New Muslim
- Thread starter GodTruth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Muslims hold the historical Jesus in high esteem. Muslims view this prophet's mission as freeing Palestine from 900 years of Indo-Aryan (aka Persians, Greeks and Romans) military, political and cultural occupation. These foreign ideas included philosophic influences as the Greek/Stoic logos, incarnated deities (avatars), offspring of deities (demigods), vicarious atonement (Promethian crucifixion & self sacrifice) and nirvana (oneness with the deity-Jhn 14 & 17)) which contradicted the Torah. These Indo-Aryan ideas were infiltrating the native Palestinian culture in the form of gnosticism. The religious leaders of the temple cult became a bunch of Roman collaborators who compromised the Torah in return for foreign favor and wealth. Muslims do not agree with the Jewish-Hellenized syncretism which turned this historical prophet into a demigod like Perseus, an avatar of Deus Pater and a sacrificial victim like the Titan Prometheus. Vicarious atonement was explicitly forbidden in Deut 24:16 which states: "Every man shall be put to death for HIS OWN SIN." The religion and life of Jesus must be viewed in its historical Semitic context and not thru the lens of the Roman church which twisted the history and mission of this 1st Century Palestinian into a model of a Roman (Indo-Aryan) demigod.
1. I didn't make an ad hominem attack. I didn't call you names, or disparage you in any way.
2. Referring to someone as a bigot... that's a friendly way for you to start off here as a brand new member.
3. If you ARE a Muslim, then there isn't any harm in me asking you if you are. If you ARE a Muslim, you should be proud of it, and be happy to answer. If you are NOT, it should be just as simple for you to answer. Asking about your religious belief isn't an attack... it's a QUESTION.
4. As far as meeting your criteria before you'll bother to reply to me... umm... I'm pretty sure my day will go by just fine whether you reply or not.
2. Referring to someone as a bigot... that's a friendly way for you to start off here as a brand new member.
3. If you ARE a Muslim, then there isn't any harm in me asking you if you are. If you ARE a Muslim, you should be proud of it, and be happy to answer. If you are NOT, it should be just as simple for you to answer. Asking about your religious belief isn't an attack... it's a QUESTION.
4. As far as meeting your criteria before you'll bother to reply to me... umm... I'm pretty sure my day will go by just fine whether you reply or not.
I simply asked her if she was a Muslim.
I asked her that because she stated in her profile she was NOT a Christian,
and she seems in this thread to be defending Islam.
I didn't make an accusation, I just asked a simple question.
If she's NOT a Muslim, it's very easy to say so.
If she IS a Muslim, she should be proud and happy to answer that she is.
No reason for her to feel defensive over a simple question.
The only reason for a person not to answer a simple question, and to get rude and defensive, is if they have something to hide.
All I did was ask a simple question.
I asked her that because she stated in her profile she was NOT a Christian,
and she seems in this thread to be defending Islam.
I didn't make an accusation, I just asked a simple question.
If she's NOT a Muslim, it's very easy to say so.
If she IS a Muslim, she should be proud and happy to answer that she is.
No reason for her to feel defensive over a simple question.
The only reason for a person not to answer a simple question, and to get rude and defensive, is if they have something to hide.
All I did was ask a simple question.
Hello, I label myself as a Sabian. One of the four religions mentioned in the Quran. A Sabian, to my understanding, is a gnostic convert to Islam. Someone who does not pay the jizya. I’m not a Christian, not quite a Muslim, not a Jew by relation. I will tell you specifically what I’m viewing. I accept the Bishop of Rome to be infallible. I accept he Quran to be infallible. I am an ally to Israel. My questions are: Was Jesus, son of Mary, immaculately conceived? When you say Jesus was raised up to Allah from the cross, are you not speaking of the transfiguration? If the answers are yes, why does Palestine call the state of Israel an occupation?
G
My questions are: Was Jesus, son of Mary, immaculately conceived? Yes, Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit while she was still a virgin. Thus He was born from seed without sin.
When you say Jesus was raised up to Allah from the cross, are you not speaking of the transfiguration? Jesus was not raised up to Allah, he was raised up to YHWH. The two are not the same and if you do your homework you will understand why.
If the answers are yes, why does Palestine call the state of Israel an occupation? Because there will never be peace in Israel. The end of time is at hand and we are on the brink of the last days (if we are not in them already).
The Bible tells us you cannot serve more than one God and from your post I can gather you are mixing the seed. Good luck with your quest to find the truth.
When you say Jesus was raised up to Allah from the cross, are you not speaking of the transfiguration? Jesus was not raised up to Allah, he was raised up to YHWH. The two are not the same and if you do your homework you will understand why.
If the answers are yes, why does Palestine call the state of Israel an occupation? Because there will never be peace in Israel. The end of time is at hand and we are on the brink of the last days (if we are not in them already).
The Bible tells us you cannot serve more than one God and from your post I can gather you are mixing the seed. Good luck with your quest to find the truth.
G
This, as far as I understand is a Christian site so, No I am not a Muslim 
. If you do research on the Baal Hadad (sun god or Ra) symbol you will see that a lot of the muslim signs are of the same origin. So according to me they are definitely not the same gods. To say god is God is not right. Not every god on earth is God and we have to distinguish where the differences are.
When the Israelites were in the desert they build the golden calf for YHWH and according to them the golden calf was YHWH. God never accepted their offer and a lot of Israelites lost there lives that day because of their foolishness.
God does not allow seed to mix, that was so from the first second and it will be so until the last second when Yeshua returns.
. If you do research on the Baal Hadad (sun god or Ra) symbol you will see that a lot of the muslim signs are of the same origin. So according to me they are definitely not the same gods. To say god is God is not right. Not every god on earth is God and we have to distinguish where the differences are.When the Israelites were in the desert they build the golden calf for YHWH and according to them the golden calf was YHWH. God never accepted their offer and a lot of Israelites lost there lives that day because of their foolishness.
God does not allow seed to mix, that was so from the first second and it will be so until the last second when Yeshua returns.
If I remember correctly, you asked me this too. An argument's validity should not be credited or discredited on the premise that its writer is either this or that religion. That is the definition of an 'ad hominem'. You attempt here to skew the perception of the reader by starting out asking questions of the poster's faith rather than refuting their arguments.
Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed to a person or to their character rather than to the position they are maintaining.
Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed to a person or to their character rather than to the position they are maintaining.
I'll admit that I do not know Maxwell from Adam, but I don't quite see where he bases the value of an argument on the arguer's point of view.
Now the characterization of an argument or starting point for a discussing matters a great deal. If he is trying to merely establish his audience, we do not have an ad hominem at work here.
Now the characterization of an argument or starting point for a discussing matters a great deal. If he is trying to merely establish his audience, we do not have an ad hominem at work here.
-
1
- Show all
Well, if Maxwell didn't base the value of the argument on the arguer's religious point of view then he would have directed his response at the contents of the woman's argument rather than assuming the poster was a Muslim then making that the next point of contention.
1) The personal or abusive ad hominem alleges bad character for veracity, or bad moral character generally.
2) The circumstantial ad hominem alleges a practical inconsistency between the person and his or circumstances.
3) A third type of ad hominem, the bias or 'poisoning the well', variant, alleges that the person has a hidden agenda or something to gain and is therefore not an honest or objective arguer.
Ad hominem's can be subtly inferred, that's why a person's character should never be a basis for judging the merits of their argument unless the argument is one wherein character is specifically used by an arguer to substantiate their claims, which it wasn't. The poster's religion is irrelevant to the validity of her post and its context.
1) The personal or abusive ad hominem alleges bad character for veracity, or bad moral character generally.
2) The circumstantial ad hominem alleges a practical inconsistency between the person and his or circumstances.
3) A third type of ad hominem, the bias or 'poisoning the well', variant, alleges that the person has a hidden agenda or something to gain and is therefore not an honest or objective arguer.
Ad hominem's can be subtly inferred, that's why a person's character should never be a basis for judging the merits of their argument unless the argument is one wherein character is specifically used by an arguer to substantiate their claims, which it wasn't. The poster's religion is irrelevant to the validity of her post and its context.
Last edited:
