Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 02-05-2012, 02:48 AM

Anyway, in Spain, in the Middle Ages, there were important noble families who were split in a Muslim branch, and a Catholic branch, without any problem. It was possible to marry a Christian princess to a Muslim prince. The problem was power, not religion, except perhaps for the poor people... whose opinion was negligible.

The cult of Mary is relatively recent, and in the RCC only.

mrsonic · 02-05-2012, 03:52 AM

koran says that Allah has no co-equal

Quote:

1. Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
4.Nor is there to Him any equivalent

Quote:

5:116
And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah

the arabic word for besides/min doonillah does not mean CO-EQUAL.
I don't think the koran is talking about trinity, but intermediaries .

Quote:

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him

again "lords besides Allah" does not mean co-equal gods.

the surah which talks about Allah not having co-equals seems to be addressing the trinity . the other verses seem to be against intermediary gods who are not EQUIVALENT to Allah.

Quote:

"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter
aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender." The Qur'an, Al-Niss(4):17

i don't think " and say not 'three' " really gives a s hit about whoELSE is in the trinity. it is always Allah near the 3 and whether Allah is 1 0f the 3
notice that this time koran INCLUDES the holy ghost/ruh?

Quote:

5:73
Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

how i understand this verse. i think the verse is saying that Allah is not 3rd member of trinity or 3 persons = Allah. it is always Allah near the 3 and does not seem to be concerned with who else is in the three.
and if we say according to the koran trinity = allah, jesus and mary and mary = 3rd person , then does that mean allah and mary = the same person? you think the converts from christianity to islam wouldn't have pointed this out?

THIS bring me to another question

why did the christians band women from being in the trinity? what was the problem? after all , mary gave birth to jesus and changed his nappies and took him to jerusalem , then doesn't this imply that mary should have made it into the trinity?

sotto voce · 02-05-2012, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsonic

koran says that Allah has no co-equal

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent

That was lifted straight out of the Bible. It was and is made to seem orthodox in comparison to the polytheism of totalitarian Europe, expressed by the anomalous notion of trinitarianism. However, religious teaching may with pride say one thing correctly in order to more authoritatively say another thing incorrectly. Though again, Islam was not believed by sensible people, and was forced to use totalitarian methods in order to establish itself.

Quote:

5:116
And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah

Of course Isa (Jesus) said nothing of the sort. True, he in effect claimed to be the Son of God, i.e. the manifestation of the invisible, supernal deity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and the prophets (though not of that 'wild donkey of a man', Ishmael).

Of the one who raised him physically, not spiritually, someone said:

"Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed."

But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it."

So Jesus totally rejected mere, human, carnal, blood relationships in terms of spiritual realities, the same family being liable to be split on the issue of faith in himself. He addressed his mother as 'woman' when she interfered in his mission. "What have you do do with me?" was her condemnation, not deification.

Again, this is deliberate misrepresentation of the gospel, using the straw man of European heresy in its place in order to consciously blaspheme.

mrsonic · 02-05-2012, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Of course Isa (Jesus) said nothing of the sort. True, he in effect claimed to be the Son of God, i.e. the manifestation of the invisible, supernal deity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and the prophets (though not of that 'wild donkey of a man', Ishmael).

galilean (3esa/jesus) hippie must have totally lost it.
but it is interesting to note that what galilean hippie claimed , the vast majority of jews did not see him as "manifestation of the invisible..."
i am begining to think that koran was MOCKING and taking the piss out of christianity, very similar to how muslims and jews and unitatian christians take the piss out of trinity. it wasn't interested in christians arguments about substance and gods hiding in flesh and blood, but it was looking at the aparent things like jezus eat food and had to drink to survice ect.

sotto voce · 02-05-2012, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsonic

Quote:

Of course Isa (Jesus) said nothing of the sort. True, he in effect claimed to be the Son of God, i.e. the manifestation of the invisible, supernal deity of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and the prophets (though not of that 'wild donkey of a man', Ishmael).

galilean (3esa/jesus) hippie must have totally lost it.
but it is interesting to note that what galilean hippie claimed , the vast majority of jews did not see him as "manifestation of the invisible..."

Evidence?

mrsonic · 02-05-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Evidence?

so lets assume that the 12 saw jezuz as "the manifestation of the invisable..." the crowds in mark DID not see him as the "manifestation of the invisible..."

“But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.” (Matthew 9:2-8; Mk 2:7). ”

they saw a man, not "manifestation of the invisible..."

christianities failure to convince jews that jesus had god living in him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

. . . Archaeological evidence secures the case: though a vast amount of material evidence has been uncovered of unmistakably Jewish occupation throughout Palestine, as well as considerable evidence of pagan inhabitants, absolutely no material evidence of any Christian population can be found there until later centuries. In fact, only in the 3rd century does material evidence of a Christian presence
anywhere in the Empire begin to match that of even minor pagan cults. Therefore, from both observations it follows that if Christians inhabited Palestine in the first century, their numbers must have been truly negligible. . . .

. . .Holding himself quotes N. T. Wright that belief in Christ's resurrection "was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire." That's not an impressive rate of success. In fact, it's downright dismal. ...

Acts neglects to mention or even estimate the rate of losses and has every reason to exaggerate the scale of Christianity's success, yet still only claims the Church began with about 120 members after the death of Jesus (Acts 1:15), while the largest actual number on record for the size of the Church in Palestine is 5,000 total members (Acts 4:4). All subsequent growth is described only in vague terms, and Acts loses complete track of the matter once even those few Palestinian Christians "scattered" and eventually fled (Acts 8:1, 11:19). . . .

Likewise, after their disheartening failure to gain significant headway in Palestine, most Christian success in Acts is gained in the Diaspora--and not just geographically, but ideologically: Diaspora Jews had the most cosmopolitan outlook, and had either been pagans or understood pagan ideals quite well. It should not surprise us that they were the most receptive to the Christian mission

Therefore, from both observations it follows that if Christians inhabited Palestine in the first century, their numbers must have been truly negligible. And to carry the point home, even the most biased of Christian sources make no claims to the contrary. Acts suggests the mission was taken to the Gentiles because Jews simply weren't buying it anymore.[1] This looks pretty bad for Holding. Where Christianity was most open to being checked against the facts is where it was least successful. Hmmm.

Likewise, while we hear of Pharisee converts (not just Paul but others in Acts), it should be obvious that these were not the ones writing Talmudic precedent or running Rabbinical schools, but those who were (like Paul) marginalized within the Pharisee community, given relatively less authority and respect by more prestigious members of the sect, and who were therefore quite ready to sympathize with criticism of the ungodly snobbery of their peers.

From Not The Impossible Faith (or via: amazon.co.uk), selected from pp 409 - 432

sotto voce · 02-05-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsonic

Quote:

Evidence?

so lets assume that the 12 saw jezuz

Along with those who write 'jezuz'?

Let's not forget that the majority of Jesus' disciples may have left him precisely because the demands of following 'God, with us' were too much for them. And it may well have been that Jesus was crucified precisely because the demands of following 'God, with us' was too much for the Sanhedrin. It's entirely possible that nobody failed to see that Jesus was 'God, with us'. But, like the disciples who left, many of them made excuses, that may have been precisely the opposite of what they thought!

It is useless to claim to know what people thought. Nobody knows what anyone else thinks.

Though it's better than a guess that people who with great predictability change the subject of a conversation to try to prove that Jesus was not 'God, with us', actually believe that this is exactly what he was.

mrsonic · 02-05-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

From Not The Impossible Faith ( via: Amazon UK ), selected from pp 409 - 432
Last edited by FRDB Staff; Today at 11:45 AM. Reason: quote attribution

the quote came from richard carriers response to j.p holding.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/improbable/

sotto voce · 02-05-2012, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrsonic

the quote came from richard carriers response to j.p holding.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/improbable/

There is not the smallest possibility that Christianity is false. The Roman Empire could not suppress it, Islam had to pervert its message to 'disprove' it, and much, much more besides. Christianity is proved, not disproved, by its opposition. There is nothing at all more predictable that, within minutes of a disproof of Islam (or Catholicism) in favour of Christianity appearing on the 'net, the attack switches onto Christianity. No bookmaker would offer odds against it.

Now how about discussing those passages in the Qur'an? Or is the Qur'an no longer of interest?

mrsonic · 02-05-2012, 11:45 AM

are you feeling well?
i was replying to

Quote:

From Not The Impossible Faith ( via: Amazon UK ), selected from pp 409 - 432
Last edited by FRDB Staff; Today at 11:45 AM. Reason: quote attribution

christianity has been gang raped by many ideas and thats why it survives today , but died in jerusalem.
marks version wasn't good enough and neither were pauls letters so thats why luke had to make his own account and add his own thoughts/whims into his account.

Quote:

Now how about discussing those passages in the Qur'an? Or is the Qur'an no longer of interest?

why don't you ask a muslim apologist to join the discussion?

Quote:

There is not the smallest possibility that Christianity is false. The Roman Empire could not suppress it, Islam had to pervert its message to 'disprove' it, and much, much more besides. Christianity is proved, not disproved, by its opposition. There is nothing at all more predictable that, within minutes of a disproof of Islam (or Catholicism) in favour of Christianity appearing on the 'net, the attack switches onto Christianity. No bookmaker would offer odds against it.

i have a question, why didn't the crowds in mark see "manifestation of the invisible..." in jesus? they were righteous people, weren't they?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-05-2012, 02:48 AM	#121
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Anyway, in Spain, in the Middle Ages, there were important noble families who were split in a Muslim branch, and a Catholic branch, without any problem. It was possible to marry a Christian princess to a Muslim prince. The problem was power, not religion, except perhaps for the poor people... whose opinion was negligible. The cult of Mary is relatively recent, and in the RCC only.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.