Why Aren't You a Muslim? (1 Viewer)

[Flipx99]

I think its important to distinguish what we're really discussing, though.
It isn't "which religion is better" or "why i like __(religion of the hegemon)____ better". If religion is simply a choice to be made based on which one you feel better about (regular, extra crispy, or barbeque) I see your point. However, what this thread was discussing was the validity behind disqualify a prophet of god (if you believe Abraham......and subsequent voices of god throughout the old testament......AND you believe Jesus was a voice of that same god......then there really isn't a reason why you shouldn't also believe in the prophet of that same god that proceed Jesus)

Which prophet is that?

 

[The Unrest Cure]

then there really isn't a reason why you shouldn't also believe in the prophet of that same god that proceed Jesus)

The reasons - that reflect the separate faiths - that were given didn't seem reasonable, consistent, or sufficient for you? The whole line of discussion you reflect here seems to be extremely rigid. If you choose to think that acceptance of any prophet who claims to speak in God's name MUST mean all prophets who claim to speak in his name must be accepted than I tend to hold that it is you that is inflexible and unreasonable, and obviously unwilling to see what unsupportable end your logic has brought you to. If you define an argument so narrowly, you cannot possibly come to any other conclusion than the one you have. Hardly an espousal of the use of reason, is it?

 

[Crzycjunx76]

The reasons - that reflect the separate faiths - that were given didn't seem reasonable, consistent, or sufficient for you? The whole line of discussion you reflect here seems to be extremely rigid. If you choose to think that acceptance of any prophet who claims to speak in God's name MUST mean all prophets who claim to speak in his name must be accepted than I tend to hold that it is you that is inflexible and unreasonable, and obviously unwilling to see what unsupportable end your logic has brought you to. If you define an argument so narrowly, you cannot possibly come to any other conclusion than the one you have. Hardly an espousal of the use of reason, is it?

What makes one person claiming to speak in a gods name more valid as a prophet than another? What is the difference between the person who hears gods voice and is considered crazy and the one who is considered divinely inspired? What makes one set of stories told about miracles or revelations worthy of belief and acceptance as canon and another set cast aside as nonsense, or even blasphemy?


If faith is answer to those questions then someone who believes Joseph Smith and his teachings is every bit as justified as the followers of any religion that exists or has ever existed, in claiming their religion is the truth.

 

[brophy]

The reasons - that reflect the separate faiths - that were given didn't seem reasonable, consistent, or sufficient for you?

plenty sufficient and I thank you for your eloquent explanation (a while back). I was just framing the discussion for what abrnger presented; a completely different assertion than what was originally presented.

However, the 'discernment' of what is valid and what is not, lays entirely in the eye of the beholder, leaving it of no absolute (what you see as the true path, won't be what others in a different region see as the true path) reasoning when qualifying both religions through the same method.

The real dilemma here, is that if you believe the OT as a chronicling of history and tradition through the belief of the god of Abraham.....believe that throughout that time god spoke through the prophets......and continued on through the life of Jesus of Nazareth (a prophet of god), then there really isn't that disqualifies the prophet Mohammad. You can accept Matthew - John Gospels....and still believe god spoke through Mohammad. The dividing point is the epistles of Paul that become an addendum of doctrine/story.......like Joseph Smith or the prequels to Star Wars.

 

[The Unrest Cure]

However, the 'discernment' of what is valid and what is not, lays entirely in the eye of the beholder, leaving it of no absolute (what you see as the true path, won't be what others in a different region see as the true path) reasoning when qualifying both religions through the same method.

True. Think of how science can operate similarly (and has): different theories as to the nature of our cosmos can be held by different researchers, with those different camps adamant - based upon the way they INTERPRET their evidence - that they are correct to the possible exclusion of other theories. The process of interpretation does not render the results invalid, in fact it is a requirement; it is the end results that are most logically consistent and productive that are kept while others are discarded.

Now this doesn't mean I desire to cast religious thinking as scientific thought (despite the fact that they share some similarities, or at least should), merely that it isn't the process of individual determination that undermines religion - it is the results of that process that render religion valid & productive or invalid & insipid.

 

[abnrgr]

there are crazies in every religion..

Jews only want their families to marry jews.. Muslims only want their families to marry muslims. Hindu only want their families to marry hindu.. Christian families only want their families to marry christian.

You have your exceptions of course..

There is a difference between a doctrine that tells members "to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 corinthians 6:14) but notice there is no command to kill anyone to enforce this; and Islam which commands death to a muslim woman who marries an unbeliever and tells muslim men to beat their wives as part of its formal doctrine (Quran 4:34). You dismiss this as some "crazies" but honor killings are a way of life in islamic countries because it is written in black and white.

{Women suffered from high rates of domestic violence and had little, if any, recourse to legal protection. According to the AIHRC, 60 to 80 per cent of all marriages were forced and under-age marriages occurred in high numbers. Women who sought to flee abusive marriages were often detained and prosecuted for alleged offences such as “home escape” or “moral” crimes that are not provided for in the Penal Code. Amnesty International, May 30, 2009} from Real Life in Afghanistan Website

 

[Taurus]

there are crazies in every religion..



Jews only want their families to marry jews.. Muslims only want their families to marry muslims. Hindu only want their families to marry hindu.. Christian families only want their families to marry christian.

You have your exceptions of course..

Part of the difference is the social context in which they operate.

In a lot of other nations, nobody bats an eye at the brother. Hell, in some, the sister is publicly stoned to death.

You have your young-boy sex parties in Afghanistan and the participants are like "What?" when we get all upset about it over here.

We aren't all the same. It's a lesson we need to learn and learn well or we'll be stuck flailing around in the Mideast 'till the cows come home.

 

[abnrgr]

The real dilemma here, is that if you believe the OT as a chronicling of history and tradition through the belief of the god of Abraham.....believe that throughout that time god spoke through the prophets......and continued on through the life of Jesus of Nazareth (a prophet of god), then there really isn't that disqualifies the prophet Mohammad. You can accept Matthew - John Gospels....and still believe god spoke through Mohammad. The dividing point is the epistles of Paul that become an addendum of doctrine/story.......like Joseph Smith or the prequels to Star Wars.

Negative, the dividing point is the "new revelation" and exactly what it states...

"The Most High Gracious has begotten a son! You have uttered a gross blasphemy. The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear assunder, and the mountains are about to crumble. Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son. It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son." (Quran 19:88-92).

The Quran curses those who believe Jesus is God's Son and denies Jesus died on the cross (Quran 4:157-8).

Both accounts can't be correct since they are directly opposed. Is this beauty in the eye of the beholder? You cannot accept the gospels and Mohammad unless you are ignorant of what they both say.

 

[tak]

Why? Because the God of the Bible was willing to pay the price for my sins with His own blood, the blood of Jesus Christ. And was resurrected conquering the grave and giving me hope, joy, peace, freedom and more in this life and the one to come. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I love Him because He first loved me. I choose life everlasting!

 

[DefKhan1]

There is a difference between a doctrine that tells members "to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 corinthians 6:14) but notice there is no command to kill anyone to enforce this; and Islam which commands death to a muslim woman who marries an unbeliever and tells muslim men to beat their wives as part of its formal doctrine (Quran 4:34). You dismiss this as some "crazies" but honor killings are a way of life in islamic countries because it is written in black and white.

{Women suffered from high rates of domestic violence and had little, if any, recourse to legal protection. According to the AIHRC, 60 to 80 per cent of all marriages were forced and under-age marriages occurred in high numbers. Women who sought to flee abusive marriages were often detained and prosecuted for alleged offences such as “home escape” or “moral” crimes that are not provided for in the Penal Code. Amnesty International, May 30, 2009} from Real Life in Afghanistan Website

Take away all law and order in the U.S. and it'll be much worse in the U.S.
Think about it.

 

[wnelson]

Take away all law and order in the U.S. and it'll be much worse in the U.S.
Think about it.

seriously doubt it. after i thought about it, that is.

 

[DefKhan1]

seriously doubt it. after i thought about it, that is.

you're telling me Downtown L.A., Detroit, NYC, Chicago, Houston, and N.O., without any police would NOT be as bad as the middle east?

What part of the country do you isolate yourself to that you feel this way?

 

[Taurus]

you're telling me Downtown L.A., Detroit, NYC, Chicago, Houston, and N.O., without any police would NOT be as bad as the middle east?

What part of the country do you isolate yourself to that you feel this way?

It wouldn't be as bad for women. We have a long tradition of females taking an active role in their lives.

It would also take a lot to break it down that badly as we've a long association with centralized government and would be trying to re-create it the whole time.

You don't see a whole lot of that in Afghanistan. They've been tribesmen since time immemorial and would mostly rather just stay that way.

Or are you actually (in your zeal to defend Islam from all criticism) going to promote the proven-false idea that "They're just like us."?

 

[DefKhan1]

According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.

Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. 1992).

Even if you up that to 20%, it's a hair shy of a 1,000,000 rapes a year in JUST the U.S.
WITH the presence of our criminal justice system and 911.

 

[DefKhan1]

Or are you actually (in your zeal to defend Islam from all criticism) going to promote the proven-false idea that "They're just like us."?

it's more of a "glass houses" type thing I'm promoting.