you have doubts ever about what you have chosen? Should doubts be present in faith? Maybe doubts about peripheral stuff but about the nature and essence of Almighty Himself?? That is distressing mina, it is too much.

[Romaios]

Homilies of St. John Chrysostom by BiblioLife LLC, page 186.

The name of that particular homily would be useful. 

[RehamG]

Here is another experience I had. I was beaten for years by my former husband and accepted it. Islam said it was OK, it is in the Quran so I took it because I wanted to not always wear black and keep a non-Muslim friend. Women are told obey, and if they were to worship anyone but Allah it should be the husband since he is her heaven or hell (I forget exact wording). Since you want a not-shallow, reference backed source here it is.

Qur'an (4:34): "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

No offense, but if you're going to accuse Islam of misogyny, you may want to check up on what our Orthodox Fathers have to say about women as well. St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today. Canon law also says Jesus' words that two people can divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality only applies to men. In other words, a man can divorce his cheating wife but a wife is expected to stay with her cheating husband.

Again, the difference is that St. John Chrysostom is a fallible human being. The Qur'an is infallible and cannot be questioned, or changed.

+1

[JamesR]

St. Basil the Great's Canon makes it very clear that only a man can divorce his wife and that a wife is not allowed to divorce her husband, even in the case of sexual immorality.

You should link to GiC's posts here.

Ecclesiastical canon law evolved past that point long ago. A woman can now divorce her man for sexual immorality, even if he were a priest. I know such a case, where the Church took the side of the wife against the adulterous man, who was deposed from the priesthood.

Sounds like the "unchangeable" faith changed...Anyone, the point I'm making is that I don't think we are in a position to accuse any other religion for its treatment and/or view of women when most of our Fathers seemed to have misogynistic views.

[Cyrillic]

St. Basil the Great's Canon makes it very clear that only a man can divorce his wife and that a wife is not allowed to divorce her husband, even in the case of sexual immorality.

You should link to GiC's posts here.

Ecclesiastical canon law evolved past that point long ago. A woman can now divorce her man for sexual immorality, even if he were a priest. I know such a case, where the Church took the side of the wife against the adulterous man, who was deposed from the priesthood.

Sounds like the "unchangeable" faith changed...Anyone, the point I'm making is that I don't think we are in a position to accuse any other religion for its treatment and/or view of women when most of our Fathers seemed to have misogynistic views.

Did you all of a sudden became a chivalrous knight with lots of respect for women?

[minasoliman]

I've yet to see (though everything is probably out there these days) an abusive relationship where someone said Christianity allowed it.

Only it does.

Jesus Himself only allowed divorce in the case of sexual immorality, and even then, the Church believes that only men possess the right to divorce their wives on the grounds of sexual immorality, not the other way around. A woman is not allowed to leave an abusive marriage in any circumstances.

Where in the world did you get that idea?  Heck no!  A man who is sexual immoral is grounds for a woman to divorce him.  She has that power in the Church.

James, please spare yourself any further damage before you misrepresent the Church.  Because very soon, I'm going to put on my green mod for asking you to verify every single thing you said now.

But I'm not misrepresenting the Church.

"The decision of the Lord with respect to the order of the sense applies equally to men and women so far as concerns the prohibition of divorce "except on ground of fornication" (Matt. 5:31J and 19:7), Custom, however, will not have it thus, but in regard to women it insists upon exactitude and stringency, seeing that the Apostle says that "he who cleaves to a harlot is one body with her" (I Cor. 6:16), and that Jeremiah says that "If a woman goes with another man, she shall not return to her husband, but shall surely be attainted" (Jer. 3:1); and again: "Whoever keeps an adulteress is foolish and impious" (Prov. 18:22, according to the Septuagint version, but not in the A.V. or R.V.). Custom, on the other hand, commands that men who are guilty of adultery or of acts of fornication must be kept by their wives; so that as regards a woman who is cohabiting with a man who has been left can be accounted an adulteress. For the fault here lies in the woman who divorced her husband, according to whatever reason she had for undoing the marriage. For whether it be that when beaten she could not bear the blows, but ought rather to have exercised patience, or to obtain a divorce from the man with whom she at the time was cohabiting, or whether it be that she could not afford to lose the money, neither is this any excuse worthy considering. But if it were on account of his living in a state of fornication, we have no such observance in ecclesiastical usage, but neither is the wife of a faithless husband commanded to separate from him, but, on the contrary, she has to stay with him owing to the fact that the issue of the matter is unknown. “For what knowest thou, Ο wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?" (I Cor. 7:16). So that a woman who deserts her husband becomes an adulteress in case she comes to another man. The man, on the other hand, whom she has left is pardonable, and a woman who cohabits with him is not to be condemned. If, however, a man deserts his wife and comes to another woman, he too becomes an adulterer because he is making her be an adulteress; and the woman cohabiting with him is an adulteress, because she has taken another woman’s husband for herself."-St. Basil the Great.

Source

The Church is not St. Basil, and even St. Basil admits in the beginning of his canon that the Lord allows divorce by men and women equally on account of fornication, but CUSTOM says otherwise.  I don't know what the custom was or how life was like when it came to marital issues in his time, but this indicates to me a canon for a place and a time, not an official Church decree.

[JamesR]

Homilies of St. John Chrysostom by BiblioLife LLC, page 186.

The name of that particular homily would be useful. 

I googled the excerpt and it came up on here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1903.htm

Mina, consider this my source. It's better than some obscure book I have.

[minasoliman]

St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today.

Citation needed.

"For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre,"-St. John Chrysostom.

James, please give the exact place where St. John Chrysostom wrote this.  Thank you!

It is from a book of homilies I have. How do I source it?

Give us the name of the book and the homily number AND/OR page number

Homilies of St. John Chrysostom by BiblioLife LLC, page 186.

Thank you...this isn't a green mod mode, but a simple question.  What was he giving a homily about?  Is it a book in the Scriptures, a lesson?  What title did the Bibliolife book give this homily?


gah! never mind...thank you for that source

[Theophilos78]

I googled the excerpt and it came up on here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1903.htm

Mina, consider this my source. It's better than some obscure book I have.

I still cannot find this quote on that page. 

[Romaios]

Sounds like the "unchangeable" faith changed...Anyone, the point I'm making is that I don't think we are in a position to accuse any other religion for its treatment and/or view of women when most of our Fathers seemed to have misogynistic views.

Disciplinary canons are not "unchangeable faith" (dogma).

Btw, the Buddha advised his monks to shun the uterus of a woman like molten lead or the mouth of a venomous snake. I'll look it up for you in the Tripitaka. Was this misogyny or just admonition to guard themselves against fornication?

[minasoliman]

James, you completely botched the quote.  Either that or your book is just a crappy edition.

Read the source you gave me.  It looks like St. John Chrysostom is using hyperbole to explain that beauty is more than meets the eye.  The phlegm and spittle he's talking about can be just as much about a man, where St. John might be exhorting a woman to remain celibate.

James...sigh!

"I know that you are now admiring the grace of Hermione, and you judge that there is nothing in the world to be compared to her comeliness; but if you choose, O friend, you shall yourself exceed her in comeliness and gracefulness, as much as golden statues surpass those which are made of clay. For if beauty, when it occurs in the body, so fascinates and excites the minds of most men, when the soul is refulgent with it what can match beauty and grace of this kind? For the groundwork of this corporeal beauty is nothing else but phlegm, and blood, and humor, and bile, and the fluid of masticated food. For by these things both eyes and cheeks, and all the other features, are supplied with moisture; and if they do not receive that moisture, daily skin becoming unduly withered, and the eyes sunken, the whole grace of the countenance immediately vanishes; so that if you consider what is stored up inside those beautiful eyes, and that straight nose, and the mouth and the cheeks, you will affirm the well-shaped body to be nothing else than a whited sepulchre; the parts within are full of so much uncleanness. Moreover when you see a rag with any of these things on it, such as phlegm, or spittle you cannot bear to touch it with even the tips of your fingers, nay you cannot even endure looking at it; and yet are you in a flutter of excitement about the storehouses and depositories of these things? But your beauty was not of this kind, but excelled it as heaven is superior to earth; or rather it was much better and more brilliant than this. " --St. John Chrysostom (from that website)

[Romaios]

James, you completely botched the quote.  Either that or your book is just a crappy edition.

My guess is he took the (mis)quote from some list of ready-made anti-Christian proof texts.

[Cyrillic]

"I know that you are now admiring the grace of Hermione, and you judge that there is nothing in the world to be compared to her comeliness [...] " --St. John Chrysostom (from that website)

See, even St. John Chrysostom watched Harry Potter.

[Mor Ephrem]

St. John Chrysostom has said many politically incorrect things about women being inferior and their sole purpose being to glorify their husbands and bear children that would earn him many a slap across the face by feminists if he were alive today.

Citation needed.

Wise words, for that whole post, and not just the point you isolated.  Actually, every response to JamesR should be preceded by "Citation needed" before further engagement.  

[Mor Ephrem]

James, please spare yourself any further damage before you misrepresent the Church.  Because very soon, I'm going to put on my green mod for asking you to verify every single thing you said now.

Please, please, pretty please with hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry on top...

[Mor Ephrem]

Sounds like the "unchangeable" faith changed...Anyone, the point I'm making is that I don't think we are in a position to accuse any other religion for its treatment and/or view of women when most of our Fathers seemed to have misogynistic views.

Did you all of a sudden became a chivalrous knight with lots of respect for women?

Maybe it's cool to respect women this week.

[minasoliman]

A bit like when we say, in sha'Allah (if Allah wills it). Humility/remembrance

It is also told that Christians should say that too (God willing - I can get the ref if you need it) every time they speak of future events or plans they have.

In old letters you can still find the acronym D.V., Deo volente - God willing.

It's beautiful isn't it? The remembrance of God in all we do.

It is. However is silly to do it in Arabic. Why not "God willing" instead of "insha Allah"?

Because illah means God so, it's not the same thing that I would be saying. If I say God willing, it's ambiguous but if I say Allah (swt) then I am making it clear that I am referring to The God with no partners or co-equals.

It's not just some superficial (ugh what's the term for the ppl with all vintage clothes and big glasses - fgot) well it's not just for some dumb reason. It's like transubstantiation and how the Orthodox don't use that word because it means something specific which isn't quite what you believe. But you don't have another word for that process so, you just say it's a mystery. But you don't use that word for that reason. It's not correct and it would be misleading depending on who was listening. Like ppl would think you were Catholic if they heard you use it. (If i remember right). But if I said God willing, everyone would think me Christian who heard it plus it's not correct for what I want to express. Plus it's not a statement for the hearer but for the speaker.

LBK, (in sha'Allah) will reply to it after out and back. Got to get some food in.

Poppy,

I did say God has no partners or co-equals.  In fact, we as Arab Christians also use "Allah".  In John chapter 1, it is written,  "فِي البَدْءِ كانَ الكَلِمَةُ   مَوْجُوداً، وَكانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، وَكانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ."  Fi al bidaya (In the beginning) kan el Kalima (was the Word), mawgoodan (exists) wa kan al Kalima ma'a Allah (and the Word was with God), wa kan al Kalima howa Allah (and the Word was God)."

This is a way of saying that Allah, who is the "first and the last", mentions how before all ages, was the Mind of Allah.  Before we were created, Allah thought of all of us.  Of course, Allah does not have a mind like we have a mind, but in eternity, in His infiniteness, we talk about and acknowledge the distinctness of the Mind of Allah and how this Mind is truly Allah.  He reveals to us His Mind through Jesus.  We believe in One God (Illah Wahid), His Mind, and His Spirit, who was breathed into all of Mankind (Surah 15.29).

And why is this important for Christians?  Because if we take every attribute or name of God, we recognize in this attribute three necessary things, the source of the attribute, the eternal framework or thought in the attribute, the action or life the attribute that is bestowed on creation.  Everywhere in the Quran, you read about Allah, His thought emanating from His eternal Mind, and His action emanating from His eternal Spirit.  This is the Trinity.

How can we call each "fully God"?  Take the analogy of the Sun.  If you can visualize the orb of the sun, you can identify it as the Sun.  If a blind man can feel warm in the morning, He will mention he is warmed by the Sun, or warmed by the Heat of the Sun, both meaning the same thing.  If a man from the dark comes out and sees because of light, He sees by the Sun, or He sees by the Light of the Sun.  The orb is Sun, the Light is Sun, the Heat is Sun, and these three are One Sun.

A consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4 and Exodus 24.

I remember from reading that there is no where a person can go where God cannot be there (Psalm139) so If I read that Qur'an searching for truth then if God can be there in hell, God can show me the truth of Himself even in a book that you do not believe to be truth. True mina?

God is omnipresent yes.  He is present at all times and at all places.  But that doesn't mean He's present in all religions.  There's a difference between the omnipresence of God, and agreeing with texts of a different religion that pertains to one's belief.  Otherwise, it makes no difference for us whether we are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew.  Might as well be a moral atheist and still find God's presence in that belief.  No?

I understand your point but hear my upset ok because, if someone can be persuaded into a religion, then they can be persuaded out from it too? It has to be way more than that.

Do you have doubts ever about what you have chosen? Should doubts be present in faith? Maybe doubts about peripheral stuff but about the nature and essence of Almighty Himself?? That is distressing mina, it is too much.

I'll be frank with you.  I was born into the Church.  But I also did have my doubts.  I also engaged in discussion with Muslims, Hindus, and atheists most of the time.  I avoided Protestants because for some reason I would get a bit irritated.  My college years is where doubt did increase, and where I struggled the most with my faith.  But I also realized, it's not just understanding the faith that matters.  It's also living it.  That's the conviction that held with me the most.  And any doubt I had was answered sooner or later.  I still have some doubts, but nothing compares to the spiritual life, the relationship, and most important, the intimate communion I have with God that I don't think any other religion has.  For most Hindus, God is a part of us, and so there's no sincere distinction of characters or persons.  For other religions, it is impossible to have communion of God or for the infinite God to live inside one's heart, and that makes me depressed to see that despite an existence, God can be so distant from us, it makes no difference if he exists or not to me.  But in Christianity, God is distinct from us, and became one of us, and in this very point, I can achieve an amazing relationship far beyond anything else.  It's not mere persuasion.  It's a spiritual life that I have to live.

[JamesR]

James, you completely botched the quote.  Either that or your book is just a crappy edition.

Read the source you gave me.  It looks like St. John Chrysostom is using hyperbole to explain that beauty is more than meets the eye.  The phlegm and spittle he's talking about can be just as much about a man, where St. John might be exhorting a woman to remain celibate.

James...sigh!

"I know that you are now admiring the grace of Hermione, and you judge that there is nothing in the world to be compared to her comeliness; but if you choose, O friend, you shall yourself exceed her in comeliness and gracefulness, as much as golden statues surpass those which are made of clay. For if beauty, when it occurs in the body, so fascinates and excites the minds of most men, when the soul is refulgent with it what can match beauty and grace of this kind? For the groundwork of this corporeal beauty is nothing else but phlegm, and blood, and humor, and bile, and the fluid of masticated food. For by these things both eyes and cheeks, and all the other features, are supplied with moisture; and if they do not receive that moisture, daily skin becoming unduly withered, and the eyes sunken, the whole grace of the countenance immediately vanishes; so that if you consider what is stored up inside those beautiful eyes, and that straight nose, and the mouth and the cheeks, you will affirm the well-shaped body to be nothing else than a whited sepulchre; the parts within are full of so much uncleanness. Moreover when you see a rag with any of these things on it, such as phlegm, or spittle you cannot bear to touch it with even the tips of your fingers, nay you cannot even endure looking at it; and yet are you in a flutter of excitement about the storehouses and depositories of these things? But your beauty was not of this kind, but excelled it as heaven is superior to earth; or rather it was much better and more brilliant than this. " --St. John Chrysostom (from that website)

You got me. I got nothing; I'm sorry. I haven't had my coffee this morning.

[Theophilos78]

This has reminded me of the malicious statement attributed to Pope Leo X. 

It has served us well, this myth of Christ.

Widely attributed to Leo X, the earliest known source of this statement is actually a polemical work by the Protestant John Bale, the anti-Catholic Acta Romanorum Pontificum, which was first translated from Latin into English as The Pageant of the Popes in 1574: "For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie." The Pope in this case being Leo X.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

[minasoliman]

James, please spare yourself any further damage before you misrepresent the Church.  Because very soon, I'm going to put on my green mod for asking you to verify every single thing you said now.

Please, please, pretty please with hot fudge, whipped cream, and a cherry on top...

I'll try my best 

[minasoliman]

James, you completely botched the quote.  Either that or your book is just a crappy edition.

Read the source you gave me.  It looks like St. John Chrysostom is using hyperbole to explain that beauty is more than meets the eye.  The phlegm and spittle he's talking about can be just as much about a man, where St. John might be exhorting a woman to remain celibate.

James...sigh!

"I know that you are now admiring the grace of Hermione, and you judge that there is nothing in the world to be compared to her comeliness; but if you choose, O friend, you shall yourself exceed her in comeliness and gracefulness, as much as golden statues surpass those which are made of clay. For if beauty, when it occurs in the body, so fascinates and excites the minds of most men, when the soul is refulgent with it what can match beauty and grace of this kind? For the groundwork of this corporeal beauty is nothing else but phlegm, and blood, and humor, and bile, and the fluid of masticated food. For by these things both eyes and cheeks, and all the other features, are supplied with moisture; and if they do not receive that moisture, daily skin becoming unduly withered, and the eyes sunken, the whole grace of the countenance immediately vanishes; so that if you consider what is stored up inside those beautiful eyes, and that straight nose, and the mouth and the cheeks, you will affirm the well-shaped body to be nothing else than a whited sepulchre; the parts within are full of so much uncleanness. Moreover when you see a rag with any of these things on it, such as phlegm, or spittle you cannot bear to touch it with even the tips of your fingers, nay you cannot even endure looking at it; and yet are you in a flutter of excitement about the storehouses and depositories of these things? But your beauty was not of this kind, but excelled it as heaven is superior to earth; or rather it was much better and more brilliant than this. " --St. John Chrysostom (from that website)

You got me. I got nothing; I'm sorry. I haven't had my coffee this morning.

Alright, Sorry I got all irritated on you.  Please try to verify the context of your quotes next time.

[dzheremi]

I sympathize with the urge to question those verses.  But there's a time and a place for those.

 

I'm not questioning any verses, though. I asked what difference this distinction makes when dead is dead all the same, whether we believe God commanded it or it was cold-blooded murder (or any other stance between these two, for that matter).

At the same time, I really do believe it's more edifying for our souls to defend and clarify our faith, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you" (1 Peter 3:15).  Let us not make the faith be about what the other religion isn't, but about what the gospel is.

Where have you seen otherwise in my posts here? I asked some questions about some things in Islam that don't make sense to me just as Poppy has asked some questions about things in Christianity that don't make sense to her. This is how dialogue is supposed to work, no? I don't pull any punches about what I don't like about Islam, but you'll notice, I hope, that Poppy has considered my posts and responded to them (thank you for this, Poppy; it helps me to learn your perspective) and not dismissed them as being rude or confrontational as she has with those of others, so I would think that this is enough to continue dialogue, insofar as we have not made the faith out to be about what the other religion isn't, in either case.

Whatever the case may be, I don't think it's for her benefit that we waste our time on the usual polemics against Islam.

Is this what you think is going on in the conversation between Poppy and me? If so, can you point out where I've done that (beyond the previous post where I pointed out that that's what I'm doing, and why), so that I can moderate my future posts accordingly? Thank you.

The second part you pointed at is of utmost importance!  Let them rave about how we don't walk the talk.  It's true a lot of the times.  I'm convinced that if it wasn't for the schisms of the 5th century, Islam would have a very difficult time growing.  We reap what we sow.

That's not really what I meant in the bolded portion, but okay.

I know the urge to lash back

"Lash back"? Saying that I don't understand how Islam works, or that Muslims are not correctly portraying our faith in their polemics against Christianity is not lashing out. I look at it more as clarifying (in that Muslims get to clarify their objections and receive correction, and Christians get the same with regard to our objections and misunderstandings of Islam), as you rightly called for in other parts of your reply.

and show them how they too have their own bad apples, but fight hard against the urge.  Take the humble road, even on the third part I bolded, take the humble road.  "Yes, we have our bad apples, and yes, I don't know how it feels to know your religion, but I know how it feels to believe in Christ, and I'd like to share that with you."  I would hope the good among them would be impressed by that humble approach.  It's more inviting.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. I did not call at any point for people not to be humble in defending the faith.

So what if they revert?

 

It shows that no matter how many times you explain something to someone, if they're more committed to distortions of your faith than your clarifications of the same, you are most likely wasting your time continuing to repeat the same things to them, expecting that they'll change if they hear the truth just one more time.

I tried my best, but I'm not going to revert to the same tactics that they use.  What difference does it make that I stoop to the level that continues to misrepresent someone's beliefs (I'm not talking about official beliefs of Islam, but a particular person's beliefs).  When you get to the root of it all, you still want to have a discussion with the person, not a discussion with a religion.

 

I agree.

I have to be honest and say I really don't understand why you wrote most of this in response to my post, Mina. I think you do a good job representing the faith in this and other threads. We don't always agree on everything, but I don't think you've written anything here that I would categorically disagree with, only perhaps I am reading something into your replies (or you are reading something into mine, or maybe talking about the general direction of the thread rather than my posts in particular; it's hard to tell when you write these things and quote my posts in your reply). Keep doing your thing.

[William]

Allah does? Doesn't He?

And why does God allow death? You might want to take a look at the tradition apologetics for that tangle. Why not let a man live till the next age giving him as much time as possible to repent?

You might find what poppy is attempting to say ain't far from apologies you are going to read.

Before arguing with others about their faith, best to learn a little, just a little about your own, lest you find yourself confronted by someone who knows yours better than you and rather than humble yourself and remain silent you bring scandal onto the faith you hold onto.

God making man mortal is equivalent to personally killing someone on God's behalf because of apostasy?

[minasoliman]

I sympathize with the urge to question those verses.  But there's a time and a place for those.

 

I'm not questioning any verses, though. I asked what difference this distinction makes when dead is dead all the same, whether we believe God commanded it or it was cold-blooded murder (or any other stance between these two, for that matter).

At the same time, I really do believe it's more edifying for our souls to defend and clarify our faith, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you" (1 Peter 3:15).  Let us not make the faith be about what the other religion isn't, but about what the gospel is.

Where have you seen otherwise in my posts here? I asked some questions about some things in Islam that don't make sense to me just as Poppy has asked some questions about things in Christianity that don't make sense to her. This is how dialogue is supposed to work, no? I don't pull any punches about what I don't like about Islam, but you'll notice, I hope, that Poppy has considered my posts and responded to them (thank you for this, Poppy; it helps me to learn your perspective) and not dismissed them as being rude or confrontational as she has with those of others, so I would think that this is enough to continue dialogue, insofar as we have not made the faith out to be about what the other religion isn't, in either case.

Whatever the case may be, I don't think it's for her benefit that we waste our time on the usual polemics against Islam.

Is this what you think is going on in the conversation between Poppy and me? If so, can you point out where I've done that (beyond the previous post where I pointed out that that's what I'm doing, and why), so that I can moderate my future posts accordingly? Thank you.

The second part you pointed at is of utmost importance!  Let them rave about how we don't walk the talk.  It's true a lot of the times.  I'm convinced that if it wasn't for the schisms of the 5th century, Islam would have a very difficult time growing.  We reap what we sow.

That's not really what I meant in the bolded portion, but okay.

I know the urge to lash back

"Lash back"? Saying that I don't understand how Islam works, or that Muslims are not correctly portraying our faith in their polemics against Christianity is not lashing out. I look at it more as clarifying (in that Muslims get to clarify their objections and receive correction, and Christians get the same with regard to our objections and misunderstandings of Islam), as you rightly called for in other parts of your reply.

and show them how they too have their own bad apples, but fight hard against the urge.  Take the humble road, even on the third part I bolded, take the humble road.  "Yes, we have our bad apples, and yes, I don't know how it feels to know your religion, but I know how it feels to believe in Christ, and I'd like to share that with you."  I would hope the good among them would be impressed by that humble approach.  It's more inviting.

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. I did not call at any point for people not to be humble in defending the faith.

So what if they revert?

 

It shows that no matter how many times you explain something to someone, if they're more committed to distortions of your faith than your clarifications of the same, you are most likely wasting your time continuing to repeat the same things to them, expecting that they'll change if they hear the truth just one more time.

I tried my best, but I'm not going to revert to the same tactics that they use.  What difference does it make that I stoop to the level that continues to misrepresent someone's beliefs (I'm not talking about official beliefs of Islam, but a particular person's beliefs).  When you get to the root of it all, you still want to have a discussion with the person, not a discussion with a religion.

 

I agree.

I have to be honest and say I really don't understand why you wrote most of this in response to my post, Mina. I think you do a good job representing the faith in this and other threads. We don't always agree on everything, but I don't think you've written anything here that I would categorically disagree with, only perhaps I am reading something into your replies (or you are reading something into mine, or maybe talking about the general direction of the thread rather than my posts in particular; it's hard to tell when you write these things and quote my posts in your reply). Keep doing your thing.

My apologies.  I misunderstood your post.  On my part, it just comes from a side where I see people asking questions about verses in the Quran or aHadith that seem rhetorical.  In other words, some people ask these questions already having made up their own mind what their answer is, rather than a sincere look at what these actually mean, at least to the person who is believing it, almost the same way as Muslims who continue to misconstrue our beliefs even though we took lengths to explain it to them.  I apologize for mischaracterizing your post.

[Tamara]

I have heard many, many times from my Muslim friends about the boundless love and forgiveness in Islam, but I find it hard to square that impression with the attitude and following command ascribed to its prophet in famous hadiths like this one:

I recently read about some Egyptian scholar who said that not all apostates should be killed but only those who actively proselytize Muslims to some other religion. IMO still wrong but much more understandable position.

In my understanding from the khutbah (kind of like a sermon but more than that) and from my classes and during general conversation with friends, death is viewed more in the way of salvation rather than murder. So you are saving the person from themself

wa Allahu a3lim  (and Allah, knows best)

She seems to be at peace with this teaching as she writes " Allah, knows best"

Allah does? Doesn't He?

And why does God allow death? You might want to take a look at the tradition apologetics for that tangle. Why not let a man live till the next age giving him as much time as possible to repent?

You might find what poppy is attempting to say ain't far from apologies you are going to read.

Before arguing with others about their faith, best to learn a little, just a little about your own, lest you find yourself confronted by someone who knows yours better than you and rather than humble yourself and remain silent you bring scandal onto the faith you hold onto.

Hey, I never claimed to be an Orthodox theologian but the Holy Trinity forbids murder or killing anyone for any reason. I asked her to tell me exactly what she meant when she wrote this in regard to Muslim apostates:

In my understanding from the khutbah (kind of like a sermon but more than that) and from my classes and during general conversation with friends, death is viewed more in the way of salvation rather than murder. So you are saving the person from themself

[Eastern Mind]

You are definitely confusing Aloha with Allah.  

Whereas you confuse Hawaiian with Syriac...

It's an easy mistake to make. 

[Alpo]

and even then, the Church believes that only men possess the right to divorce their wives on the grounds of sexual immorality, not the other way around. A woman is not allowed to leave an abusive marriage in any circumstances.

Wut?

St. Basil the Great's Canon makes it very clear that only a man can divorce his wife and that a wife is not allowed to divorce her husband, even in the case of sexual immorality.

Source?

[minasoliman]

Hey, I never claimed to be an Orthodox theologian but the Holy Trinity forbids murder or killing anyone for any reason. I asked her to tell me exactly what she meant when she wrote this in regard to Muslim apostates:

In my understanding from the khutbah (kind of like a sermon but more than that) and from my classes and during general conversation with friends, death is viewed more in the way of salvation rather than murder. So you are saving the person from themself

She seemed to have misunderstood the question, as she was talking about something completely different from apostasy.  This is after she edited her post.  It seems she is interpreting the apostasy verse as a punishment from God, not from man.

Yea I explained.

If the person goes to Jannah (similar to heaven) as a Muslim, then this is better than them going on in life only to end up in a terrible position before Allah, subhana wa ta 3la, albeit temporarily or even forever.


Oh ok sorry, I just now saw the word apostates.

That probably comes down to the mercy of Allah and the good deeds they have done up until that time as a Muslim. But I can't be like i'm issuing a fatwa about it because i'm not. Allah knows best.

Alpo,

The source was already given:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,54606.msg1018145.html#msg1018145

[Poppy]

dzheremi

The Qur'an, and hence the religion that is built around it, fails quite simply because it is not what it says it is: It is not the word of God/Allah (and, as a corollary, Muhammad is not the messenger of God/Allah, his "revelation" is false, etc). And we can know that it is not what it says it is because it fails in its own stated goals to serve as "reminder" of what came before (since it doesn't match what came before, if it's corrective, it wouldn't have to?

but instead only twists it around), and to bring people back to the true religion that has apparently been corrupted by the preexisting Christians and Jews (since Muslims can never show where the supposed corruption took place, only point to areas where the Bible contradicts the Qur'an as though that is self-evidently the same thing). Muftis would do more than show the contradictions. You  know yourself probably, the average Christian (ok maybe not the average Orthodox Christian), can't manage more than throwing bible quotes at people, torn from their original context.


It is a bit of a Goldilocks religion who? (...but Muhammad's revelation was juuuust right), and I have always gotten a sense that there is some kind of "me too"-ism in its approach to other religions: The Jews have their prophets and patriarchs and the Christians theirs, but who ever thought that there should be a prophet from among the Arabs, or took to heart what he claims to have brought forth because God has revealed this new thing in 'clear Arabic'? (as the Qur'an congratulates itself for being...well whoopty-freaking-doo...er, excuse me...alhamdulilah...)

Some people, even Orthodox people, have said that the Qur'an and Islam are essentially no different than Christianity in this regard, as Christianity sees itself as the fulfillment of Judaism in some sense. I am not sympathetic to this view for at least a few reasons:

(1) At the time of Christ (and, in the Jews' view, of course also after Him), there was a preexisting belief in the coming of a Messiah. but they wanted him to overthrow the existing rulers of the day and to start a revolution? That's what they were expecting

For Christians, Jesus is that Messiah as well as being the Son of God. In contrast, by the time of Muhammad, for at least the Christians the Messiah had already come and it had been accepted for centuries that there would be no other Messiah, nor any new prophets or new revelations after the deaths of the Apostles. So Muhammad is out. (For the Jews, not being one myself I can only say that as far as I know they do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, nor do they agree with the Qur'ans contention that somehow Jesus is the Messiah, so he would appear to be a failure in that religion, as well.)

(2) Christianity does not seek to strength itself by claiming any textual corruption on the part of the Jews, as we do indeed accept their scripture as our scripture (even though our canons and versions of accepted books differ for historical reasons). Rather, related to Christ's divinity and the authority invested in His interpretation as the final and only correct interpretation of whatever matter is at hand ("You have heard it said..., but I say unto you..."), we say that the Jews are mistaken in rejecting Him and His commands. This difference might seem subtle (e.g., Muslims or others could respond "Well, Christians and Jews are wrong in rejecting Muhammad and the commands brought in the Qur'an, too!"), but it is quite important. It lays in the source of authority by which someone can claim that they should be followed, as we say that Muhammad brought a new revelation that contradicts what was known before, and cited as his authority revelations from "God" which no one else ever saw or was allowed to question. By contrast, at least for Christians, as Jesus is God, that's the only authority He needs. Muhammad, not being God, cannot claim the same authority.

For all these reasons and more, I find Islam very flawed, and have no trouble at all rejecting it. It only even gets brought up in the context of comparison to Christianity or Judaism because it has falsely wedged itself into some sort of vague "Abrahamic" family (com'on...even Christians and Jews share some of the same texts, and their rituals share some common ancestry), but at its roots it is something else, bringing a new revelation that is not believed by any preexisting religion (all the while claiming to be in conformity with them), from a prophet who nobody asked for, to a marginal people who, were it not for their false prophet and the religion he and his successors forced upon the world (including Arabia proper), would not have much in the way of non-regional accomplishments, literary culture, etc

I don't really understand what you're on about because you're not very pithy and i'm losing the will to live a bit in your post. It's like you brought yr own bottle of wine to a party only to be able to say how rubbish the wine is.

But so I read a lot about the Ottoman Empire and all that Islam achieved and contributed to the world.

No wonder Muslims insist that the Qur'an is Muhammad's miracle. I don't buy it. Islam is bunk. In your humble limited opinion



I have known several Christians of various persuasions who converted to Islam (most did not stay Muslims), there's always church/religious butterflies but none of them as far as I can remember had either come from or considered Orthodox Christianity prior to becoming Muslims, I did.  for whatever that distinction is worth. If I understand one of the replies to your OP correctly, you came back from a visit to Greece with an interest in Islam, which strikes me as interesting since as far as I know Islam has historically been confined to a few minority populations in Greece, and strongly concentrated in a few islands relative to the much larger Eastern Orthodox population of the country. So please do share with us, if you wouldn't mind. I'll try to just absorb your point of view, and ask questions instead of arguing. No. I don't need that right now. I just only want to pick through what ppl have already posted and think about the good post properly. People don't stop to think about stuff properly, it's important. There is enough info here for me already. I will ask for more stuff when I need it. But thanks.


I have heard many, many times from my Muslim friends about the boundless love and forgiveness in Islam, but I find it hard to square that impression with the attitude and following command ascribed to its prophet in famous hadiths like this one:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57)

It's pretty far from the prodigal son, y'know? I can show you some equally difficult parts from the bible and the God of love and forgiveness that is also spoken of and where God instructs people to do certain things that seem a bit off for a loving God.

The All Mighty God is both the most loving, merciful and unfathomable as well as being totally terrifying.



We in the Coptic Orthodox tradition pray at the end of every hour to the Lord who "does not desire the death of the sinner, but rather that he returns and lives" and "who calls all to salvation with the promise of the good things to come". In the case of Islam, it seems to relish in the death of the sinner, and hastens to bring it about by any means Islamically permissible. Sad

Seems to. I agree, It can seem that way.

Another indirect consequence of being a murderer is that you close the door on any possible repentance on the part of the apostate. There are three days to repent.

Just who the heck are you or any Muslim, individually or collectively, to be doing that, if Islam is indeed full of mercy and love? No, this is not adding up at all. Again, I could equally bring up stuff here about Christianity as well, and what the bible teaches, but likewise, both will have explanations from their respective sides.

This kind of discussion gets us no where and it's a bare waste of my time and yours.


Poppy's reasoning for using "Allah" instead of "God" only works if you believe Islam has some sort of theological copyright on the word "Allah", which it doesn't it doesn't have to 'work', i'm just telling you the reason.

(sorry, Malaysia, and smug, self-satisfied Muslims everywhere; we used it in worship before Islam or Muhammad ever existed and we're not relinquishing it to you for anything). Given the demographics of the Arabic-speaking people I surround myself with, if someone used "Allah" around me, I would assume they were Coptic Orthodox or Catholic. It's the Islamic uniform for the women that would tip me off that they weren't, since with the exception of Tewahedo I've never known any Orthodox women who remained veiled outside of Church.

Blessed Mary did? A good example to follow.

I'm sorry to come back to this (I'll drop it after this post, unless she responds herself), but isn't the effect the same? Dead is dead either way, and after death there is no repentance. I've been writing about effects because Poppy wrote about the side-effect of the murder (or some such), so I'm writing about other effects of that mindset that I think reveal something of the wide chasm between Christianity and Islam, which make it difficult to understand where Muslims are seeing this abundance of love and mercy in their religion (don't get me wrong, I would love for it to be there, I just don't see it).

Who says that the extra time the person is given will result in repentance?? That is way too risky. They have 3 days, that is enough time. As you know in Islam it is all about making your good deeds outweigh your bad. Do they need more time so that they end up in such a bad place for much longer or even forever? Say they have 3 years to repent and do, but right at the last bit of that 3 years. They have 2 years and 11months of badness they built up that might even nullify their repentance depending on what it was and how much and for how long.

Also, people got/get killed for all kinds of reasons, death row in the states and also for treason in this country and a tonne of others. Yet we go weak at the thought of the biggest insult to All Mighty, someone turning their back on the God who gives them every breath in their body and is their all source and resource. (reminds me of Hebrews 11) and yet this reason is lower down the scale than human justice and insult??

Anyway, I don't want to have a spat about this. You asked and so I answered but it's way off from what I need so If you reply back about it, I won't carry on the discussion. Really, it's just an exercise that's all. It don't add anything.


We speak very different theological languages, so while this is great when it is possible, I am not sure that I agree that it is always the source of the most fruitful discussions. You tell a Muslim that we believe in one God, and they just revert to the same Islamic distortion about our faith and how we have associated others with God. Same has happened here too misunderstandings from Christians about Islam. No matter how much it's explained, the explanations just aren't accepted. Both sides think the others' answer is messed up and so the answer is rejected and the misinformation continues.

They really cannot countenance that the truth may be as the Christian puts it about our own belief, as that would mean that the Qur'an (and hence Muhammad and Allah) are wrong about something, and the whole house of cards just collapses (since Islam is built around "the book"). Not always the case. Your thinking only one dimensionally, this is the only reason I can think of so it must be true. Sometimes it's not understood because of cultural reasons or just a lack of comprehension about the actual concept itself. Like for instance, the incantation.

You've seen it in this very thread, in your own continued attempts to correct Poppy regarding Christian theology. You really think Muslims, particularly neophytes all fired up about their newest unchanging truth, are going to take correction from those they see their new religion as being the supreme corrector of? Please, Mina...

But with me....seeing as you mentioned me in particular. It's incomprehensible, especially about the incarnation,so i find it not only difficult to hold that thought but also to even say it or talk about it. It's not a matter of rejecting your truth, I promise. That don't need a 'tut and rolly eyes', it just need repeating and bit of frikin patience.



The Christians' ultimate victory is on the last day, while we were certainly promised tribulations before that. I know that Islam in some ways sees its victory over all other religions in very temporal terms (while also concerning itself with final judgment, of course), but what can I say...you can't fit Christians pegs in Islamic holes, or vice versa.

The Church is victorious every time a sinner returns, every time a convert is received, every time the true body and blood of our Savior is given to us, every time a new house of worship is consecrated, every time the Gospel is proclaimed, every time a martyr is crowned, etc. Perhaps you don't see these things because Islam sees victory in different terms, but they're still how we measure things. The kingdom of God is not of this world, but where and when it counts, the Church is victorious, and will always be victorious. Even before Islam I had this question to Fr Chris (where is he btw?)

Where have you seen otherwise in my posts here? I asked some questions about some things in Islam that don't make sense to me just as Poppy has asked some questions about things in Christianity that don't make sense to her. This is how dialogue is supposed to work, no? I don't pull any punches about what I don't like about Islam, but you'll notice, I hope, that Poppy has considered my posts and responded to them (thank you for this, Poppy; it helps me to learn your perspective) and not dismissed them as being rude or confrontational as she has with those of others, so I would think that this is enough to continue dialogue, insofar as we have not made the faith out to be about what the other religion isn't, in either case.

I only answered your posts like this because I felt for you because of what minas said. And also you wasn't rude to me personally, but minas is right, more of your posts was about what Islam isn't rather than what Christianity is. It's all good though. But they were a bit predictable. Seeing that you asked -)

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Wow. Don't expect anyone to read all of that.

[NicholasMyra]

this thread

[LBK]

Wow. Don't expect anyone to read all of that.

Why not? Dzheremi has posted something that's well-considered and relevant, to which Poppy has replied on certain points he made. Must everything here be reduced to tweet-size to cater for those with tiny attention spans?  

[Theophilos78]

dzheremi

The Qur'an, and hence the religion that is built around it, fails quite simply because it is not what it says it is: It is not the word of God/Allah (and, as a corollary, Muhammad is not the messenger of God/Allah, his "revelation" is false, etc). And we can know that it is not what it says it is because it fails in its own stated goals to serve as "reminder" of what came before (since it doesn't match what came before, if it's corrective, it wouldn't have to?

Yet you fail to understand that the Qur'an never claims to correct the former revelations. Actually, the Qur'an repeatedly teaches that its function is to CONFIRM what went before it rather than correct and change.  

Islam, on the other hand, does not have any theological ties with the teachings in the Holy Scriptures preceding it although it claims to be the final link in the chain of divine revelations to mankind. Even the few allegations in the Qur’an concerning the prediction of Muhammad’s ministry in the Bible (Surah 7:157, Surah 61:6) cannot be proven to this day since the Jewish and Christian scriptures do not contain anything about Muhammad or his supposed mission. This fact casts doubt upon the reliability and validity of the Islamic scripture and compels many Muslim scholars to defend it through allegations concerning the textual integrity of the Holy Bible. Despite having no evidence, Muslim scholars traditionally assert that both the Jewish and Christian scriptures are not in their original form today as they were textually tampered with and corrupted by men. This baseless assertion, of course, aims to answer the vital question why the teachings of the Qur’an are not in harmony with the former scriptures. Putting the blame on the Bible cannot save Muslim scholars from disgrace or the Qur’an from critique though since the author of the Qur’an repeatedly declares that the reason for the supposed revelation of the book is the confirmation, not the replacement or correction, of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (Surah 2:41, Surah 2:89, Surah 3:3, Surah 4:47, Surah 5:48, Surah 6:92, Surah 35:31). Source:  http://answering-islam.org/authors/masihiyyen/jonah_pharaoh_sign1.html

[ialmisry]

And when you say Theos you refer to chief god of Greek polytheism....

No. The chief god of Greek polytheism was named Zeus, not theos.  

"O God most glorious, called by many a name,
Nature's great King, through endless years the same;
Omnipotence, who by thy just decree
Controllest all, hail, Zeus, for unto thee
Behoves thy creatures in all lands to call.
We are thy children, we alone, of all
On earth's broad ways that wander to and fro,
Bearing thy image wheresoe'er we go.
Wherefore with songs of praise thy power I will forth show.
Lo! yonder heaven, that round the earth is wheeled,
Follows thy guidance, still to thee doth yield
Glad homage; thine unconquerable hand
Such flaming-minister, the levin-brand,
Wieldeth, a sword two-edged, whose deathless might
Pulsates through all that Nature brings to light;
Vehicle of the universal Word, that flows
Through all, and in the light celestial glows
Of stars both great and small. O King of Kings
Through ceaseless ages, God, whose purpose brings
To birth, whate'er on land or in the sea
Is wrought, or in high heaven's immensity;
Save what the sinner works infatuate.
Nay, but thou knowest to make the crooked straight:
Chaos to thee is order: in thine eyes
The unloved is lovely, who did'st harmonise
Things evil with things good, that there should be
One Word through all things everlastingly.
One Word -- whose voice alas! the wicked spurn;
Insatiate for the good their spirits yearn:
Yet seeing see not, neither hearing hear
God's universal law, which those revere,
By reason guided, happiness who win.
The rest, unreasoning, diverse shapes of sin
Self-prompted follow: for an idle name
Vainly they wrestle in the lists of fame:
Others inordinately Riches woo,
Or dissolute, the joys of flesh pursue.
Now here, now there they wander, fruitless still,
For ever seeking good and finding ill.
Zeus the all-beautiful, whom darkness shrouds,
Whose lightning lightens in the thunder clouds;
Thy children save from error's deadly sway:
Turn thou the darkness from their souls away:
Vouchsafe that unto knowledge they attain;
For thou by knowledge art made strong to reign
O'er all, and all things rulest righteously.
So by thee honoured, we will honour thee,
Praising thy works continuously with songs,
As mortals should; nor higher meed belongs
E'en to the gods, than justly to adore
The universal law for evermore."

-Cleanthes, 2nd Century BC

Oh, those Stoics!

[ialmisry]

A bit like when we say, in sha'Allah (if Allah wills it). Humility/remembrance

It is also told that Christians should say that too (God willing - I can get the ref if you need it) every time they speak of future events or plans they have.

In old letters you can still find the acronym D.V., Deo volente - God willing.

It's beautiful isn't it? The remembrance of God in all we do.

It is. However is silly to do it in Arabic. Why not "God willing" instead of "insha Allah"?

Because illah means God so, it's not the same thing that I would be saying. If I say God willing, it's ambiguous but if I say Allah (swt) then I am making it clear that I am referring to The God with no partners or co-equals.

It's not just some superficial (ugh what's the term for the ppl with all vintage clothes and big glasses - fgot) well it's not just for some dumb reason. It's like transubstantiation and how the Orthodox don't use that word because it means something specific which isn't quite what you believe. But you don't have another word for that process so, you just say it's a mystery. But you don't use that word for that reason. It's not correct and it would be misleading depending on who was listening. Like ppl would think you were Catholic if they heard you use it. (If i remember right). But if I said God willing, everyone would think me Christian who heard it plus it's not correct for what I want to express. Plus it's not a statement for the hearer but for the speaker.

LBK, (in sha'Allah) will reply to it after out and back. Got to get some food in.

Poppy,

I did say God has no partners or co-equals.  In fact, we as Arab Christians also use "Allah".  In John chapter 1, it is written,  "فِي البَدْءِ كانَ الكَلِمَةُ   مَوْجُوداً، وَكانَ الكَلِمَةُ مَعَ اللهِ، وَكانَ الكَلِمَةُ هُوَ اللهَ."  Fi al bidaya (In the beginning) kan el Kalima (was the Word), mawgoodan (exists) wa kan al Kalima ma'a Allah (and the Word was with God), wa kan al Kalima howa Allah (and the Word was God)."

This is a way of saying that Allah, who is the "first and the last", mentions how before all ages, was the Mind of Allah.  Before we were created, Allah thought of all of us.  Of course, Allah does not have a mind like we have a mind, but in eternity, in His infiniteness, we talk about and acknowledge the distinctness of the Mind of Allah and how this Mind is truly Allah.  He reveals to us His Mind through Jesus.  We believe in One God (Illah Wahid), His Mind, and His Spirit, who was breathed into all of Mankind (Surah 15.29).

And why is this important for Christians?  Because if we take every attribute or name of God, we recognize in this attribute three necessary things, the source of the attribute, the eternal framework or thought in the attribute, the action or life the attribute that is bestowed on creation.  Everywhere in the Quran, you read about Allah, His thought emanating from His eternal Mind, and His action emanating from His eternal Spirit.  This is the Trinity.

How can we call each "fully God"?  Take the analogy of the Sun.  If you can visualize the orb of the sun, you can identify it as the Sun.  If a blind man can feel warm in the morning, He will mention he is warmed by the Sun, or warmed by the Heat of the Sun, both meaning the same thing.  If a man from the dark comes out and sees because of light, He sees by the Sun, or He sees by the Light of the Sun.  The orb is Sun, the Light is Sun, the Heat is Sun, and these three are One Sun.

A consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4 and Exodus 24.

I remember from reading that there is no where a person can go where God cannot be there (Psalm139) so If I read that Qur'an searching for truth then if God can be there in hell, God can show me the truth of Himself even in a book that you do not believe to be truth. True mina?

God is omnipresent yes.  He is present at all times and at all places.  But that doesn't mean He's present in all religions.  There's a difference between the omnipresence of God, and agreeing with texts of a different religion that pertains to one's belief.  Otherwise, it makes no difference for us whether we are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew.  Might as well be a moral atheist and still find God's presence in that belief.  No?

I understand your point but hear my upset ok because, if someone can be persuaded into a religion, then they can be persuaded out from it too? It has to be way more than that.

Do you have doubts ever about what you have chosen? Should doubts be present in faith? Maybe doubts about peripheral stuff but about the nature and essence of Almighty Himself?? That is distressing mina, it is too much.

I'll be frank with you.  I was born into the Church.  But I also did have my doubts.  I also engaged in discussion with Muslims, Hindus, and atheists most of the time.  I avoided Protestants because for some reason I would get a bit irritated.  My college years is where doubt did increase, and where I struggled the most with my faith.  But I also realized, it's not just understanding the faith that matters.  It's also living it.  That's the conviction that held with me the most.  And any doubt I had was answered sooner or later.  I still have some doubts, but nothing compares to the spiritual life, the relationship, and most important, the intimate communion I have with God that I don't think any other religion has.  For most Hindus, God is a part of us, and so there's no sincere distinction of characters or persons.  For other religions, it is impossible to have communion of God or for the infinite God to live inside one's heart, and that makes me depressed to see that despite an existence, God can be so distant from us, it makes no difference if he exists or not to me.  But in Christianity, God is distinct from us, and became one of us, and in this very point, I can achieve an amazing relationship far beyond anything else.  It's not mere persuasion.  It's a spiritual life that I have to live.

Exactly.  Which is why, in polemics, if you proved your point in the defense of Christ, but the person isn't converted, you still lose the argument.

I don't know how to pray, at least not in the Mormon way.
One night I started thinking about who I wanted to be and I remembered an old friend I'd lost touch with years ago. She is the sweetest, kindest, humblest person I've ever known. Truly loving and caring. I remembered how much I admired those traits in her and thought 'I'd want to be like Anne..

I very happy that you found out orthodoxy in this way! .

[ialmisry]

Because illah means God so, it's not the same thing that I would be saying. If I say God willing, it's ambiguous but if I say Allah (swt) then I am making it clear that I am referring to The God with no partners or co-equals.

Actually, when you say Allah, you make it clear that you are referring to the chief god of Meccan polytheism, the Father of Allat. 

And when you say Theos you refer to chief god of Greek polytheism....

or to Allat's counterpart, Theia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia