Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Interfaith Interfaith discussion for different religious traditions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-01-2013, 12:20 PM   #281
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@smaneck

“Ahh, now I know what you are talking about. It is the verses in which these Teachings are revealed that are considered incomparable, not the Teachings in general. One of the major proofs of Islam is that verses of such beauty were revealed through an illiterate camel driver. But you would have to know Arabic to appreciate that beauty because it is no translatable.”

2:23 And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)

It’s true I don’t know Arabic. But I think I can imagine ____ passage from the Qur’an sounding beautiful and poetic. That’s nice as far as it goes. But am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because Muhammad spoke beautifully and poetically without training that THIS is a MAJOR proof the Qur’an ought to be trusted? If so I don’t think that holds to the four proofs mentioned by Abdul-Baha.
Sense perception doesn’t apply here. The reasoning faculty does (for the content of the Qur’an), scriptural authority cannot be found in support of the Qur’an in any of the Bible. Inspiration is debatable. “How beautiful it sounds” is not mentioned or hinted at as a proof here (or elsewhere in the Baha’i writings is it?). I am sorry if the following offends but it carries my point powerfully as I believe it needs to be. Adolph Hitler was a powerful speaker that in certain ways sounded poetic. Atheists and Satanists can produce things of great beauty, perhaps even without training (just naturally talented). But we don’t take this as a sign from God. How many individuals throughout human history have produced things of beauty (poetry/whatever) without training with a poor/nigh non-existent theological background? What does poetic beauty REALLY prove? I won’t post any links since you might find them hateful but if you do a search you’ll find there are a number of folks fluent/literate in Arabic who think the Qur’an very low grade poetry in comparison to other Arabic poetry.

It seems far more logical that Muhammad is at least INCLUDING the content of the Qur’an along with his beautiful recitation of it. Otherwise all the technique/form (beauty) of a punch means nothing without force (content).

“You mean if you were in charge of an oasis village made up of a handful of mud huts?”

Yup.

“I'm not sure what you mean here, but there is much more redundancy in the Bible, although for different reasons.”

Well I guess we’ll agree to disagree there.

“Why? If it is already in the Bible we can read it there.”

Not if the majority of your following is illiterate! Furthermore weren’t the majority of Muslims under the impression they could not trust what was written/spoken by Christians anyway?

“Maybe telling people not to bury their children was more important at this point? “

Still could have been put in there. Considering some other verses like 4:34 it would have been a great balancing passage don’t you think? How would you liked to have lived under that divine right granted to your husband?

“Fine. Show me where the term "literal resurrection" appears in Pharisaic writings. As far as I know they believed in the resurrection period. You know the concept of resurrection in Judaism is first found in the Book of Ezekiel. Let's see how it is treated there:”

“Clearly, the resurrection here is not physical, it refers to revival of the nation of Israel which had been captive in Babylon and thanks to Cyrus the Great, allowed now to return to their homeland. Metaphorically they have been brought to life.”

Pharisees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The afterlife

Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees also believed in the resurrection of the dead in a future, messianic age. The Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body.[23]

Resurrection of the dead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Temple period

530 BCE to 70 CE

In the Second Temple period the concept of resurrection of the dead is found in 4Q521 among the Dead Sea scrolls, Josephus records it (Antiquities 18.14; Jewish War 2.163), and the New Testament records that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, but the Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body.[12] Resurrection of the dead appears in detail in the extra-canonical books of Enoch, Jubilees, Apocalypse of Baruch, 2 Esdras and the Maccabees.

(Shall we look into these or is this enough?)

Another interpretation is that the fulfillment of this prophecy is ongoing. National Israel is currently being regathered from the four corners of the world to begin the first half of this dry bones prophecy. Since 1948, Israel (the Dry Bones in this prophecy) has been in the process of being put back together (as a nation). Although the amount of Jews still being regathered to Israel is growing almost daily, this part of the prophecy is considered fulfilled (or at least partially fulfilled) due to United Nations recognition of Israel as it's own nation in it's own land.
Still to come: In Ezekiel's prophecy it is important to note that first Israel is regathered or put back together but yet still without life. Then God puts His Spirit in them and they become alive. There still is no (Spiritual) life in the nation, or in Ezekiel's words "there was no breath in them" (Ch. 37: Verse 8). For the most part this is Israel's current state of being. An exception to this would be the Messianic Jews. God has allowed this fast growing group (sometimes referred to as The Jewish Remnant) to know the truth about Messiah before the nation as a whole realizes this truth. The majority of Israel is currently considered secular in religious practice with those choosing to embrace Orthodox Judaism being a minority. So yes I think much of this particular passage is symbolic. That doesn't change what Pharisees believed though.

“Whoah, you are interpolating the text. I don't read interpolations!

In 1 Corinthians Paul indicates that when we rise from the dead we will be as He [Jesus] is but that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom and that what is sown a physical body will be raised a spiritual one. So the Resurrection for Paul is not all that physical.”

My my, accusing ME of interpolation? Might want to talk to arthra who thinks that Nicodemus and/or Joseph moved the body of Jesus with no mention of any such thing. Do you think so as well? If not what DID happen to the body of Jesus?

But you know what I can see your point. Let’s say it’s not about Israel(I think it still is in part though), it’s about our bodies. It’s taught in many NT passages that these bodies are corrupt and sinful by nature, that to be in perfect union with God we will need new ones. But these new bodies are of a new spiritual quality and of a physical substance.

I still believe my point stands. Resurrection is not the same as a ghost sighting or whatever you want to call Christ’s appearances. It would be deceitful to use the term resurrection instead of ghost/spirit if that is truly what he meant. Christ said he was not a spirit.

Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

So even in a spiritual sense we have some kind of flesh and bone.

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

A ghost IS DEAD. It’s saying someone who WAS dead is dead no longer. But if such a thing ISN’T true then Christ did not rise.

“I'm not sure how this is relevant to our discussion.”

I think it’s relevant because you want to talk about what’s needed for the world now. I take this to mean you want to compare Baha’i writings to the Bible and say something like, “See how much better this fits for today!” It’s not going to get that far with me (as Joseph Smith doesn’t get far with you) because you don’t consider all his words divinely inspired however nice and true some of them are.

If you wish to respond to the previous points by all means do so. But please do not skip these below.

Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

4:107 And plead not on behalf of (people) who deceive themselves. Lo! Allah loveth not one who is treacherous and sinful.

5:41 O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe," but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom;

vs

Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

6:141 He it is Who produceth gardens trellised and untrellised, and the date-palm, and crops of divers flavour, and the olive and the pomegranate, like and unlike. Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day, and be not prodigal. Lo! Allah loveth not the prodigals.

6:159 Lo! As for those who sunder their religion and become schismatics, no concern at all hast thou with them. Their case will go to Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.
.
Vs.

-Luke 15:11-32

16:23 Assuredly Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim. Lo! He loveth not the proud.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth (exhibits) his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

22:38 Lo! Allah defendeth those who are true. Lo! Allah loveth not each treacherous ingrate.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

28:77 But seek the abode of the Hereafter in that which Allah hath given thee and neglect not thy portion of the world, and be thou kind even as Allah hath been kind to thee, and seek not corruption in the earth; lo! Allah loveth not corrupters,

30:45 That He may reward out of His bounty those who believe and do good works. Lo! He (Allah) loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).

31:18 Turn not thy cheek in scorn toward folk, nor walk with pertness in the land. Lo! Allah loveth not each braggart boaster.


Here is an explanation I found for these verses:

Love is just a word which must be translated in action and it becomes obedience in the case of His creation, human beings, and mercy in case of the Creator, Allah. You can see that when love is translated into action it is mercy and His mercy is unconditional. You receive Allah's mercy whether you are an obedient servant of Allah or you are a mushrik (pagan, idolater) and a sinner; they all receive equal treatment in this life. Let us take a few examples:
• A man may say to his wife "I love you" but he beats her and does not provide for her. Does he love her?
• A wife says to her husband "I love you" but when he desires sex she does not agree to it. Does she love him?
• A child says to his parents "I love you" but he disobeys them most of the time. Does he/she love them?
Love must be translated in action, attitude and behavior, otherwise it is just a word without meaning. Similarly Allah's love is translated in His attributes of forgiving, compassion and mercy.
************************************************** *************
I don’t think this explanation holds water. YES, a wife can love her husband and refuse to have sex with him (perhaps after he’s beaten her via surah 4:34?)

A tree is a tree because that’s what it is. Not for it’s leaves or fruit, there are a number of trees without these especially in winter time. A lamppost does not suddenly become a tree if you glue/tape fruit and leaves onto it, it’s a lamppost. A judge can be merciful without being loving.

We all go through and have seen others go through times of winter haven’t we? Where we don’t see their love in action or behavior? They may still love us VERY much only that grief, despair or some other pain of life has caused their fruit and leaves to fall off. They’re a naked tree, but a tree still opposed to the lamppost that dressed itself up with fruits of love (actions not heart) to win your confidence.

Is a there a verse in the Qur’an to balance this one like “Allah loves all mankind.”?


Bonus:

(Christianity changes societies/individuals)

Teen Challenge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An independent analysis completed by Wilder Research has demonstrated MnTC’s effectiveness using a broad range of measures.[5]
In their study of 154 former residents who graduated between 2007 and 2009:
• 74 percent of adult program graduates reported no use in the previous six months
• 58 percent had attended school since graduating
• 77 percent were either working 30+ hours a week or were a full-time student
• 80+ percent rated the overall quality of MnTC as “outstanding” or “very good.”
• When asked to name what helped most, the faith-based aspects of the program were mentioned most frequently.
I do appreciate certain things in the Qur’an, although they are few and far between for me….

2:83 And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allah (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poor-due. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse.

2:109 Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 01-02-2013, 08:58 AM   #282
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post

It’s true I don’t know Arabic. But I think I can imagine ____ passage from the Qur’an sounding beautiful and poetic. That’s nice as far as it goes. But am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that because Muhammad spoke beautifully and poetically without training that THIS is a MAJOR proof the Qur’an ought to be trusted?
It's more than that. The Qur'an as revealed and heard in Arabic moves hearts the way no other text could.

Quote:
If so I don’t think that holds to the four proofs mentioned by Abdul-Baha.
We are not talking about what Abdu'l-Baha considered proof here, but what the Qur'an itself presents as proof. But moving hearts is what inspiration is all about.

Quote:
Adolph Hitler was a powerful speaker that in certain ways sounded poetic.
There was nothing beautiful about the way Hitler spoke.

Quote:
Atheists and Satanists can produce things of great beauty, perhaps even without training (just naturally talented). But we don’t take this as a sign from God.
Have you ever read the works of Satanists? I've never read anything they wrote as possessing great beauty. Atheists, of course, come in all shapes and sizes but I certainly don't know any illiterate ones who could produce something like the Qur'an!

Quote:
but if you do a search you’ll find there are a number of folks fluent/literate in Arabic who think the Qur’an very low grade poetry in comparison to other Arabic poetry.
Only those who have a particular animosity towards Islam. I learned Arabic largely from Christian Arabs, all of whom attested to the literary perfection of the Qur'an.

Quote:
It seems far more logical that Muhammad is at least INCLUDING the content of the Qur’an along with his beautiful recitation of it.
Of course, He is including it. Apparently you paid no attention to my statement that the message and the medium of the Qur'an are inseparable.


Quote:
“Why? If it is already in the Bible we can read it there.”

Not if the majority of your following is illiterate!
Do you really think that the people the Qur'an relates these stories to were hearing them for the first time? The reason that the Qur'an sometimes only tells half the story is because its audience already knows the other half! When you have an oral culture, things are remembered orally.

Quote:
Furthermore weren’t the majority of Muslims under the impression they could not trust what was written/spoken by Christians anyway?
No, that is a belief that emerges much later, after the Arab Invasions.

Quote:
Still could have been put in there.
And Jesus could have said it too, but He didn't.

Quote:
Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees also believed in the resurrection of the dead in a future, messianic age. The Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body.[23]
Sorry, I asked for a source from the Pharisees themselves, not wiki.


Quote:
In the Second Temple period the concept of resurrection of the dead is found in 4Q521 among the Dead Sea scrolls, Josephus records it (Antiquities 18.14; Jewish War 2.163),
Wonderful. Now show me the passage where he calls is 'literal.'

Quote:
and the New Testament records that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, but the Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body.[12
]

Again, where does it the NT say "literal"?

Quote:
Resurrection of the dead appears in detail in the extra-canonical books of Enoch, Jubilees, Apocalypse of Baruch, 2 Esdras and the Maccabees.
Again, where do those texts use the term 'literal'?

Quote:
(Shall we look into these or is this enough?)
Not even close. You haven't yet found the term 'literal' in a single primary source. Wiki articles don't count as contemporary primary sources.

Quote:
Another interpretation is that the fulfillment of this prophecy is ongoing. National Israel is currently being regathered from the four corners of the world to begin the first half of this dry bones prophecy.
Actually, it is the Achaemenid Empire which was fulfilling that prophecy during Ezekial's own time by allowing the Jews to return to Israel.

Quote:
My my, accusing ME of interpolation? Might want to talk to arthra who thinks that Nicodemus and/or Joseph moved the body of Jesus with no mention of any such thing.
Apparently you don't understand the term 'interpolation.' Interpolation has nothing to do with coming up with unique interpretations of scripture it has to do with inserting words into the text itself, which is what I was objecting to. I've already responded to the unlikelihood of that. Unlike with the Bab, there was no real reason to do that as Jesus' corpse was not being subjected to the same indignities as far as we know.

Quote:
Do you think so as well? If not what DID happen to the body of Jesus?
Can't say. We don't have any outside sources to confirm that the tomb was even empty. However, nearly all scholars agree that 1 Corinthians is the oldest account of anyone who actually saw the resurrected Christ. And my reading of the text is that what he saw wasn't all that physical.

Quote:
But these new bodies are of a new spiritual quality and of a physical substance.
Sorry, but 1 Corinthians explicitly says they will be of a spiritual substance.

Quote:
I still believe my point stands. Resurrection is not the same as a ghost sighting or whatever you want to call Christ’s appearances. It would be deceitful to use the term resurrection instead of ghost/spirit if that is truly what he meant. Christ said he was not a spirit.
I don't consider the Resurrection appearances to be that of a ghost. Most of the sources indicate the appearance of a Being of Light.

Quote:
Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Yes, by the time you get to Luke's gospel, as I think I indicated, the resurrection has come to be seen as very physical. This appears to be in reaction to the growing threat of the gnostic Christianity.The ascension also appears in Luke's Gospel, apparently to control all of these resurrection appearances. Of course, that raises the question of what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus since he sees the resurrected Christ.


Quote:
A ghost IS DEAD.
I never said it was a ghost. You are the one equating the spiritual body with a ghost.

Quote:
“I'm not sure how this is relevant to our discussion.”

I think it’s relevant because you want to talk about what’s needed for the world now. I take this to mean you want to compare Baha’i writings to the Bible and say something like, “See how much better this fits for today!” It’s not going to get that far with me (as Joseph Smith doesn’t get far with you) because you don’t consider all his words divinely inspired however nice and true some of them are.
Joseph Smith's words don't get far with me because I don't consider patriarchy, race prejudice and polytheism as meeting the needs of our present age.
 
Old 01-02-2013, 09:12 AM   #283
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
If you wish to respond to the previous points by all means do so. But please do not skip these below.
Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose which verses to compare with one another for the sole purpose of making the Qur'an look bad in comparison with the Bible. Do you really want me to bring out the verses where God calls for the genocide of women and children in the Bible? How about the one where a bunch of kids tease Elisha about his bald head and he curses them so a couple of bears come out and tear up 42 of them?

I'm not going to play this game.

Quote:
Here is an explanation I found for these verses:
So now we are going to see how many bad Muslim commentaries we can find and refute? Do you really think I can't do the same for Christianity? To what end?

Quote:
An independent analysis completed by Wilder Research has demonstrated MnTC’s effectiveness using a broad range of measures.[5]
In their study of 154 former residents who graduated between 2007 and 2009:
• 74 percent of adult program graduates reported no use in the previous six months
• 58 percent had attended school since graduating
• 77 percent were either working 30+ hours a week or were a full-time student
• 80+ percent rated the overall quality of MnTC as “outstanding” or “very good.”
Wonderful. And how does this compare to the secular treatment programs analyzed by this same firm?
 
Old 01-02-2013, 04:05 PM   #284
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@smaneck

“It's more than that. The Qur'an as revealed and heard in Arabic moves hearts the way no other text could.”

Not enough to gain the respect of the mocking poets among others it seems… Oh well. Seeing as how neither of us speaks/reads Arabic I think this is as far as this point goes right now.

“There was nothing beautiful about the way Hitler spoke.”

You and I don’t think so. But there are/were many who did. While not beautiful content to say the least I will admit the man was a powerful speaker.

“Only those who have a particular animosity towards Islam. I learned Arabic largely from Christian Arabs, all of whom attested to the literary perfection of the Qur'an.”

No…. not really, sorry. When I have time (if you’re interested and allow) I could find such persons/references if you like. But I don’t want to post hate links…. (from your point of view)

“Of course, He is including it. Apparently you paid no attention to my statement that the message and the medium of the Qur'an are inseparable.”

You seemed to be focusing much more on it’s beauty. Glad that’s cleared up.

“Do you really think that the people the Qur'an relates these stories to were hearing them for the first time? The reason that the Qur'an sometimes only tells half the story is because its audience already knows the other half! When you have an oral culture, things are remembered orally.”

I don’t know what if any of the NT scripture was passed down orally. Muhammad changes some significant points in his retelling of Biblical stories (like Ishmael being offered instead of Isaac) so who knows what 1Cor13 contained when recited orally if at all.

“No, that is a belief that emerges much later, after the Arab Invasions”

Seeing as how the Qur’an and Bible tell stories that contradict the other it’s a logical assumption that there was at least some mistrust there.

“And Jesus could have said it too, but He didn't.”

He did through Paul.

“Sorry, I asked for a source from the Pharisees themselves, not wiki.”

Alright Susan…. If/when I have the time I’ll see what I can find and post it in the resurrection thread most likely. I never meant for this side issue to go on so long. My mistake, I thought this would be enough for you. The resurrection issue is very important to me but I don’t want to detour from the focus of this thread more than I need to. But are you telling me that you want to see the word “literal” itself in the text or would it be enough that they describe a literal resurrection? If it’s the former I don’t know if I’ll bother. To my knowledge “literal” (even in a Hebrew equivalent) was not used much or at all during that time.

“Sorry, but 1 Corinthians explicitly says they will be of a spiritual substance.”

I think it can be both. Jesus ate fish.

“Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose which verses to compare with one another for the sole purpose of making the Qur'an look bad in comparison with the Bible. Do you really want me to bring out the verses where God calls for the genocide of women and children in the Bible? How about the one where a bunch of kids tease Elisha about his bald head and he curses them so a couple of bears come out and tear up 42 of them?

I'm not going to play this game.”

“So now we are going to see how many bad Muslim commentaries we can find and refute? Do you really think I can't do the same for Christianity? To what end?”

Well that’s what you, your fellow Bahai’is and Muslims are here for right? This is a debate of sorts and a debate needs at least two sides. By all means bring a GOOD Islamic and/or Bahai’i commentary that you think explains it best. I did research a number of explanations (none sounded any more convincing than that one to me). If I’d found one that I though “good” I would have posted it and tried to go from there. You can bring up the OT passages if you like but keep in mind the question is: Is Islam more progressive than CHRISTIANITY (not Judaism). Yes the God of the OT is the same God of the NT, but the Bible says it’s a “better” covenant numerous times. Additionally not loving such and such sinners is broad and long lasting. The individuals/nations God dealt harshly with are just that, INDIVIDUALS/ancient nations about whom we will not know the entire story and background in this life. The God of the Qur’an takes wide strokes in whom he does not love. Can you provide any such strokes from the OT or NT? Besides, the fact that God did act/command harshly (from our point of view) is not the same as saying he didn’t love them. The God of the Bible loves us even though He allows/orchestrates and enacts difficult things upon us. I believe God loved Ananias and Saphira. They made a mistake and suffered the consequence of death, but He stilled loved them.

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God appointed many Christians to suffer and die too. I don’t completely understand why such terrible things happened to these men, women and children(non-believers included). There are many things to say about it. One of the most important is that sin is more toxic than we realize, for those people then and even for us now. If sin wasn’t as terrible and contaminating as it is then perhaps Christ would not have needed to suffer and die to undo it (completely one day).


Volume 1, Book 8, Number 466:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "The prayer offered in
congregation is twenty five times more superior
(in reward) to the prayer offered alone in one's
house or in a business center, because if one
performs ablution and does it perfectly, and then
proceeds to the mosque with the sole intention of
praying, then for each step which he takes
towards the mosque, Allah upgrades him a
degree in reward and (forgives) crosses out one
sin till he enters the mosque. When he enters the
mosque he is considered in prayer as long as he
is waiting for the prayer and the angels keep on
asking for Allah's forgiveness for him and they
keep on saying: 'O Allah! Be Merciful to him, O
Allah! Forgive him, as long as he keeps on sitting
at his praying place and does not pass wind.
(See Hadith No. 620).

3:31 Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

4:17 Forgiveness is only incumbent on Allah toward those who do evil in ignorance (and) then turn quickly (in repentance) to Allah. These are they toward whom Allah relenteth. Allah is ever Knower, Wise. 18 The forgiveness is not for those who do ill-deeds until, when death attendeth upon one of them, he saith: Lo! I repent now; nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers. For such We have prepared a painful doom.

(Christianity mentions no such stipulation as long as it’s genuine. The fear of death motivates many to get right with God. Notice the Qur’an says “nor yet for those who die while they are disbelievers.” This means the a fore mentioned people DO believe but they might have too many serious sins and not enough good works it seems.)

4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.

(Conflicts with the Baha’i notion of the afterlife doesn’t it? Not only are the people miserable but Allah (by some means) wants them to suffer more.)

3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).

3:57 And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.

4:137 Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way.

4:168 Lo! those who disbelieve and deal in wrong, Allah will never forgive them, neither will He guide them unto a road, 169 Except the road of hell, wherein they will abide for ever. And that is ever easy for Allah.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

3:25 How (will it be with them) when We have brought them all together to a Day of which there is no doubt, when every soul will be paid in full what it hath earned, and they will not be wronged.

11:114 Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill-deeds. This is reminder for the mindful.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


Extra:

5:68 Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk.

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:


This is the wind down for me. I'll go a bit more with what I've presented and responses but I am due for a break. Thanks to everyone who participated, I may not get back to you right away, could be a while.

Last edited by Some Further Questions; 01-02-2013 at 06:06 PM.
 
Old 01-02-2013, 11:04 PM   #285
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
The argument that the quran is this perfectly written text and therefore means its inspired is entirely subjective and impossible to prove by any objective method. How does one measure beauty on an precise scale? I hear the quran recited and feel nothing, this is due to me not being a muslim, there may be certain parts in the reciting I think that sound nice but it is all due to to personal opinion.

I for one find the divine liturgy far more beutiful than anything in the quran, specifically the great doxology before the liturgy. Bahais and muslims will probably remain unmoved concerning it and will probably find its content objectionable or repulsive.

Bottomline to argue something is written or given perfectly is a bad argument and any work can be criticised and the quran is no exception, especially in modern academia. Hopefully the quran will be subject to the same criticism as the bible although this is less prominent for obvious reasons (Ie professors don't want their heads cut off).
 
Old 01-03-2013, 08:42 AM   #286
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
SFQ wrote:

I don’t know what if any of the NT scripture was passed down orally. ....

My comment:

It's pretty clear to most scholars today that oral transmission conveyed the Gospels in the beginning..

However Thomas R. Yoder Neufeld adds that the early followers of Jesus were not interested in simply preserving the past but were also interested in fitting the narratives to suit urgent information, audience interest and creativity in communication and believed that they were in direct communication with Jesus though the Holy Spirit, thus making it still difficult for historians to assess the historical reliability of the oral tradition

Gospel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the "oral tradition" in the article..

and

Recognizing that, for the better part of a generation after his death, the gospel material circulated not in written form but by word of mouth, we begin with the basic insight of form criticism (Formgeschichte) that the sayings of Jesus or episodes in his life circulated as separate units, or pericopes. Only later would these units be collected into the literary sources from which the synoptic gospels were fashioned.

Sources: Oral Transmission


The Qur'an was revealed and repeated regularly and had Companions of the Prophet memorizing and repeating the revelations. So very soon the Qur'an was set to writing... The order of the Surahs may have varied but they were finally agreed upon.

There is also another point that is sometimes overlooked.. Imam Ali the fourth Caliph was also present from the beginning of the revelations of Qur'an and so accepted the Uthmanic order so there is very little chance in my view that any signiifcant alteration occurred.

'Move not thy tongue concerning the (Qur'an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it and promulgate it; but when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital'

- Qur'an 75: 16-19.

Baha'is don't however accept that the Gospels were corrupted as some Muslims have maintained..but rather that their interpretation was inaccurate.

Certain persons, incapable of answering the objections raised by their opponents, claim that the Torah and the Gospel have been corrupted, whereas in reality the references to such corruption pertain only to specific cases.

~ Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts

iconodule wrote:

The argument that the quran is this perfectly written text and therefore means its inspired is entirely subjective and impossible to prove by any objective method. How does one measure beauty on an precise scale? I hear the quran recited and feel nothing, this is due to me not being a muslim, there may be certain parts in the reciting I think that sound nice but it is all due to to personal opinion.

My comment:

The argument would be that the Qur'an is an accurate representation of what was revealed as it was recited from the beginning and set to writting early on as opposed to the developement of the Gospels even though we Baha'is would accept that the Gospel essentially was preserved it had inaccuracies.

Last edited by arthra; 01-03-2013 at 08:48 AM.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 12:50 AM   #287
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
The problem with that is that even the quran has textual variants. Don't act as if the quran is perfectly preserved, this muslim myth is ludicrous. Scholars today are confident we can reconstruct the new testament from the thousands of manuscripts that we have from different places, times and evnets. Unlike your quran which has been controlled and edited at one point (uthman did collect and edit and burn certain fragments of the quran and this is teh quran you have received, Not to forget the other surahs which have long since been lost but have precedence in the hdaiths which you no doubt will just deny out of hand without any reason whatsoever, while accepting certain hadiths your prophet who was no historian, deemed accurate), the new testament was never at any point controlled by a single entity, rather many different churches held on to these documents as evidenced by the wide spread of them throughout the roman empire in the second century thus through this we can compare and contrast them with another. This is why we have a Nestle Aland text of the new testament by the finest scholars who are able and still working on giving us the most accurate picture of the new testament. Unlike the quran where if you criticise it or imply its been changed you can have your head cut off.

But as for the gospels not containing history, thats debatable. Certaintly the gospel authors had points to prove and points to make. But thats not to suggest they were all made up, Luke had his sources and they correspond with the other gospels and we have the apostolic communities which the apostles themselves actually established agreeing with Christians today against Bahai. Saint Ignatius a desciple of John along with Polycarp would look at the bahai with horror.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 12:58 AM   #288
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

Just so it cannot be accused of me making up this story. It is found in the hadith collections.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 03:25 PM   #289
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
So iconodule you accept certain Hadiths and they teach this in the catechumen class?

It is with Imam Ali ibn abi Talib that the Qur'an rested:

Imam Ali (A.S.) said, "Ask me (anything) about the Book of Allah. By Allah! There is not a single verse which was revealed during night or day, during travel or at home, but the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) read it to me and taught me its meanings..." (Aamaali of Shaykh al-Toosi)

He (A.S.) also said, "If authority is given to me and I have to act as a judge, I will judge the followers of Tawrat from Tawrat, the followers of Injeel from Injeel, the followers of Zaboor from Zaboor and followers of Furqaan (Quran) from Furqaan. By Allah! There is not a single verse which has been revealed during night or day, in the field or in the mountains but that, I possess its knowledge as to where it was revealed and for whom it was revealed".

(Quran-o- 'Itrat)
 
Old 01-04-2013, 08:20 PM   #290
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
The argument that the quran is this perfectly written text and therefore means its inspired is entirely subjective and impossible to prove by any objective method. How does one measure beauty on an precise scale? I hear the quran recited and feel nothing, this is due to me not being a muslim, there may be certain parts in the reciting I think that sound nice but it is all due to to personal opinion.
Gee, that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you don't know Arabic?
 
Old 01-04-2013, 08:28 PM   #291
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
The problem with that is that even the quran has textual variants.
Which are of an extremely minor nature.

Quote:
Scholars today are confident we can reconstruct the new testament from the thousands of manuscripts that we have from different places, times and evnets.
We have a pretty good idea of what passages were added later, if that's what you mean. But those verses have still not been removed from the canon.

Quote:
Unlike your quran which has been controlled and edited at one point (uthman did collect and edit and burn certain fragments of the quran and this is teh quran you have received,
Which means the Qur'an is canonized within a generation of the Prophet's passing while those who were his companions could determine what was the correct text, unlike Christianity which took more than four hundred years to come up with a canon.

Quote:
Not to forget the other surahs which have long since been lost
You aren't talking about that bogus hadith which states that the ayah calling for the stoning of adulterers got eaten by a goat, are you?
There never was such an ayah. The only place where Muhammad endorsed the stoning of adulterers was in connection with the Jewish Torah.

Quote:
Unlike the quran where if you criticise it or imply its been changed you can have your head cut off.
Evidence please.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 08:30 PM   #292
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
If this, or something similar had happened with the New Testament during the Apostles lifetime, the NT would certainly have more credibility historically speaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

Just so it cannot be accused of me making up this story. It is found in the hadith collections.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 11:08 PM   #293
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
As I said before Arthra, Catechumens don’t concern themselves with the history of false prophets. This is personal study arthra, and your not so subtle attempt to insult is appreciated but represents a lack of knowledge on your behalf.

Now, the problem with saying the quran is perfectly preserved is in the history itself, we have no reason to deny this recension account of the quran which is traditionally accepted by most. That is uthman gathered what fragments he could and burned others, this is not a hard concept to accept.
Now as for some specific quranic variations in the text I am actually willing to agree the quran we have received for the most part is accurate to the original, this is not hard for me. The problem is with muslims who will claim that the quran is perfectly preserved and to demonstrate thtis point we can look at modern Qurans and Samuel Green here:
The Different Arabic Versions of the Qur'an - part 2: Are all Qur'ans the same?
Does an excellent job at showing the textual variants which exist in the quranic manuscripts.

Now as for certain verses which have not been removed from the bible, they don’t need to be. They don’t need to be. We have the early manuscripts of the bible and unlike muslims and bahai are honest when it comes to the textual integrity of the bible.
Now, in terms of the canon for Christianity and Islam. We need to realise that not all of the original surahs are actually contained within the quran, there were many traditions of surahs not being included in the quran, the breast feeding surah for instance which was eaten by a goat or the satanic verses, and not all the companions of Muhammad agreed with the uthmanic recension of the quran. There were disputes of what exactly constituted the quran as this verse from the hadith shows.

By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira'at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying 'My reading is superior to your reading'. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, 'What is your view (on this)?' He answered, 'My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement'. We replied, 'What a wonderful idea!' Someone from the gathering there asked, 'Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?' They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa'id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate'. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).

The fact that there were those saying their reading of the quran was superior shows a dispute. And they were often reliant on the memory of those who heard and they needed certain people to give an accurate speech of the quran. Zaid had to recall certain parts of the quran.

Zaid said 'I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: "From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah" (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138).

So one cannot act as if this were only minor in the case of islam. Had these codices and writings survived instead of being destroyed we could be more confident in the quran but instead we are reliant on the history which is honest in of itself as to the nature of the quran. That it was not a perfect document from the beginning.

But as for Islamic intolerance towards those who insult the prophet or the quran do I really have to say anything more? Ive been trying to find a specific article that I read a while back of a professor in an Islamic country who was killed by his students for daring to suggest the quran has changed but amongst the myriad of stories of Christian churches being destroyed, Muslims killing each other, Islamic terrorists and political correctness I simply couldn’t find it. Sorry.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 11:10 PM   #294
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: NZ
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
If this, or something similar had happened with the New Testament during the Apostles lifetime, the NT would certainly have more credibility historically speaking.
Um no it wouldn't. It is precisely because we have all of these variants that we can determine when certain variants were introduced and when others were not. For most part textual Criticism on the quran has just begun and even now we know their are variants, some meaningful most probably not. But this islamic and now probably bahai myth the quran has been perfectly preserved cannot be believed in. To do so is to believe a lie, which I think alot of bahai are comfortable with.
 
Old 01-05-2013, 10:53 AM   #295
Senior Member
 
arthra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
From: California
Posts: 4,303
iconodule..

All you're doing is copy pasting from other sites like truth.net and answering islam..which are biased. You're not even giving correct attribution to your quotes.
 
Old 01-05-2013, 04:40 PM   #296
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthra View Post
iconodule..

All you're doing is copy pasting from other sites like truth.net and answering islam..which are biased. You're not even giving correct attribution to your quotes.
You can't talk about other religions with him. Especially Islam. It bothers him that while the Muslim world was the most advanced Christian Europe was sending children on crusades only to return mangled and defeated. All the while Zheng He was navigating the world on some of the largest and most powerful vessels known to man (spreading Islam peacefully all the while). Best to let him enjoy his fantasy.


P.S. Qur'an burning was and is to this day the approved method of getting rid of an old or no longer useful text of the Qur'an, it shouldn't be seen with any relation to the countless mass book burnings throughout Christian Europe.

How's that for bias?

Peace

-张

Last edited by Zhang; 01-05-2013 at 05:14 PM.
 
Old 01-05-2013, 06:08 PM   #297
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Ramon Llull's view of Sufi Muslims:

Quote:
"...The Muslims have various holy men called Sufis. They offer words of love and brief exempla that inspire a person to great devotion. Their words require exposition, and thanks to the exposition the intellect rises higher, which develops it and spurs the will to devotion..."

- Blessed Ramon Llull (1232 – ca. 1315), Catholic mystic, philosopher,
logician & Franciscan missionary
 
Old 01-06-2013, 07:52 AM   #298
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
As I said before Arthra, Catechumens don’t concern themselves with the history of false prophets.
Then why bother with all these hadiths?

Quote:
Now, the problem with saying the quran is perfectly preserved is in the history itself, we have no reason to deny this recension account of the quran which is traditionally accepted by most. That is uthman gathered what fragments he could and burned others, this is not a hard concept to accept.
He did not burn 'fragments'. What he burned were variant readings. These had more to do with differences in dialect than anything else.

Quote:
The problem is with muslims who will claim that the quran is perfectly preserved and to demonstrate thtis point we can look at modern Qurans
Then you don't have a problem with us because we are not claiming this. We consider the Qur'an to be wholly authentic because it comes directly from a Manifestation of God. Whether it has been perfectly preserved or not is another question. But it has certainly been better preserved than the original manuscripts of the New Testament.

And as I requested earlier do not post Islamophobic hate-sites like Answering-Islam here.

Quote:
Now as for certain verses which have not been removed from the bible, they don’t need to be. They don’t need to be. We have the early manuscripts of the bible and unlike muslims and bahai are honest when it comes to the textual integrity of the bible.
By that you mean there are lots of verses in the Gospels that are not found in the original manuscripts.

Quote:
We need to realise that not all of the original surahs are actually contained within the quran,
There is no real evidence for that.

Quote:
there were many traditions of surahs not being included in the quran, the breast feeding surah for instance which was eaten by a goat or the satanic verses,
All the hadiths regarding these things are considered 'weak' meaning they do not have a valid chain of transmission.

Quote:
and not all the companions of Muhammad agreed with the uthmanic recension of the quran. There were disputes of what exactly constituted the quran as this verse from the hadith shows.

By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira'at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying 'My reading is superior to your reading'. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, 'What is your view (on this)?' He answered, 'My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement'. We replied, 'What a wonderful idea!' Someone from the gathering there asked, 'Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?' They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa'id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate'. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).
Apparently you do not understand what this dispute is about. By the time we get to Uthman's caliphate most of the Companions are dead or dying. Dialectical differences are creeping into the Qur'an as it spreads beyond the Companions to those who did speak the Quraysh dialect. The dispute is not about content, it is about pronunciation. Uthman is concerned that the Qur'an be preserved in its original Qurayshi dialect.

Quote:
But as for Islamic intolerance towards those who insult the prophet or the quran do I really have to say anything more?
We weren't talking about those who insult the Prophet. That is an entirely different matter.

Quote:
Ive been trying to find a specific article that I read a while back of a professor in an Islamic country who was killed by his students for daring to suggest the quran has changed
Let us know when you find it.

Quote:
but amongst the myriad of stories of Christian churches being destroyed, Muslims killing each other, Islamic terrorists and political correctness I simply couldn’t find it. Sorry.
In other words you are getting this stuff from Islamophobic hate sites. We have already determined that.
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:01 AM   #299
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconodule View Post
Um no it wouldn't. It is precisely because we have all of these variants that we can determine when certain variants were introduced and when others were not.
Not for the first couple of centuries we can't.

Quote:
For most part textual Criticism on the quran has just begun
That much is true. But nearly all scholars agree that the Qur'an comes from a single source. It is probably much more important to apply the methods of textual criticism to the hadith.

Quote:
[ But this islamic and now probably bahai myth the quran has been perfectly preserved cannot be believed in. To do so is to believe a lie, which I think alot of bahai are comfortable with.
No, I don't think the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, but the errors are fairly minor in comparison to the NT. One thing I think was in error is the name of John the Baptist. When the Qur'an was revealed there were no dots distinguishing certainly letters. I believe that a misplaced dot caused Yohanna to be wrongly transcribed as Yahya.
But who cares?
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:02 AM   #300
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
Ramon Llull's view of Sufi Muslims:
Franciscans are so cool.
 
Old 01-06-2013, 10:03 AM   #301
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
I agree with Arthra that the Christian faith was as to its origins an explicitly oral one. Shoghi Effendi seemed to refer to this on a few occassions ie:

Quote:
"...There is certainly an element of truth at the basis of the organization of the Christian Church. For instance, the primacy of Peter and his right to succession after Jesus have been established by the latter, though only orally and not in an explicit and definite language..."

- (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, December 28, 1936, in Lights of Guidance, no. 542)
In a letter written on behalf of the Guardian:

Quote:
The Guardian agrees with you that the Bahá'ís should be very careful not to criticize or rather attack the Church. As we believe the Church of Rome to be the inheritor, so to speak, of Christ's teachings, the direct line , however perverted by men's doctrines, it certainly does not befit us to show antagonism towards it. We know it is out-dated. Tact is required!"

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, March 22, 1950)
I think, although Susan or Sen may correct me if wrong, that the "direct line" refers to the apostolic succession which maintained Jesus' unwritten teachings, partly written down later in scripture and the rest passed down, that the Church of Rome and other pre-Reformation apostolic churches have guarded for 2,000 years. It certainly doesn't refer to the instiution of the papacy, which is less sure in its foundations. The Vatican website even admits that Peter was first bishop of Antioch therefore tying the succession of the primacy not necessarily to Rome, although the Roman Church from an early date recognised their bishop as the sucessor of Peter in a special manner (ie second century) and Irenaeus refers to the exalted station of the Church of Rome early on:

Quote:
"...Since in this work it would take too long to list the successions of all the churches, we will consider the great and very ancient church known to all, the church founded and established in Rome by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul. By showing the tradition received from the apostles and the faith proclaimed to men, which comes to us through the succession of bishops, we refute all who in any way, whether from madness or vainglory or blindness and mistaken thought, gather together beyond what is right. In fact, it is with this church, by reason of her more excellent origin, that every church must necessarily be in agreement--with this Church in which the tradition that comes from the apostles has always been preserved by everyone..."

- Saint Irenaeus (130 – c. 202 CE) (Adv. Haer., 3, 2), church father

So from an early date the Bishop of Rome claimed Peter's authority for Himself, although many in the East saw it as a "primacy of honour" rather than the supremacy which slowly grew, and the Church of Rome collectively with all its episcopate was universally accorded a primacy.


It seems that Shoghi Effendi agreed with Irenaeus as to the unique station of the Church of Rome in preserving the apostolic tradition or "direct line" despite, as he saw it, corruptions in doctrine.


Saint Paul himself refers to the 'traditions' that were handed down, that is the apostolical teachings derived from Jesus through his annointed successors.

Quote:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore brothers, stand firm, hold fast to the traditions you have received from us either either by word or letter.
The Second Vatican Council ("Vatican II") wrote an important document called "On Divine Revelation" (Dei Verbum in Latin). It's quite readable, and contains definitive teaching on the full meaning of Sacred Tradition.

The Council notes the importance of seeing that Sacred Tradition is firmly rooted in the Apostles: it is Christ's whole gift to them, and to us. The Council writes:

Quote:
In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion..., commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts.
(Dei Verbum, 7)
It is specifically this "commissioning of the Apostles" that is fulfilled in the handing on of Sacred Tradition.

The Apostles dedicated themselves to this mission, and they appointed other faithful men to succeed them and carry on their work. That same passage of Dei Verbum continues:

Quote:
This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.
(Dei Verbum, 7)

To see Sacred Tradition in action, lets take the teaching that direct abortion is a moral evil and cannot be condoned by Christians. This is stated nowhere in the Bible but Christ and Apostles clearly taught it.


This Sacred Tradition is attested as far back as the first century documents the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabus, written before the close of the Apostolic age:


The Didache


Quote:
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

Quote:
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

Now lets trace this Sacred Tradition about a century later, the Apostolic Age has closed but this Sacred revealed tradition is still being attested to by Church authorities as universal Christian belief from Jesus and the Apostles:


Tertullian

Quote:
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
And 200 years after this:


The Apostolic Constitutions

Quote:
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . if it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

And now just over 20 years ago in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Modern Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quote:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life,


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes..."

That abortion is immoral for Christians is thus (undisputably) Divine Revelation since it is a genuine Sacred Tradition that has always and universally been taught by the Church.

But its not at all biblical, not in any clear way.

Last edited by Yeshua; 01-06-2013 at 10:14 AM.
 
Old 01-06-2013, 01:23 PM   #302
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
I think, although Susan or Sen may correct me if wrong, that the "direct line" refers to the apostolic succession which maintained Jesus' unwritten teachings,
Dear Yeshua,

I would agree that the Guardian appears to be acknowledging the principle of Apostolic Succession as being in some ways analogous to our own Lesser Covenant.

warmest, Susan
 
Old 01-06-2013, 01:34 PM   #303
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
That abortion is immoral for Christians is thus (undisputably) Divine Revelation since it is a genuine Sacred Tradition that has always and universally been taught by the Church.
Actually there were two views in the early medieval church. One view held that the soul is formed at conception, another view held that the soul entered the body when it was 'quickened' in the womb. In other words, you could feel it move which generally happens after the first trimester. The view that the soul is formed at conception won out largely due to the Crusades against the Cathars which was a supposedly manichean-type heresy which held that the physical world was bad, and therefore giving birth should be avoided because it trapped spirits in bodies. Therefore abortion and even infanticide were thought to be good things. Because of this, the Catholic Church began to take a much harder line on abortion.

Incidentally, Baha'is do believe that the human soul is formed at conception.
 
Old 01-06-2013, 01:39 PM   #304
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Actually there were two views in the early medieval church. One view held that the soul is formed at conception, another view held that the soul entered the body when it was 'quickened' in the womb. In other words, you could feel it move which generally happens after the first trimester. The view that the soul is formed at conception won out largely due to the Crusades against the Cathars which was a supposedly manichean-type heresy which held that the physical world was bad, and therefore giving birth should be avoided because it trapped spirits in bodies. Therefore abortion and even infanticide were thought to be good things. Because of this, the Catholic Church began to take a much harder line on abortion.

Incidentally, Baha'is do believe that the human soul is formed at conception.
You are absolutely correct I had read that Thomas Aquinas, for example, did not regard the soul as being incarnate at the moment of conception but rather as you say when one felt the child move.

Nevertheless both views I am sure regarded themselves as being faithful to this tradition against killing a newborn human life in the womb, they simply disagreed over when ensouled life "began" ie at conception or soon after. I think - if I recall correctly - that Islam also teaches that a period of some days elapses until the soul is given to the new formed foetus in the womb? I recall reading that somewhere.

Naturally as you say the church took the view that ensouled life began at the moment of conception, that is the stricter view at play in the Middle Ages.

However Aquinas also said abortion is a violation of natural law and is always wrong, no matter when a soul may be infused into the developing child's body or not, it is only that it would be a grave sin but not "murder" in his view, of a person. Ie:

Quote:
The view of early Christians on the moment of ensoulment is also said to have been not the Aristotelian, but the Pythagorean:


As early as the time of Tertullian in the third century, Christianity had absorbed the Pythagorean Greek view that the soul was infused at the moment of conception. Though this view was confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa a century later, it would not be long before it would be rejected in favour of the Septuagintal notion that only a formed fetus possessed a human soul. While Augustine speculated whether "animation" might be present prior to formation, he determined that abortion could only be defined as homicide once formation had occurred. Nevertheless, in common with all early Christian thought, Augustine condemned abortion from conception onward[24]:40

Through the Latin translations of Averroes's (1126–1198) work beginning in the 12th century the legacy of Aristotle was recovered in the West - Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) adapted to his view,[1][3][26][27][28] and because they believed that the early embryo did not have a human soul, they did not necessarily see early abortion as murder, though they condemned abortion...

Even when the prevailing scientific theory considered that early abortion was the killing of what was not yet a human being, the condemnation of abortion at any stage was sometimes expressed in the form of making it equivalent to homicide. Accordingly, the article on abortion in the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapæ, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life.[42]
So abortion was always condemned as a great sin and this was derived from the apostolic tradition I have mentioned, its just that how one interpreted that teaching through the greek philosophers differed depending on which one you used.

The evil of abortion was thus never up for discussion, since as Tertullian said the "fruit is in the seed" whether it is ensouled or not from conception, making it an intrinsically evil act, and as the church held equivalent to murder even if scientific theories of the time regarded the foetus as not yet "human" with a rational soul. On this point Aquinas' usage of Aristotle falls down, I think, since he gave to much credence to his scientigic speculation of "formation" in the womb for him to regard abortion as a grave moral evil but not "murder" before the supposed "ensoulement" at the first trimester.

Thankfully the church did rule that the earlier view propounded by the church in its first centuries prior to Aristotelian thought seeped in, that the foetus is ensouled from conception, was the correct one.

Last edited by Yeshua; 01-06-2013 at 02:02 PM.
 
Old 01-06-2013, 07:53 PM   #305
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeshua View Post
I think - if I recall correctly - that Islam also teaches that a period of some days elapses until the soul is given to the new formed foetus in the womb? I recall reading that somewhere.
For Shi'ite Muslims the soul is formed at conception. Among the four Sunni schools, three say the soul enters at conception while the fourth puts it after the first trimester. All schools allow at least some forms of birth control.

Quote:
The evil of abortion was thus never up for discussion, since as Tertullian said the "fruit is in the seed" whether it is ensouled or not from conception, making it an intrinsically evil act
Wouldn't that make masturbation a form of abortion?
 
Old 01-06-2013, 08:01 PM   #306
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
Brother/Sister smaneck, I think Yeshua is referring to the Hadith that states the fetus has no life until 120 days has passed, in which time an angel breathes a soul into it.

Quote:
“Each one of you is constituted in the womb of the mother for forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him…” (Sahih al-Bukhari no: 3036).
These are generally accepted Ahadith. It's a narration so take it as you will.

Peace,

-Zhang

Last edited by Zhang; 01-06-2013 at 08:14 PM.
 
Old 01-07-2013, 05:16 AM   #307
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhang View Post
Brother/Sister smaneck, I think Yeshua is referring to the Hadith that states the fetus has no life until 120 days has passed, in which time an angel breathes a soul into it.



These are generally accepted Ahadith. It's a narration so take it as you will.

Peace,

-Zhang

Yes Zhang that is it, thank you!

I had read this somewhere, I think in a book.
 
Old 01-07-2013, 05:21 AM   #308
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Wouldn't that make masturbation a form of abortion?
Quote:
"The future man is a man already: the whole fruit is present in the seed.” —Tertullian
He wasn't referring, as far as I am aware, to "semen" rather using the metaphor of a fruit seed to suggest that all the necessary ingredients of the latter apple, orange etc. is already there in its planted seed, simply waiting to grow.

I have not heard of anyone relating this to semen.

John Chrysostom opposed masturbation because the sexual act is only supposed to be experienced and consummated between two married human beings of opposite sex. That is, sex is an integral part of marriage, and marriage is, by divine institution, the joining of two persons, body and soul. Chrysostom: “Their intercourse accomplishes the joining of their bodies" in the view of many early Fathers.

It had nothing to do with “murdering” seeds, that is misunderstood associations with abortion.

If anything he is using the imagery of the fruit-seed and relating it to the foetus. This makes sense in the context which is about a conceived fetus and not sperm:

Quote:
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

Last edited by Yeshua; 01-07-2013 at 05:31 AM.
 
Old 01-07-2013, 08:38 AM   #309
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Sorry, but there was no Christianity while Jesus was alive. The church defined Christianity.
By Christianity I mean "The Revelation Of Jesus".
You may undesrtand "Christianity" as the culture or certain beliefs that exist today.

What I am saying is that, there was an original "Revelation" that came through Jesus. If the Christianity that exist today, is the same Revelation that Jesus intended, then we can say, it is the Original Christianity that Jesus intended.


Quote:
Source please.
"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." Quran 9:31


Tafseer Quran 9:31:

Shia Hadith:

Abu Basir asked Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.) the interpretation of the above verse (Surah Tawbah 9:31). Imam said, “Know that! By Allah they never did ask the people to worship them because if they had said so, the people would not have obeyed. But they asked them to consider prohibited things permissible for their sake and to consider the permissible things prohibited. Thus they worshipped them thoughtlessly.”

Qalbe Saleem, Immaculate Conscience


Another Tafseer (another Hadith):

In the book ‘Majmua Albayaan’ it is narrated that when this verse was revealed ....Then Adi ibne Hatim said O Rasool Allah (SW) we never used to worship them? Rasool (SW) replied, ‘’Didn’t they use to call anything as Halal or Haram, as per their wishes and you used to accept all their sayings”, then he said yes indeed this used to happen. Rasool (SW) replied “This is what Ibadat (worship) is.

Welcome to Akhbari.com

Question: since you have Christian background, are you aware of some of these things that the Hadith is saying "prohibited things permissible for their sake and to consider the permissible things prohibited"

To me, it means, the Christian Leaders, abrogated some Laws on their own, while placing new Laws on their own, and obviously Islam rebuked them.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 01:17 PM   #310
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
By Christianity I mean "The Revelation Of Jesus".
You may undesrtand "Christianity" as the culture or certain beliefs that exist today.
No, by Christianity I mean the community of faith that grew out of Jesus' Teachings.

Quote:
What I am saying is that, there was an original "Revelation" that came through Jesus.
No, doubt there was but all we know of it is what the church has preserved. I by 'church' I mean the Catholic/Orthodox church.

Quote:
If the Christianity that exist today, is the same Revelation that Jesus intended, then we can say, it is the Original Christianity that Jesus intended.
Again, Christianity is not a revelation, it is a community which claims to be centered around that revelation.

Quote:
Another Tafseer (another Hadith):
Tafseer are not hadiths. Tafseer are commentaries on the Qur'an while hadith are narrations of what the Prophet (or in some cases Imams and Companions) supposedly said or did.

Quote:
Question: since you have Christian background, are you aware of some of these things that the Hadith is saying "prohibited things permissible for their sake and to consider the permissible things prohibited"

To me, it means, the Christian Leaders, abrogated some Laws on their own, while placing new Laws on their own, and obviously Islam rebuked them.
Understand that I was raised a Protestant, a form of Christianity which did not exist during Muhammad's time so the remarks in the Qur'an or hadith would not be aimed at them. However I would expect that a part of what the these hadiths made be aimed at is the practice of celibacy. In Islam, as in Judaism, marriage was the ideal, not celibacy. In any case, Catholicism has a huge body of canon law which were promulgated by the institutional church.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 01:34 PM   #311
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by smaneck View Post
Tafseer are not hadiths. Tafseer are commentaries on the Qur'an while hadith are narrations of what the Prophet (or in some cases Imams and Companions) supposedly said or did.
Yes, that is true. in that particular case, the Hadith happens to be about how Muhammad and Imam Sadiq had interpreted (Tafseer) the verse of Quran.


Quote:
Understand that I was raised a Protestant, a form of Christianity which did not exist during Muhammad's time so the remarks in the Qur'an or hadith would not be aimed at them. However I would expect that a part of what the these hadiths made be aimed at is the practice of celibacy. In Islam, as in Judaism, marriage was the ideal, not celibacy. In any case, Catholicism has a huge body of canon law which were promulgated by the institutional church.
Ok, Here is at least another one I can quote from Abdulbaha:

"Now, consider: Christ frequently repeated that the Ten Commandments in the Pentateuch were to be followed, and He insisted that they should be maintained. Among the Ten Commandments is one which says: “Do not worship any picture or image.”* At present in some of the Christian churches many pictures and images exist. It is, therefore, clear and evident that the Religion of God does not maintain its original principles among the people, but that it has gradually changed and altered until it has been entirely destroyed and annihilated."

"Again, consider how much the principles of the religion of Christ have been forgotten, and how many heresies have appeared. For example, Christ forbade revenge and transgression; furthermore, He commanded benevolence and mercy in return for injury and evil. Now reflect: among the Christian nations themselves how many sanguinary wars have taken place, and how much oppression, cruelty, rapacity and bloodthirstiness have occurred! Many of these wars were carried on by command of the Popes. It is then clear and evident that in the passage of time religions become entirely changed and altered. Therefore, they are renewed."

Some Answered Questions, p.75
 
Old 01-08-2013, 04:46 PM   #312
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth View Post
"Now, consider: Christ frequently repeated that the Ten Commandments in the Pentateuch were to be followed, and He insisted that they should be maintained. Among the Ten Commandments is one which says: “Do not worship any picture or image.”* At present in some of the Christian churches many pictures and images exist. It is, therefore, clear and evident that the Religion of God does not maintain its original principles among the people, but that it has gradually changed and altered until it has been entirely destroyed and annihilated."

"Again, consider how much the principles of the religion of Christ have been forgotten, and how many heresies have appeared. For example, Christ forbade revenge and transgression; furthermore, He commanded benevolence and mercy in return for injury and evil. Now reflect: among the Christian nations themselves how many sanguinary wars have taken place, and how much oppression, cruelty, rapacity and bloodthirstiness have occurred! Many of these wars were carried on by command of the Popes. It is then clear and evident that in the passage of time religions become entirely changed and altered. Therefore, they are renewed."

Some Answered Questions, p.75

Dearest Investigate

What exactly does the above prove with regards to your primary arguement that Christians are bound by Torah laws that have not been explicitly abrogated during the life of Jesus?

It is merely a description of how Christianity has, in the course of its history, underwent moral/doctrinal corruption at the hands of flawed human beings not faithful to the spirit of Christ. It doesn't seem to be implying much more than this from my POV.

What Abdu'l-Baha says reminds me of the words of a certain high-profile Cardinal of the Catholic Church during the Renaissance, who spoke these powerful words (that I think are very in tune with the Baha'i Faith) in the opening speech of the Fifth Lateran Council:


Quote:
"...Men should be changed by religion, not religion by men..."

- Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo (1469-1532), Italian Augustinian friar, reforming theologian, humanist, Catholic mystic & poet

This was in 1512, just before the Protestant Reformation swept Catholic Europe. Cardinal Egidio was trying to rally his fellow bishops to reform the church. Had he been heeded properly, perhaps the Catholic counter-reformation would have occured a generation earlier.


The Catholic Church itself wouldn't disagree with the sentiment expressed by Abdu'l-Baha:


Quote:
"...Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it..."

- DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (Vatican II Declaration), 1965

As the church itself admits, flawed human beings made errors of judgement not in accord with the spirit of Christ, even though the "doctrine received from the Master and the apostles" was still "kept safe" by the church despite these corrupt men not acting in accord with Christ. Compare Shoghi Effendi whom I quoted earlier (or at least a letter written on his behalf after consulting him):


Quote:
we believe the Church of Rome to be the inheritor, so to speak, of Christ's teachings, the direct line , however perverted by men's doctrines

Likewise in the Vatican II document "Unitatis Redintegratio" promulgated in 1965 we read:


Quote:
"...The primary duty [of Catholics] is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection(24) and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed...

Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity.

Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated-to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself-these can and should be set right at the opportune moment...."

- Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican II Decree), 1965

That quotation from SAQ suggests nothing at all to do with an alleged validity of the Torah post-Jesus and therefore I fail to see the utility of quoting it vis-a-vis that particular discussion. ?????

Last edited by Yeshua; 01-08-2013 at 05:22 PM.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 06:31 PM   #313
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@arthra

Good to see you arthra! I think once again we’ve unfortunately had a misunderstanding…

(Susan and SFQ previous posts)

Smaneck: “Do you really think that the people the Qur'an relates these stories to were hearing them for the first time? The reason that the Qur'an sometimes only tells half the story is because its audience already knows the other half! When you have an oral culture, things are remembered orally.”

SFQ: I don’t know what if any of the NT scripture was passed down orally. Muhammad changes some significant points in his retelling of Biblical stories (like Ishmael being offered instead of Isaac) so who knows what 1Cor13 contained when recited orally if at all.

I understand and agree that many NT writings were passed down orally as well as being written. What I was getting at was the fact that it seemed unclear what if any of THIS oral tradition (the Christian originals vs altered ones) circulated among the pagan and Muslim Arabs. Was 1 Corinthians passed down orally to them? Not as far as I know, if anyone can point to some evidence I’d consider it.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 06:43 PM   #314
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@everyone

Glad to see some familiar faces (but new ones are welcome!) Any takers on the comparison of how the Bible describes God’s love of sinners and the Qur’an’s? Do you consider works and faith (Qur'an) superior / more progressive than faith and grace (Bible)?

Zhang I'd particularly like to hear your thoughts. Being a Muslim I suspect you've come across this before. I spoke with a Muslim friend the other day who can read Arabic and he essentially said that it said what it said (not lost in translation). I asked if there was some other verse that shed more light or something of that nature, he didn't know of any. He said that God wasn't obligated to love us and I agree. I believe the NT when it says He did love me even while I was a sinner and didn't trust in Christ. Susan said "
I'm not going to play this game."

I think it's worth finding out whether Allah loves the sinner who has not repented like Christ and Adonai did/do.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 08:26 PM   #315
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
SFQ: I don’t know what if any of the NT scripture was passed down orally.
It isn't so much the scriptures that were carried down orally, it was the stories. Many of the stories about Christ in the Qur'an can be found in the non-canonical gospels. Likewise a lot of the stories related about Old Testament figures are to be found in the Midrash.

But I wasn't thinking so much of that. Muslims are going to come into intense contact with Christian communities soon enough and at that time they will have access to the entire NT canon. The Qur'an doesn't need to repeat everything in it. As I stated before, Jesus didn't bother to say the things Paul says in Corinthians either.

Last edited by smaneck; 01-08-2013 at 08:29 PM.
 
Old 01-08-2013, 08:31 PM   #316
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Jackson, MS
Posts: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions View Post
Susan said "
I'm not going to play this game."
The game I was talking about is when you post your favorite verse in the NT and then the most negative one you can think of in the Qur'an. I can certainly play the same game with the Bible if you wish, but I don't want to.
 
Old 01-09-2013, 12:21 PM   #317
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
SFQ, thank you very much for your question

You ask whether Allah in the Qur'an ever makes mention of forgiving the sinner and/or loving his creation. A few verses pop into my mind...

Forgiveness:

Quote:
5:39 But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms, indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

6:119 But verily thy Lord,- to those who do wrong in ignorance, but who thereafter repent and make amends,- thy Lord, after all this, is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

24:22 ...let them forgive and overlook, do you not wish that Allah should forgive you? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Love:

Quote:
3:134 Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men;- for Allah loves those who do good;-

5:13 ...but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

2:195 And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.
There are dozens more that are very similar to these.

I am always happy to answer any specific questions!

Peace

-张
 
Old 01-09-2013, 03:57 PM   #318
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Zhang

Thanks for your reply my friend. I am still unclear about whether Allah’s love for his creation is lost and/or suspended (something) while a person has sinned without repenting. It seems fairly straight forward but I admit that certain verses in the Bible can seem straight forward when there are other verses to take into account.

Does it make a difference whether the sinner is a Muslim? Is God’s love lost for that period?

Does God not love me because I don’t accept Muhammad as His prophet?

3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).

(This one seems pretty broad, is there more to it?)

3:57 And as for those who believe and do good works, He will pay them their wages in full. Allah loveth not wrong-doers.
 
Old 01-09-2013, 04:31 PM   #319
Senior Member
 
Zhang's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
From: USA
Posts: 297
Good questions, i'll try to back them up with textual evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions
I am still unclear about whether Allah’s love for his creation is lost and/or suspended (something) while a person has sinned without repenting.
I think only Allah truly knows whether or not a person is truly repenting for his or her actions. I think a popular example is someone who commits a crime and then promptly asks for forgiveness. Truthfully I have no idea if they are forgiven in this situation because only Allah knows what is in his or her heart. And in this respect I think it is safe to say no one is sure. What I can say is that the God of the Qur'an is very merciful but, like the quotes you provided, he does not let evil go unpunished and ultimately only He can judge each person by his or her actions.

By the way when I say "He" I hope you are taking it as more of an "it" statement. Allah is gender neutral but English has no equivalent tense for gender neutral pronouns so "He" will have to suffice.

If you look two verses above your verse quote we see:

Quote:
3:30 The Day every soul will find what it has done of good present [before it] and what it has done of evil, it will wish that between itself and that [evil] was a great distance. And Allah warns you of Himself, and Allah is Kind to [His] servants.
So it's almost like a scale and when it's all said and done you had better hope that your scale is crashing down on the side of "goodness".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Further Questions
Does it make a difference whether the sinner is a Muslim? Is God’s love lost for that period?

Does God not love me because I don’t accept Muhammad as His prophet?
I think these two questions are best summed up with:

Quote:
2:62 Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.
Essentially the idea is that all the prophets are teaching the same thing, and that when you follow one of them you follow them all. And by sticking to your good deeds then you honor those prophets who came before.

Again, the Qur'an paints a picture of a god who abhors evil and rewards good. But this is not a straight jacket, each surah starts by saying "In the name of God, the most Gracious, most Compassionate" which is a reminder that he is always forgiving the sincere of heart.

Looking forward to your response,

-Zhang

Last edited by Zhang; 01-09-2013 at 04:34 PM.
 
Old 01-10-2013, 03:30 PM   #320
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Missouri
Posts: 228
@Zhang

Thanks for being so easy to talk to. If I begin to be needlessly offensive let me know (I am still growing there).

“I think only Allah truly knows whether or not a person is truly repenting for his or her actions. I think a popular example is someone who commits a crime and then promptly asks for forgiveness. Truthfully I have no idea if they are forgiven in this situation because only Allah knows what is in his or her heart.”

I agree there, it’s difficult to impossible for us to know for certain whether someone is truly repentant. But since God (perhaps even the angels) know for certain if “Bob Jones” is truly repentant (let’s say Bob is not) does God cease to love Bob until he repents? Or do we need to flesh Bob out more to say?


3:32 Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance).

You supplied:

2:62 Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

At first I thought “perhaps ‘dibelievers’ means idolaters and other types.” But coming across the ayah below….

5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.73 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve

Does this mean that 2:62 only applies to Christians that don’t believe in the Trinity? If so I guess Yeshua and I are sunk (tease, tease ). Are we then classified as disbelievers for the doctrine of the Trinity?

I guess I keep coming back to the sinners who do such and such sin without repenting (perhaps they have little to no belief in God at all), does God cease to love them until they repent according to the Qur'an?

I think I understand what you’re saying with 3:30, there’s going to be a Day of Judgment where we will be judged according to our deeds good and bad. (Of course there are some big differences in my belief!) But it doesn’t answer (to me) whether God loves such and such sinner in the mean time.
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Interfaith

Tags
christianity, islam, progressive



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2018 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.