By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Islam and Christianity are almost the same!

Smidlee on 02 November 2010
quigontcb said:
Smidlee said:
SpartenOmega117 said:
....

The reason we don't believe in the current Bible is because Muslims beleive that the Bible has been changed quite a bit throughtout the years by the Pope, priests, etc. So we don't think it is original and has been changed dramatically. Otherwise we do believe in the Bible.

.....

 I find this interesting since the Pope is found no where in the Bible nor is some of Catholic teachings. In fact Jesus warn his disciples on men who likes to sit in Mose's seat (law giver). Why didn't the Catholic change the scripture which speak out against their own teachings?  Probably because the Catholics who copied the scripture before the printing press  respect God enough  not to change the scripture to fit Catholic teachings.  What the Catholic church did was refuse the common person from reading the scriptures  until the printing press was invented.  Both Catholics and Islam has a mixture of different religions as well as politics  which Jesus spoke out against.

What scripture is opposed to catholic teaching?

Authority figures of the church are throughout the New Testament, as are their admonitions, encouragements, requirements of holy men of the church, and rulings/decrees to various churches. The Bible also tells that there should not be divisions in the church. How can there be no divisions in the church without a structure of authority? How can the church be the "pillar of truth", as scripture says it is, if there are hundreds of denominations disagreeing on subjects ranging from the defintion of marriage, free will, and what brings about salvation? The word "pope" or an equivalent is not in the Bible, but then again neither is "Holy Trinity" or anything about "asking Jesus into your/my heart" to be saved, which is what many a well-meaning person will tell you is all that is required for full and eternal salvation.

As far as papal authority, there is a traceable line of succession from Pope Benedict to St Peter. What authority does Peter have? Among other things, we can read in Matthew....

Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

If you continue reading the same chapter Jesus referred to Peter as satan. So you believe the church was build upon satan? That's silly. It was Peter statement itself "Jesus is the Christ" is the ROCK which the church was built upon as the same Peter other statement what made Jesus replied "Peter, Get behind me, Satan."

Also Jesus made it very clear to his disciples that they was not to refer to any man as Father but God as Father. Guess what Pope means in Greek?   Now people want to refer to men as Father and God as Allah , Jehovah, etc instead of Father which is in heaven. It didn't take long for rebellion against Christ appear in the church.

 There should be no division in the local church yet I didn't see Jesus telling  the seven chruches in Revelation come together and be  one big happy family. Jesus were in the midst of the seven churches even though each were clearly different.



Around the Network
SpartenOmega117 on 02 November 2010

well this thread turned out to be a disaster.



BrayanA on 02 November 2010

"Muslims do not hate Jews or Christians!

We actually consider them people of the book.

In fact throughtout history (according to world history AP class I am in) Islam showed the most tolerance against other religions. When that arab empire continued to expand they allowed Jews and Christians to continue practicing their faith. In fact in earlier timesafter Mohammad, Muslims did not want to spread their religion but somehow the religion spread anyways."

Sorry, but you need to read quran, hadiths, Sharia law and history.

009.029
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that "the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty." Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

"...to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country." Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, "Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.' (Qur'an 9:29)

Acording to Quran only People of the book (Jews and Christians) can leave under Islam rule, but later this rule was  extended to all non-muslims.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis who reside among Muslims:

- Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

- Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud.

- Zimmis are not allowed to give or sell religious books in public places and markets. They are allowed to give and sell them only among their own people.

- Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

- Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

- Zimmis can not carry weapons.

- A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

- If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child.

- Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. Muraghi states bluntly, "The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah - may He be exalted - said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'."



Lostplanet22 on 02 November 2010
Cirio said:
Mendicate Bias said:
HappySqurriel said:

One of the core differences between Islam and Christianity (or Judaism) is how the doctrine is viewed today. For the most part, in Christianity and Judaism there is the belief that the Bible and Torah need to be interpreted and made relevant in modern life, where the Qu'aran and Haddiths are supposed to be taken as the true words of the prophet (and therefore god). While most western born and raised Muslims from middle class backgrounds probably have a view of Islam which is closer to how Christian or Jewish people see their religion, these individuals are a tiny minority of the people who follow Islam; and it would be more appropriate to label these individuals extremists than moderate Muslims due to how they line up with mainstream Islam on a worldwide scale.

A bunch of things wrong with that post. The haddiths are in no way the word of God, they are stories about what prophets and religious leaders did or said in specific situations. Not to mention they are extremely corrupted, any intelligent muslim can tell you that.

Secondly your interpretation of how muslims view the Quran is completely wrong. Even among the very religious there are arguments on the meanings of verses. The majority of muslims understand that we would be foolish to believe that we can understand everything said in the Quran and the meanings of many things are probably beyond the grasp of our understanding.

I don't know where you get your information but I would advise you look somewhere else for an accurate understanding of islam.

I think the problem is that most people view Islam negatively because of how it is preceived in the media. I wouldn't blame him for his claims because all he (and millions others) probably see is the news is a desert area with sweaty men wearing turbans with big beards and women covering their entire bodies up walking barefoot on sand. Unfortunately, those places shown in the news aren't developed nations and have government corruption plus low education rates. Whenever a society is "pressed in" because of powerful governments and weak education, they tend to turn towards more conservative values and religion as a basis for their daily life. In this case, the view that Muslims only think conservatively and don't question anything written in the Quran is what is perceived through the news. It is the same with other religions such as Latin American Christians in under-developed nations.

I bet most people would be surprised if I showed them how liberal the Muslims in Dubai are, or how the Muslim women there wear low-cut shirts and tight jeans. But the reason for that is because Dubai is a financially stable country with a good education system and a responsive government. Even many parts of Pakistan are like this, but of course, the news will only show the Northwestern regions that border Afghanistan which are fairly deserted areas.

Liberal?  That's why the British couple had to go to jail for a kiss?  If that is kind of Liberal you like I pass;.



 

tuoyo on 02 November 2010

Islam is nothing like Christianity.

First, the whole foundation is that Jesus is the son of God, he died and was raised from the dead and he is the only way to heaven.   Islam does not believe he was the son of God, that he was raised from the dead or that you need to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to get to heaven.  Meaning they are as different as night and day.

Secondly, Christianity is not a religion as such.  It is not about strictly following any set of rules which make you holy and acceptable to God such as do not eat pork and the tons of laws found in Leveticus.  Christianity says that we can never achieve true holiness.  However, Jesus makes us acceptable to God.  If we accept Jesus we just need to love God and have a personal relationship with Him.  It is a relationship with God rather than a religion. 



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

Around the Network
FaRmLaNd on 02 November 2010
highwaystar101 said:
babuks said:


I would like to answer a few:

1. If it is an Islamic country, there is no place for homosexuals. Do you have place for Child Pornography? No! How did you draw line between a homosexual and child pornographer? Your drawing this line is based on what you think right and what you don't. Likewise, Islam also thinks in certain way.

I'm sorry, but this is the single most disgusting thing I have read in this thread.

You are comparing two consenting adults in a loving relationship to the often violent sexual abuse of exploited children?

No, you are comparing two completely different things.

Most homosexual couples, like most heterosexual couples, are in a relationship based around a love they feel for each other. In most cases they do not wish to cause any harm to their partner, they can have all the love and respect that any heterosexual couple would have.

Child pornography on the other hand is a sexual desire which only breeds violence and abuse which ruins the lives of the exploited children. It is almost always (as in 99% of cases) like this.

If homosexuality came with the abuse, exploitation and suffering that child abuse came with, then it would be banned in a second and everyone would be against it. But it doesn't.

Fair enough a moral line is hard to draw, morals are a relative thing, but you have chosen two things that are far removed form each other.


Some moral lines are not hard to draw and aren't based on arbitrary relative things.

If a fully grown male for example has sex with a female child then it causes several problems that can objectively be measures and several that whilst not able to be objectively measured are nevertheless still possibly very damaging.

Firstly theres the sheer difference in physical size. If a female child isn't fully developed then she could and probably will suffer significant damage to her sexual organs.

Secondly theres the abuse of power between an adult and a child which could lead to psychological damage.

Thirdly theres the potential psychological damage caused by the act itself.

Fourthly theres the risk of the child catching a sexually transmitted infection. Which could limit her sexual life when shes and adult and also make her sick in general.

Fithly, if the child was born as a lesbian for example, then the very act of being forced to have sex with an adult of the opposide sex is damaging. This also applies to boys that are rapes by adult males and any other combination you like.

Not to mention the ethics (or lack there of) of a sex industry involving children.

Many moral decisions are relative, but I don't think this is one of them. Pedaphilia is wrong in many many ways. Homosexuality of course if between consenting adults can't even be compared as you say.



babuks on 02 November 2010
highwaystar101 said:
babuks said:


I would like to answer a few:

1. If it is an Islamic country, there is no place for homosexuals. Do you have place for Child Pornography? No! How did you draw line between a homosexual and child pornographer? Your drawing this line is based on what you think right and what you don't. Likewise, Islam also thinks in certain way.

I'm sorry, but this is the single most disgusting thing I have read in this thread.

You are comparing two consenting adults in a loving relationship to the often violent sexual abuse of exploited children?

No, you are comparing two completely different things.

Most homosexual couples, like most heterosexual couples, are in a relationship based around a love they feel for each other. In most cases they do not wish to cause any harm to their partner, they can have all the love and respect that any heterosexual couple would have.

Child pornography on the other hand is a sexual desire which only breeds violence and abuse which ruins the lives of the exploited children. It is almost always (as in 99% of cases) like this.

If homosexuality came with the abuse, exploitation and suffering that child abuse came with, then it would be banned in a second and everyone would be against it. But it doesn't.

Fair enough a moral line is hard to draw, morals are a relative thing, but you have chosen two things that are far removed form each other.

I am not comparing two different things. This was for example. And also I asked in a later post, whether a girl of 16 years old does possess understanding of having sex or not? Don't think that I gave example of a 5 year old girl. A girl of 16 years does have understanding yet it is illegal to have sex or even take naked picture of her even if she gives her consent.

 

WHY?



babuks on 02 November 2010

@ BrayanA

You have tried to show Jizya as a bad thing. You can think of it this way, we Muslims give zakat which is a religious duty and don't force the non-muslims to perform the duty of Islam. So, they have a tax to pay imposed from an Islamic state. You have to give some sort of tax as a citizen. So, Muslims give zakat and Non-Muslims give Jizya.

Now, can you tell me about the condition of the immigrants to your country from poor or underdeveloped countries? Do they have the same working and living right like you as citizen have? What if the immigrant has entered your country illegally.

Now, an immigrant can get a green card or citizenship only when he agrees to abide by the law of your country. So, you are forcing him to follow your law in order to allow him the right to stay in your country. But if an Islamic country wants to do the same thing by saying that if you want to stay in a Islamic country as non-muslim, you must pay Jizya, it becomes hard for you.

 

@ LostPlanet 22,

Liberal?  That's why the British couple had to go to jail for a kiss?  If that is kind of Liberal you like I pass;.

Perhaps you can explain the boycotting of Army Generals the meeting with the President because his wife wore hijab on the head (this is an incident of Turkey few days ago). So, you want to liberate the people by not allowing them to wear what he or she likes?

If being nude in public is prohibited in your law, what is the wrong for and Islamic state to prohibit kissing in public? Why do you always think what you prohibit is always right and what others do is not?

This is where I pass.



sad.man.loves.vgc on 02 November 2010
babuks said:
highwaystar101 said:
babuks said:


I would like to answer a few:

1. If it is an Islamic country, there is no place for homosexuals. Do you have place for Child Pornography? No! How did you draw line between a homosexual and child pornographer? Your drawing this line is based on what you think right and what you don't. Likewise, Islam also thinks in certain way.

I'm sorry, but this is the single most disgusting thing I have read in this thread.

You are comparing two consenting adults in a loving relationship to the often violent sexual abuse of exploited children?

No, you are comparing two completely different things.

Most homosexual couples, like most heterosexual couples, are in a relationship based around a love they feel for each other. In most cases they do not wish to cause any harm to their partner, they can have all the love and respect that any heterosexual couple would have.

Child pornography on the other hand is a sexual desire which only breeds violence and abuse which ruins the lives of the exploited children. It is almost always (as in 99% of cases) like this.

If homosexuality came with the abuse, exploitation and suffering that child abuse came with, then it would be banned in a second and everyone would be against it. But it doesn't.

Fair enough a moral line is hard to draw, morals are a relative thing, but you have chosen two things that are far removed form each other.

I am not comparing two different things. This was for example. And also I asked in a later post, whether a girl of 16 years old does possess understanding of having sex or not? Don't think that I gave example of a 5 year old girl. A girl of 16 years does have understanding yet it is illegal to have sex or even take naked picture of her even if she gives her consent.

 

WHY?

dude, here is a little story for you:

I was born in an Islamic country.

I was  A VERY RELIGIOUS MAN, I used to read Quran and study hadith regularly. My family are religious too. To cut a long story short I realised I was gay when I was 15 years old and my world collapsed. I prayed for miracles and I loathed myself for 6 years I asked god to cure me everyday. I used to save up money to go to a therapist and I WAS  A FREAKING KID. My life pretty much sucks now and I am being too desperate for any kind of human contact it is not even funny, I fucking can't wait to leave the middle east. Did I choose this? why would I choose this? why would choose such a sucky life? Being gay isn't a choice and you claim your god then why would he punish me for this?

I want to believe in God I really want to but I can't find my way, god if you are reading this, show me the way.



Mendicate Bias on 02 November 2010
Lostplanet22 said:
Cirio said:

I think the problem is that most people view Islam negatively because of how it is preceived in the media. I wouldn't blame him for his claims because all he (and millions others) probably see is the news is a desert area with sweaty men wearing turbans with big beards and women covering their entire bodies up walking barefoot on sand. Unfortunately, those places shown in the news aren't developed nations and have government corruption plus low education rates. Whenever a society is "pressed in" because of powerful governments and weak education, they tend to turn towards more conservative values and religion as a basis for their daily life. In this case, the view that Muslims only think conservatively and don't question anything written in the Quran is what is perceived through the news. It is the same with other religions such as Latin American Christians in under-developed nations.

I bet most people would be surprised if I showed them how liberal the Muslims in Dubai are, or how the Muslim women there wear low-cut shirts and tight jeans. But the reason for that is because Dubai is a financially stable country with a good education system and a responsive government. Even many parts of Pakistan are like this, but of course, the news will only show the Northwestern regions that border Afghanistan which are fairly deserted areas.

Liberal?  That's why the British couple had to go to jail for a kiss?  If that is kind of Liberal you like I pass;.

They went to jail for having sex on the beach after a cop had already come by once and told them to stop, and they weren't a couple.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers