Sanders' Religion Thread, Begun @ LC Forum Options

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: water_bender Jul 30 2006, 08:08 AM

The Israelites had moved from the land of Canaan into Egypt when Joseph was prime minister of Egypt. After the death of Joseph and a change in rulership, the Egyptians were now suspicious of the Israelites, particularly because they had begun to greatly increase in number. Therefore they enslaved the Israelites and used them as labor in building projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 08:16 AM

now see ... the israelites couldnt decide where they wanted to live. back then they seemed nomadic ... they then left egypt and just wondered the wilderness for years ... looking for the promised land ... in other words ... they were looking for a place to set up shop that had some land that was worth a damn

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 08:32 AM

i'm simply saying that believing the massively edited interpreted teachings of someone that lived over a millenia ago .. just doesnt fall into the category of logic to me.

Obviously. But what's important, to me, is what people believe and why they do the things they do - which is a different matter entirely. While the first crusaders were under siege and starving at Antioch, Peter the Hermit had a dream, they dug and found the sword (spear?) that pierced Christ on the Cross, rallied behind it and came storming out of the city and chased away the Turks that had them surrounded. A bulls#it story if I ever heard one. But the fact remains that the sieged crusaders did in fact escape Antioch and carry on to Jeruselem. Maybe Peter the Hermit planted the spear, doesn't matter. People believed the story enough to write it down, and it's the only explanation for that link of how we got from there to here. (Kind of like 9/11 lol.)

Well Joseph, Jacob's son, was shipped to Egypt by his brothers as a slave. Islam and the Old Testament both agree to the jealousy that resonated amongst Joseph's brothers

Here's what I don't understand. Check out this map...

(IMG:http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5007/image128jy9mh8.gif)


Notice Joseph isn't listed. It was his sons, Ephraim and Manesseh, that were given parcels. Jacob and his family went to Egypt during a drought, found Joseph who forgave his brothers. I'm assuming Jacob's family returned to Canaan, they had to to populate the region, to make these tribes into "tribes", and not just names on paper.

The Israelites had moved from the land of Canaan into Egypt when Joseph was prime minister of Egypt. After the death of Joseph and a change in rulership, the Egyptians were now suspicious of the Israelites, particularly because they had begun to greatly increase in number. Therefore they enslaved the Israelites and used them as labor in building projects

Thanks. But if the Israelites went to Egypt during Joseph's lifetime, what's with this map? Who stayed behind to populate the tribes? In Joseph's lifetime "the Israelites" couldn't have been more than a couple dozen people. No? I gotta do some reading ... back in a few.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 08:38 AM

Sanders,

Briefly then - address his factual errors and be done with it. You get my point that you can never convince anyone of anything by arguing with them about it, right? That's human nature. With that in mind have at it.

I agree. My point was with regards to him believing in any religion he wishes. Freedom of Religion to all!!!! At the same time, was Jesus not tolerant? Of course, no doubt in terms of what the religious records have told us. I am not here to convince him that Islam, Judaism, or other religions are right or wrong, but that he shouldn't chastize religions.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 08:50 AM


this might be far fetched to some ... but to many ... especially those most important in the matters of why people believe what they do. the spear that pierced jesus' side would be of great magickal value.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 08:52 AM

pr0mythius,

the only effect i ask is that one thinks about what i'm saying.

I gave you a hypothetical scenario. How would you answer it?

and i have no knowledge of how anything i've said is a materialistic/marxist ideal. marxism .. i havent studied. that ideology i've spoken comes from observation.

Well what you stated in the previous post was analogous to what Marx implied. He stated that religion is the opium of the people.

i am in no way saying that one should place thier "faith" in materialistic things. i'm simply saying that believing the massively edited interpreted teachings of someone that lived over a millenia ago .. just doesnt fall into the category of logic to me.

Sure. That is your wish, and I respect that.

and while i cant recall exact place of reference ... i've a few things that suggest that the bible is incorrect in the areas of geography, timelines, and even exsistance. many of the stories have no basis of evidence to support the story is fact ... so one would be asking me to take it on faith ... and until i see at least something in the area of evidence towards a story .. i will see it as just that ... a story.

Well, that is subjective too. The Christian or theist would argue with evidence for, whilst the skeptic uses a Darwinist/Anthropology/Archaeology approach to discredit the theist.

kill me for being logical. -shrug-

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

One of my favorite quotes in life is from Imam `Ali. He was the cousin of the Prophet of Islam, the 4th Caliph ur Rashidin (4 Rightly Guided Caliphs) of the Sunnis, first Shi`a Imam.

I can't find the `Arabic version, though the Persian version is known to me. To translate into English is somewhat awkward. In response to an atheist/skeptic he gave the response that if his religion (Islam) was wrong, it was okay and he doesn't lose because it made him a good person in terms of thought and mannerisms, but if his religion came to be true, he still wins.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Daniels Jul 30 2006, 08:56 AM

ok i've fallen behind on this thread ... but basically what you're saying .. is that the diff between and philosopher and a prophet .. is that many people will die for what a prophet has said?

hmmmm ... in that case ... prophets are evil.  perhaps they didnt want people to kill because of what they prophecied ... but .. yea .. thats kinda messed up ... anyone that would kill someone just because they dont agree with what some other person said ... is off thier freaking rocker.

once again i must say that the concept of a holy war is the biggest load of crap i've ever heard.  dont mean to sound quite so blunt ...... well ... then again ... yea i do.  i would say i have a way better than average concept of "god" ... and to think that god would sign off on the destruction of anyone is f*cking rediculous.

least thats what i think.

No pr0mythius mah man.

The idea is that it is the fanatics that do the killing. The religious people just refuse to be forced at knifepoint to deny their faith.

Take for instance the early Christians. They were a persecuted community in the early years but their love for God was stronger than their love for this fleeting life.

Same with the Baha'is in Persia in the 1800s. 20,000 were butchered by the authorities and wild mobs who saw them as a threat to the established order. The Baha'is didn't fight back, but neither did they recant their belief in their Beloved.

These ten ladies, all members of the Baha'i Faith, were murdered by the authorities in Iran in 1983. The youngest was just 16.

(IMG:http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/3259/zarinmuqimiabyanihfl4.jpg)
(IMG:http://img304.imageshack.us/img304/6765/tahirihsiyavushify6.jpg)
(IMG:http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8216/siminsabiriym9.jpg)
(IMG:http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/8283/shahindalvandsa2.jpg)
(IMG:http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/3609/ruyaishraqizm9.jpg)
(IMG:http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/7663/nusratyaldaife4.jpg)
(IMG:http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/1786/munamahmudnizhad16od2.jpg)
(IMG:http://img332.imageshack.us/img332/2259/mahshidnirumandek9.jpg)
(IMG:http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/8972/izzatishraqitb7.jpg)
(IMG:http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/4319/akhtarthabitdv8.jpg)

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 09:17 AM

ok ... from that cenario ... i'm seeing that ... a religion is peaceful until it gains too much power. christianity was peaceful at first ... persecuted .. all about love .... then they became the ruling religion and persecuted people for not following what they believed.

yes faith in religion determines the course of many ... and i see that as a sad thing. i dont even like the word believe ... i've said that many times before .. and its because its too concrete ... saying you believe something is saying you're absolutely right about the given topic. and yet there are many others that have opposite views ... yet believe just as strongly ... so who is right? its pointless to me ... and while yes i agree its the fanatics that do the violence ... i think we can both agree that that mentality is used to the advantage of the elite. everyone takes that as truth .. so they grind that theory into our heads when creating false flag ops.

the israelis and muslims are not fighting over religion ... they're fighting over land ... religion is just a cover for the violence. and its sickening.

too many points to make ... blah ... i do see truth in what you're saying ... but its layered with many other truths.

BAH its too complicated ... lets all just party and get knickered! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)
(IMG:http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/5052/smokeoq4.jpg)

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 10:49 AM

the israelis and muslims are not fighting over religion ... they're fighting over land ... religion is just a cover for the violence. and its sickening.

too many points to make ... blah ... i do see truth in what you're saying ... but its layered with many other truths.

BAH its too complicated ... lets all just party and get knickered!    (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

I intend to go out and get knickered myself in a little bit. But before I do, I figured it out. The families of Jacob's sons all moved to Egypt during the drought, just as WaterBender said. Including the son's wive's and families there were 70 of them. The land wasn't metted out to the 12 tribes until AFTER they returned from Egypt.

Everyone knows the story of Moses, the jews carrying around the ark of the covenant in the desert for 40 years, no need to go into that (?). Finally the Israelites, (numbering 3 million??) entered Canaan - they weren't unaopposed. This is the book of Joshua - containing:

(1.) The history of the conquest of the land (1-12). (2.) The allotment of the land to the different tribes, with the appointment of cities of refuge, the provision for the Levites (13-22), and the dismissal of the eastern tribes to their homes. This section has been compared to the Domesday Book of the Norman conquest. (3.) The farewell addresses of Joshua, with an account of his death (23, 24)

Joshua 3:10 - 'Joshua said, "Hereby you shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite out from before you.'

And then they had a war. ("In Canaan there were "seven nations greater and mightier" than Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1, NKJV) that had to be dispossessed and destroyed")

From a 'Crash course in Jewish History',

At this time the so-called Promised Land is bounded by the Egyptian empire to the south and the Assyrian empire to the north. But it is not ruled by either of them. In fact, there is no one power ruling this section of land, rather it is settled by seven Canaanite tribes who inhabit 31 fortified city-states scattered all over the map, each ruled by its own "king."

(Jericho is one of these city-states, so is Ai, so is Jerusalem, where Canaanite tribesmen called Jebusites dwell.)

...Before they enter the land, the Jewish people send an envoy to the Canaanites with the message, "God, the Creator of the Universe has promised this land to our forefathers. We are now here to claim our inheritance, and we ask you to leave peacefully."

Needless to say most of the Canaanites don't.

Meanwhile, Joshua has clear instructions from God that if the Canaanites don't get out, the Jews must wipe them out...

Then it looks like a number of stories of the Israelites being punished for screwing up and rewarded for loyalty, the story of (chronilogically speaking) Samson and Delilah, the prophet Samuel and his chosing Saul to be king - leading to this from the same 'Crash Course' that sort of blew me away...

Saul reigns from 879 to 877 BCE. He's king for only two years and he dies a tragic death. Indeed, his brief reign in itself is tragic, and it has to do with a fatal mistake he makes early on....

One of the key commandments that the Jewish people are given upon entering the Land of Israel is "to wipe out Amalek."

Amalek is the ultimate enemy of the Jewish people in history. This is the people that symbolize evil, and there is a commandment in the Bible to wipe them off the face of the earth, because their pathological hatred for Jews is so great, if they have a chance they will wipe the Jews off the face of the earth.

Amalek's major ambition is to rid the world of the Jews and their moral influence and return the planet to idolatry, paganism, and barbarism.

Since this is a cosmic war between good and evil which cannot be settled with treaties, God commands the Jews to destroy Amalek -- the entire nation, down to the last cow.

Say what !??

Saul has the opportunity to do so. He wages war against Amalek as commanded and wins, but when it comes to fulfilling the decree he falters. The cows are spared, and Agag, the king of the Amalekites, is spared also.

IDEOLOGY OF AMALEK

To this day, history continues to struggle with the consequences of Saul's mistake.

Again, say WHAT??

Agag fathers a child before he is killed by the Prophet Samuel, and then the nation of Amalek goes underground.

Today, we have no way of identifying the descendants of Amalek, but we do know that the Amalekite ideology lives on. There has been more than one occasion when people have arisen bent on exterminating the Jews.

Obviously this is just some guy writing words. But it shows how old the current conflict really extends (Saul reigned from 879 to 877 BC).

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 10:58 AM

so ... this whole struggle between families ... was god's sunday afternoon movie? i mean ... from god's perspective ... it had to be something of the sort according to this. god created all of it ... but then considered one side more worthy than the other so he allowed them to slaughter the opposition ... not only allowed ... but wished it so.

while i find this hard to swallow.

i'd say this shows the one theory right ... the jewish side of history shows god as a wrathful and mean god ... then the christians cam along .. added to the jewish story to counterpoint it ... make him seem no so grrrrrrrrrrrrrr like. in order to present a side more likeable .. that would persuade more people to convert.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 11:13 AM

prOmythias, you are not off the mark as I see it. The old-testement is more the story of a firm but unforgiving God. Not just in these remarks about clearing non-believers out of the way, but in the punishments he mets out to the jews when they stray from the path. The 40 years in the desert is one instance, Moses wasn't allowed to proceed with his people into Israel because he got angry for a moment.

I'm not saying Christians or even Muslims are not any less capable of violence in the name of Religion - just that the old testament God wasn't always a nice guy. I see clear parallels between Neocon/Staussian thinking and this philosophy, this type of God.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 11:33 AM

i see the israelis using the cover of that storyline to half way justify to thier people what they're doing. cuz they're not fighting hezbollah ... if they are .. they're the sorry aiming artilery in history.

its thier destiny as promised by god to bare the land from the mediteranean to the euphrates. a big boost in propoganda when justifying the occupation of lebanon. but thats another story all together.

also the stories of moses and david and joshua and abraham ... were mainly passed down by word of mouth .. then scribed after generations of story telling. so conservativly ... how much truth do you think survived that game of password? 50% maybe?

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 11:55 AM

how much truth do you think survived that game of password?  50% maybe?

If that.

http://hierographics.org/DoubtingTheStoryofTheExodus.html

In 1999, an Israeli archeologist, Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, set off a furor in Israel by writing in a popular magazine that stories of the patriarchs were myths and that neither the Exodus nor Joshua's conquests ever occurred. In the hottest controversy today, Herzog also argued that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, described as grand and glorious in the Bible, was at best a small tribal kingdom.

In a new book this year, The Bible Unearthed, Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC -- 600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC -- as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.

Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.

Some scholars, of course, still maintain that the Exodus story is basically factual.

Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, argued that the evidence falls into place if the story is dated back to 1450 BC. He said that indications of destruction around that time at Hazor, Jericho and a site he is excavating that he believes is the biblical city of Ai support accounts of Joshua's conquests.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: usediscernment Jul 30 2006, 01:51 PM

I truly hope this will clarify who i am, and who i follow.

Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2 Corinthians 11:1-4


And [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mark 8:29

"Brother, I'm not interested in any of your divisive doctrinal talk. All I care about is knowing that a person loves Jesus. If someone tells me that, no matter what church he goes to, he's my brother in Christ!" It didn't seem like the right time or place to get into an argument with this individual. Nevertheless, I felt compelled at least to get a question in before the conversation ended. "When you talk with someone who tells you he loves Jesus, do you ever ask that person, 'Jesus who?'"

After quick thought the elderly gentleman let me know that he would never ask such a question. "It wouldn't be loving."

Whenever I visit friends in Pennsylvania, there is a man whom I make it a point to see. He is a joy to be with, one of the friendliest men I know. Though a committed Muslim, he regards himself as an ecumenist. He's proud of the fact that he shares some of the beliefs of both Jews and Christians. Occasionally he attends a Presbyterian church with my friends and truly enjoys the experience and their fellowship. Once in a restaurant he was expressing to me and our Christian friends his love for Jesus. He ended his proclamation with these words: "If I could tear away my flesh so that all of you could see deep into my heart, you would know how much I love Jesus." The emotions that filled his every word were stunning; it's uncommon to hear such a devout declaration, even in Christian circles.

Getting back to my boysenberry pie, I felt good about my friend's expression of love when a nagging thought hit me: Jesus who? A brief mental skirmish took place over whether or not to ask such a question. My words, however, came out before my mind had settled the issue. "Tell me about the Jesus you love." My Muslim friend didn't hesitate: "He's the same one you love." Before I got "doctrinal" with my friend, I thought I should try to show him why it was important to make sure we were talking about the same Jesus.

I used his neighbor, who is a great friend to both of us, as an example. He and I really love the guy. After agreeing on our mutual feelings, I began to give a description of our common friend's physical attributes: "He's 5'6"; he's completely bald; he weighs 320 pounds; he wears a ring in his left nostril." Actually, I didn't get quite that far before objections were made. "Wait a minute... he's easily over 6'4", I wish I had all his hair, and he's the thinnest man I know!" My friend added that it was obvious that we weren't talking about the same person. "Does it matter?" I asked. He gave me an incredulous look. "Of course it does! I don't have a neighbor fitting your description. You may know someone else like that, but it's not my good friend and neighbor." I pointed out that if I truly believed the description I'd just given, then we couldn't possibly be friends with the same person. He agreed.

What followed was my description of the Jesus I knew. "He was crucified and died on the cross for my sins. Did the Jesus you know do that?"

"No, Allah took him to heaven before the crucifixion. Judas died on the cross."

"The Jesus I know is God himself, who became a man. Is that your Jesus?"

He shook his head. "No, Allah alone is God. Jesus was a great prophet, but just a man." The discussion went on to many other characteristics the Bible ascribes to Jesus. In almost every case, my Muslim friend had a different perspective. Though he remained convinced that he held the correct view, the fact that our contradictory convictions couldn't be reconciled seemed to dampen his zeal for proclaiming his love for Jesus.

Some may see my questioning as unloving—as proof of the divisiveness of arguing over doctrines. I see it as trying to clear the way for my friend to have a genuine relationship with the only true Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ—not someone he or other men have wittingly or unwittingly imagined or devised.

Quite simply, doctrines are teachings. They are either true or false. A true doctrine cannot be divisive in a harmful way; that characteristic applies only to false teachings. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom 16:17; also Rom 2:8-9). Jesus, who is the Truth, can only be known in truth and by those who seek the truth (Jn 14:6; 18:37; 2 Thes 2:13; Dt 4:29). Christ himself caused division (Mt 10:35; Jn 7:35; 9:16;10:19), division between truth and error (Lk 12:51).

"Jesus who?" is a pivotal question for every believer in Christ. We should first of all ask it of ourselves, testing our own beliefs about Jesus (2 Cor 13:5; 1 Thes 5:21). Misunderstandings about Him inevitably become obstructions in our relationship with Him. The question also may be vital in our fellowshipping with those who claim to be Christians. On a brief airline flight recently, a friend of mine was concerned enough to ask the person next to him some crucial questions about his relationship with Jesus. Although the young man professed to have been a Christian for four years or so and participated in a Christian fellowship for professional athletes, he didn't really know Jesus nor did he understand the gospel of salvation. My friend led him to the Lord before the plane landed.

All too often, phrases similar to "we stand together with anyone who names the name of Christ" are emotionally charged coverings for ecumenical agendas. The fear of destroying unity plagues those who take seriously such unbiblical propaganda, even to the point of discouraging any vestige of interest in contending for the faith. Astonishingly, "Christian unity" now includes co-laboring for the moral good of society with cults "that name the name of Jesus."

The cults' teachings about Jesus include every unscriptural idea imaginable. The "Jesus Christ" of Latter-Day Saints, for example, couldn't be further removed from the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus invented by Joseph Smith and after whom he named his church is the first spirit child of Elohim, just as all humans, angels, and demons are spirit children of Elohim. This Mormon Jesus became flesh through physical intercourse between Elohim (God the Father who has a physical body) and the Virgin Mary. Their Jesus is the half-brother of Lucifer. He came to earth to become a god. His sacrificial death gives immortality to every creature (including animals) at the Resurrection. However, whether an individual creature spends eternity in hell or in one of three heavens is totally up to his or her (or its) performance.

The Jesus Christ of the mind-science cults (Christian Science, Religious Science, Unity School of Christianity, etc.) is no different from any other human being. "Christ" is a spiritual idea of God and not a person. Jesus neither suffered nor died for mankind's sins because sin doesn't exist. Rather, he helped humanity to cease from believing that sin and death have any reality. That is "salvation" in so-called Christian Science.

Jehovah's Witnesses also love Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible. Before their Jesus was born on earth he was Michael the Archangel. He is a god, but not Jehovah God. When their Jesus became a man he ceased to be a god. There was no physical resurrection of the JW Jesus; Jehovah raised his spirit body, hid his physical remains, and now, once again, Jesus exists as an angel called Michael. The Bible promises that when a believer in our Lord and Savior dies, he or she immediately goes to be with Jesus (2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:21-23). With their Jesus, however, only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have that privilege—but not at death, for they are annihilated when they die. That is, they spend an indefinite period in an inactive and unconscious state, in effect, ceasing to exist. My fellowship of love with the biblical Jesus, however, is unbroken and everlasting.

Roman Catholics love Jesus. I did for twenty-some years of my life, but he was very different from the Jesus I now know and love. Sometimes he was still a babe in arms or a young boy, overshadowed and protected by his mother. When I wanted his help I made sure I prayed to his mother first. The Jesus to whom I pray now hasn't been a baby for almost 2,000 years. The Jesus I loved as a Catholic resided bodily in a small, boxlike tabernacle on our church altar in the form of a white wafer, while simultaneously inhabiting millions of pieces of bread worldwide. My Jesus is the (physically) resurrected Son of God; He doesn't indwell inanimate objects.

The Roman Catholic Jesus I knew was the Christ of the crucifix, his body continually hanging on the cross, fittingly symbolic of the perpetual sacrifice of the mass and his unfinished work of salvation. Nearly two millennia ago, the biblical Jesus fully paid the debt for my sins. He has no need of the seven sacraments, the liturgy, the priesthood, the papacy, His mother's intercession, indulgences, prayers to and for the dead, purgatory, etc., to help save anyone. Roman Catholics who say they love Jesus, though they may call themselves charismatic Catholics, evangelical Catholics, or born-again Catholics, actually love a Jesus who is not the biblical Jesus. He's "another Jesus."

Even some who claim to be evangelicals promote a different Jesus. The so-called faith-and-prosperity teachers promote a Jesus who was materially prosperous. According to evangelist John Avanzini, whose expensive wardrobe reflects his teachings, Jesus wore designer clothes (a reference to his seamless robe) similar to what kings and wealthy merchants wore. In a convoluted argument, success preacher Robert Tilton claims that being poor is a sin, and since Jesus was sinless, it follows that he must have been extremely rich. Positive-confession teacher Fred Price explains that he drives a Rolls Royce simply because he's following the way of Jesus. Oral Roberts says that because Jesus and the disciples had a treasurer (Judas), they must have had plenty of money.

In addition to preaching a Christ who was materially wealthy, many of the faith teachers, such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, proclaim a Jesus who descended into hell and had to be tortured by Satan in order to complete the atonement for the sins of mankind. That's not the Jesus I know and love.

Tony Campolo's Jesus indwells everyone. Television preacher Robert Schuller presents a Jesus who died on the cross to secure our self-esteem. In support of this Jesus, Christian psychologists and numerous evangelical preachers tell us that His death on the cross proves our infinite value to God and is the basis for our self-worth. Not only are a variety of ego-enhancing Jesuses being promoted today, but we're also being told by a psychologized "church" that the truth about Jesus may not be as important for our psychological well-being as our own perception of Him. That's the basis for the current teaching by psychospiritual integrationist Neil Anderson and others who promote unbiblical inner-healing techniques. We have to forgive Jesus for situations in the past where we feel He disappointed or wounded us emotionally. Jesus who?

Fellowship with Jesus is the heart of Christianity. It's not something merely imagined but is a reality. He literally indwells all who place their faith in Him as Lord and Savior (Col 1:27; Jn 14:20; 15:4). The relationship we have with Him is both subjective and objective. Our genuine personal experiences with Jesus are always in harmony with His objective Word (Is 8:20). His Spirit ministers His Word to us and that knowledge is the foundation for our fellowship with Him (Jn 8:31; Phil 3:8). Our love for Him is demonstrated by and increases through our obedience to what He commands; our trust in Him is strengthened through the knowledge of what He reveals about Himself (Jn 14:15; Phil 1:9). Jesus said, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37). To whatever degree we believers entertain false beliefs about Jesus and His teachings, we undermine our vital relationship with Him.

Nothing can be better on this earth than the joy of fellowship with Jesus and with those who know and are known by Him. On the other hand, nothing could be more tragic than the offering of one's affections to another Jesus, the invention of men and demons. Our Lord prophesied that many would fall prey to that great delusion just prior to His return (Mt 24:23-26). There will be many who, because of the alleged signs and wonders they perform in His name, will convince themselves that they know Jesus and are serving Him. To them He will speak these sobering words: "...I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mt 7:23). Rather than being divisive, asking the question "Jesus who?" may be the most loving service one can perform these days. The answer has eternal consequences.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Hound Jul 30 2006, 08:21 PM

Well, this is a discussionboard about the 9/11 hoax.

So, why not talk about the biggest one, the MEGA HOAX: which of course is

CHRISTIANITY. The whole hokus-pokus BS is built on the lie that Jaheeezus, was an historical person. In other words that he existed.

There is no historical proof of Jesus existence whatsoever. It is all made up.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Jul 31 2006, 12:22 AM

Next: I quoted you above and edited the rest from your post.  Muslims believe in the same creator and God as the Jews and Christians, but the Christian would counter argue and disagree.  They claim that the Muslim's God is different because "He" is not anthropomorphic as is the Christian God and doesn't have a "Son".  Hence, there can be an apparent difference and perception of 2 different gods.

They are not 2 different gods. We have different concepts of God, but we don't believe in different ones. As for Jesus, usediscernment, you could've just said "God" on your posts instead of "Allah", but I feel sometimes that you do it on purpose just to keep believing yourself that "Allah" is a different god than "God", even though your Arab Christian friends say "Allah." Anyways, like what Sanders said, I'm going to drop it and continue to write down Islamic beliefs. As for Joseph, yes he was sold into slavery into Egypt, but I don't really understand the 12 tribes of Israel either. Who's next to talk about?

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 03:39 AM

I have questions (not to degrade anyone or their beliefs): how can Allah and God be the same being if they do not share the same attributes?

How can Allah be God, if God is a trinity and Allah is one being?

How can Allah be God, if God was to send a part of himself to die for the sins of mankind and Allah has done no such thing?

How can Allah be God, if Allah desires the destruction of the Jews and God does not?

I don't understand. I didn't take usediscernment's post to be offensive, but rather, pointing out that if Allah is God and vice versa, then Christians, Jews, and Muslims should agree that Allah/God has the same characteristics regarding love, sin, hatred, vindictiveness, murder, the trinity, one being, salvation, etc. But we all don't agree on that issue. So if we are not in agreement on that, how is it that they are one in the same?

I am just inquiring to further our understanding on the beliefs of each of these religions, I am not trying to insult anyone, and I believe this is crucial to understanding exactly what the conflict is.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: Daniels Jul 31 2006, 03:54 AM

I have questions (not to degrade anyone or their beliefs): how can Allah and God be the same being if they do not share the same attributes?

How can Allah be God, if God is a trinity and Allah is one being?

How can Allah be God, if God was to send a part of himself to die for the sins of mankind and Allah has done no such thing?

How can Allah be God, if Allah desires the destruction of the Jews and God does not?

I don't understand. I didn't take usediscernment's post to be offensive, but rather, pointing out that if Allah is God and vice versa, then Christians, Jews, and Muslims should agree that Allah/God has the same characteristics regarding love, sin, hatred, vindictiveness, murder, the trinity, one being, salvation, etc. But we all don't agree on that issue. So if we are not in agreement on that, how is it that they are one in the same?

I am just inquiring to further our understanding on the beliefs of each of these religions, I am not trying to insult anyone, and I believe this is crucial to understanding exactly what the conflict is.

DayAfterTomorrow, we have to look beyond the dogma of religion to see it more clearly.

Take all the red quotes from the New Testament and look at them. Ignore the rest.

The Bible is true, but it was written by people. People are fallible, God is not.

The red quotes of Jesus tell a story. The rest of it, as well as the interpretations put on it by humans, tend to mislead. The Bible is true, but how do we correctly interpret 666, a man with feet of brass and a sword for a tongue, etc?

Why else would there be thousands of Christian sects in the world? They're interpreting scripture. In the Book of Daniel we are told that no one would be able to interpret that Book. Yet everyone has tried, and claimed that their particular interpretation is the correct one.

The Muslims have their problems too. The Koran, I believe, is the exact Word of God because it was dictated to an amanuensis.

However, the Muslims have many thousands of Traditions attributed to Mahammad, only some of which are genuine. The rest being misleading and corrupting.

Trying to form a consensus on religious belief is fraught with difficulty.

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: usediscernment Jul 31 2006, 04:10 AM

I have questions (not to degrade anyone or their beliefs): how can Allah and God be the same being if they do not share the same attributes?

How can Allah be God, if God is a trinity and Allah is one being?

How can Allah be God, if God was to send a part of himself to die for the sins of mankind and Allah has done no such thing?

How can Allah be God, if Allah desires the destruction of the Jews and God does not?

I don't understand. I didn't take usediscernment's post to be offensive, but rather, pointing out that if Allah is God and vice versa, then Christians, Jews, and Muslims should agree that Allah/God has the same characteristics regarding love, sin, hatred, vindictiveness, murder, the trinity, one being, salvation, etc. But we all don't agree on that issue. So if we are not in agreement on that, how is it that they are one in the same?

I am just inquiring to further our understanding on the beliefs of each of these religions, I am not trying to insult anyone, and I believe this is crucial to understanding exactly what the conflict is.

Thanks for speaking up, i have not been trying to slam anyone here ever since i started to reply to this thread.
All i am doing is defending my faith!!!

[Guest_librarian_*]

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 04:12 AM

I understand what you're saying, but the Bible and the Qu'ran have such adamently opposing positions on the character of God and Allah that I don't know how you can attribute that to human mistakes. These aren't just subtle differences, for instance, going from destroying Jews in the Qu'ran to loving them in the Bible is a HUGE leap.

The beliefs are not that closely related. Like Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of mankind in the Bible vs. no mention of such thing in the Qu'ran. The spiritual and physical death of Jesus is a huge deal to Christians and Jews, and yet, not at all existant in Islam.

The Koran, I believe, is the exact Word of God because it was dictated to an amanuensis.

Who dictated the Qu'ran to an amanuensis? That is important. After all, an amanuensis is also a human, and therefore prone to mistake.

If you take the pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible, or otherwise referred to as the Torah) into consideration, they are considered to be written by Moses (who, after all, is only human) but are also considered to have been dictated by God to Moses.