|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 19, 2019 18:29:02 GMT
So, I've started reading the Quran and the first Surah states: * Not a direct copy of the translation from my English version of the Quran, but a copy/paste from an online version found here: Surah 1. The OpeningSo, it seems that this opening Surah makes it clear that God is: - Most Gracious
- Most Merciful
And, in addition to all that, he can show us the straight way, which presumably is the way to heaven and deeper communion with him. From the last verse, it appears that the 'straight way' can only be bestowed on those whose portion is not wrath. Now, right off the bat, this sounds pretty hippie-dippy-ish, and conflicts with the history of Islamic conquest in the middle ages (as perceived from a Western viewpoint), and the more recent history of Islamic fundamentalism and all the terrorism, oppression, and conflict that comes with it. One would assume that if Allah is supposed to be gracious and merciful and if his true follows lack wrath, then violence should be absent in Islam. That's a simplistic viewpoint, I know, but these foundations are laid out in the religion's most important text in the very opening chapters. Seems hard to ignore. Has anyone else read the Quran or studied Islam more thoroughly and would like to provide some more insight into these seeming contradiction between a merciful God whose follows lack wrath, and the extremist Islamic fundamentalist scene (for lack of a better word) that exists today? Any ideas as to if this contradiction has always been inherent in the faith, or if there was some turning point in history that brought about these actions. Thanks. What about the contradictions between the wrathful God of the OT and the hippy God of the NT?, hardly unique to one religion. There's only contradictions when people haven;t read it. God is plenty gracious and merciful in the OT and he promises to kill tons of people in the NT. Contradictions have always been largely made up contrivances to debate religious people who haven't bothered to read the Bible either.
|
|
|
Post by Zos on May 19, 2019 18:52:04 GMT
What about the contradictions between the wrathful God of the OT and the hippy God of the NT?, hardly unique to one religion. There's only contradictions when people haven;t read it. God is plenty gracious and merciful in the OT and he promises to kill tons of people in the NT. Contradictions have always been largely made up contrivances to debate religious people who haven't bothered to read the Bible either. I have read both the old and new and to say there isn't a direct shift in tone is nonsense. The 800 or so years between books and the need to build a religion were definite influences on the shift. Most religious books are full of contradictions, the gospels have them for instance as most people are aware. It's important to realise that there was a lot of cut and pasting from various sources to create those accounts as archeological discoveries in the last few hundred years have proven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
The Quran
May 19, 2019 19:12:14 GMT
via mobile
Zos likes this
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 19:12:14 GMT
There's only contradictions when people haven;t read it. God is plenty gracious and merciful in the OT and he promises to kill tons of people in the NT. Contradictions have always been largely made up contrivances to debate religious people who haven't bothered to read the Bible either. I have read both the old and new and to say there isn't a direct shift in tone is nonsense. The 800 or so years between books and the need to build a religion were definite influences on the shift. Most religious books are full of contradictions, the gospels have them for instance as most people are aware. It's important to realise that there was a lot of cut and pasting from various sources to create those accounts as archeological discoveries in the last few hundred years have proven. There is a huge shift between the OT and the NT. Jesus swept all the old covenant away, and gives us the new covenant... Love God, love each other. Do those two things and you are already close to Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on May 20, 2019 2:51:20 GMT
yougotastewgoinbaby Did you read a few chapters? How was your experience of reading the Quran and how would you contrast it with the Bible? Shamefully, I have not. I started reading Surah II, which is pretty damn long, then I got distracted. I'll get back to it soon, In Shah Allah.
|
|
gawaher
Freshman
@gawaher
Posts: 65
Likes: 16
|
Post by gawaher on May 20, 2019 21:02:52 GMT
I tend to sum up Islam from something I read online a while ago which is this... Most Christians (not all) believe that Jesus is God and worship him as part of the Trinity. But what did the New Testament writers say about worshipping Jesus. Did they view him as God, as someone whom we should worship? James Dunn is a leading Christian New Testament scholar who personally believes in the Trinity. His groundbreaking work fearlessly faces the historical questions about the Bible and 1st century Christianity.
His 151 page survey of the historical and textual evidence comes to the following conclusion in the final chapter: “The answer”. On page 147 he describes the danger in Christian worship,
“if it is defined too simply as worship of Jesus. For, if what has emerged in this inquiry is taken seriously, it soon becomes evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what may be called Jesus-olatry. That is, not simply the worship of Jesus, but worship that falls short of the worship due to the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I use the term ‘Jesus-olary’ as in an important sense parallel or even close to ‘idolatry’. As Israel’s prophets pointed out on several occasions, the calamity of idolatry is that the idol is in effect taken to be the god to be worshiped. So the idol substitutes for the god, takes the place of God. The worship due to God is absorbed by the idol. The danger of Jesus-olatry is similar: that Jesus has been substituted for God, has taken the place of the one creator God; Jesus is absorbing the worship due to God alone.”
On the penultimate page he concludes,
“No, by and large the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such.”
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 21, 2019 0:48:19 GMT
I tend to sum up Islam from something I read online a while ago which is this... Most Christians (not all) believe that Jesus is God and worship him as part of the Trinity. But what did the New Testament writers say about worshipping Jesus. Did they view him as God, as someone whom we should worship? James Dunn is a leading Christian New Testament scholar who personally believes in the Trinity. His groundbreaking work fearlessly faces the historical questions about the Bible and 1st century Christianity.
His 151 page survey of the historical and textual evidence comes to the following conclusion in the final chapter: “The answer”. On page 147 he describes the danger in Christian worship,
“if it is defined too simply as worship of Jesus. For, if what has emerged in this inquiry is taken seriously, it soon becomes evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what may be called Jesus-olatry. That is, not simply the worship of Jesus, but worship that falls short of the worship due to the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I use the term ‘Jesus-olary’ as in an important sense parallel or even close to ‘idolatry’. As Israel’s prophets pointed out on several occasions, the calamity of idolatry is that the idol is in effect taken to be the god to be worshiped. So the idol substitutes for the god, takes the place of God. The worship due to God is absorbed by the idol. The danger of Jesus-olatry is similar: that Jesus has been substituted for God, has taken the place of the one creator God; Jesus is absorbing the worship due to God alone.”
On the penultimate page he concludes,
“No, by and large the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such.”
Very interesting post. Even though I went to a 'Christian' school, I have never really understood the dichotomy between worshiping 'Jesus' AND 'God' as the one true God, let alone the whole Holy Trinity business. It is so illogical and the mental gymnastics required to even make it slightly plausible just doesn't do it for me. Mind you I am an agnostic atheists so don't take anything for 'gospel' which seems to be required in Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 23, 2019 20:02:02 GMT
This is just the same, by and large, as such claims as C S Lewis' words about JC, i.e. having to choose between a liar, lunatic, or Lord. The fact is that the transcendental claims of religions which often resemble each other, are uncheckable by their very nature, and so can be considered as equal in merit - despite the acrimonious and aggressive disagreements usually expressed by adherents while claiming theirs is the 'one true' one and therefore special. It may well be .. to them, of course. There is also no logical reason why a god should not chose to communicate through an unworthy vessel - a notion found in the Bible for instance. It also ought to be noted that Islam considers that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.
|
|
|
The Quran
May 24, 2019 22:36:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 24, 2019 22:36:02 GMT
I have read both the old and new and to say there isn't a direct shift in tone is nonsense. The 800 or so years between books and the need to build a religion were definite influences on the shift. Most religious books are full of contradictions, the gospels have them for instance as most people are aware. It's important to realise that there was a lot of cut and pasting from various sources to create those accounts as archeological discoveries in the last few hundred years have proven. There is a huge shift between the OT and the NT. Jesus swept all the old covenant away, and gives us the new covenant... Love God, love each other. Do those two things and you are already close to Heaven. I’m not disagreeing with what Jesus did beyond saying he fulfilled the old covenant. He did not do this by changing the tone of scripture. Nothing has changed regarding Gods purpose from Genesis to Revelation. People only make this statement based on the things they remember about each. They ignore or forget the centuries upon centuries of time God allowed people to do as they wished against his wishes in the OT and forgave some pretty bad lowlifes. They ignore or forget the absolute carnage Jesus and other NT writers describe that will happen to the wicked. Again I’m all ears the moment someone can explain the differences in tone because after reading them both it’s all pretty consistent.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2019 23:17:12 GMT
Again I’m all ears the moment someone can explain the differences in tone [between the OT and NT because after reading them both it’s all pretty consistent. From a secular VP, the reason is pretty clear: religious notions concerning the nature of god in the Jewish tradition evolved considerably over the lifetime of Judaism as a religion. The OT captures these changes up to a point - the point where the OT ceased being "added to". As one can see in such a discussion the most fundamental will either flat out deny a difference in tone after that, or make convoluted arguments that say it isn't really as strong as it seems. (Not surprising, as it must be hard to reconcile an supposedly 'unchanging god' from one who changes from an entity jealous and bloodthirsty, to the lighter and softer 'new deal' of the NT, the loving Redeemer pottering around earth, of which indeed so much is made there) Some will argue that while the Bible is divinely inspired, it is still filtered through humans, so it makes sense that more primitive tribal people would have a different spin on God: that is, religious notions concerning the nature of their deity in the Jewish tradition evolved considerably over the lifetime of Judaism as a religion. Some will take it a bit farther and even say some people were manipulating parts of it. Some will say that, in fact, God's tone did change with Jesus. Personally, I think it's a combination of several of these factors. The two Testaments were written a thousand years apart, more or less. A few things changed in that time; it is hard to deny the genealogy of ideas in history. The two books also represent two different religions, despite being melded together and having points of similarity. Ultimately the OT was written by the wise men of a tribal society; the NT was written by a bunch of god-struck acolytes. Finally a number of OT scholars think the OT was largely redacted after the Babylonian captivity and diaspora, during the time of Ezra/Nehemiah, at which the editors wanted (consciously or not) to shape them into a collection of books that built and fostered a Hebrew identity of a separate, chosen, exclusive people. On the other hand, the NT books are largely written to explain the gospel to the gentile nations, to win converts (one purpose of the Gospels) and thus are attempting universal and inclusive an interpretation of events which seems considered and reasonable. I hope this helps. I am sure this is the point when CJG claims, as usual, that his affirmative view of the consistency in tone of the OT and NT is not, after all really being discussed as a proposed fact lol.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 25, 2019 3:43:20 GMT
Again I’m all ears the moment someone can explain the differences in tone [between the OT and NT because after reading them both it’s all pretty consistent. From a secular VP, the reason is pretty clear: religious notions concerning the nature of god in the Jewish tradition evolved considerably over the lifetime of Judaism as a religion. The OT captures these changes up to a point - the point where the OT ceased being "added to". As one can see in such a discussion the most fundamental will either flat out deny a difference in tone after that, or make convoluted arguments that say it isn't really as strong as it seems. (Not surprising, as it must be hard to reconcile an supposedly 'unchanging god' from one who changes from an entity jealous and bloodthirsty, to the lighter and softer 'new deal' of the NT, the loving Redeemer pottering around earth, of which indeed so much is made there) Some will argue that while the Bible is divinely inspired, it is still filtered through humans, so it makes sense that more primitive tribal people would have a different spin on God: that is, religious notions concerning the nature of their deity in the Jewish tradition evolved considerably over the lifetime of Judaism as a religion. Some will take it a bit farther and even say some people were manipulating parts of it. Some will say that, in fact, God's tone did change with Jesus. Personally, I think it's a combination of several of these factors. The two Testaments were written a thousand years apart, more or less. A few things changed in that time; it is hard to deny the genealogy of ideas in history. The two books also represent two different religions, despite being melded together and having points of similarity. Ultimately the OT was written by the wise men of a tribal society; the NT was written by a bunch of god-struck acolytes. Finally a number of OT scholars think the OT was largely redacted after the Babylonian captivity and diaspora, during the time of Ezra/Nehemiah, at which the editors wanted (consciously or not) to shape them into a collection of books that built and fostered a Hebrew identity of a separate, chosen, exclusive people. On the other hand, the NT books are largely written to explain the gospel to the gentile nations, to win converts (one purpose of the Gospels) and thus are attempting universal and inclusive an interpretation of events which seems considered and reasonable. I hope this helps. I am sure this is the point when CJG claims, as usual, that his affirmative view of the consistency in tone of the OT and NT is not, after all really being discussed as a proposed fact lol. Doesnt' God kill people all the time in the OT? ...and since he turned into Jesus or had a son of something or other the Trinitarians believe, leaving the Holy Ghost to do all the dirty work, didn't he become a loving multi-faceted God for the most part?(or something something spooky and impossible)
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jun 11, 2019 7:09:27 GMT
Alrighty, so I've started reading Surah II - Al Baqarah (The Heifer). It's a long...long...long Surah; the longest in the Quran, according to Abdullah Yusuf-Ali. So far I've made it to part 5 of the Surah.
The 1st part opens with three letters: The Alif, the Lam, and the Meem - الٓمٓ . Abdullah provides some commentary to the Surah's, and he states that these letters proceed several other Surahs. Other sequences of arabic letters proceed other Surahs. These abbreviations are known as the Muqatta'at, and their meaning is obscure. To quote him: "Opinions are divides as to the exact meaning of each particular letter or combination of letters, and it is agreed that only Allah knows their exact meaning." He does speculate that the الٓمٓ has a meaning pertaining to life and death, and beginning and end. He speculates on this based on the content of the Surahs that the الٓمٓ precedes.
Anyways, after the __, the Surah states that the Quran is for the followers of Allah and provides guidance for them: "This is the book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what we have provided for them". The Unseen, or Al Ghaib, refers to Allah and his glory which is largely concealed from us earthly people (heaven, angels, ect.). The Surah uses the first plural alot, which I find kind of strange as this is supposed to be a revelation given to a single guy (Mohammed) and written down by that single guy. Abdullah doesn't address this, but an online search indicates that this is a flourish of literary Arabic: speaking of oneself in the first-person plural adds a high degree of reverence.
Those who reject Islam are then described. Infidels are hopeless: "Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they incur." Seems strange that Allah, who appears to care very much about people believing in him, would 'set a seal' on unbelievers to prevent them from taking in the message of the Quran . It goes on to say that unbelievers deceive believers by pretending to believe, but secretly they don't. Allah will punish them, we are assured.
The third section goes on to say Allah created the world and all within it, and bestowed it to man. It then exhorts unbelievers to return to Allah because he gave them life. The fourth section goes on to describe the creation of Adam. Allah made Adam, and then presented him to the angels. The angels were wary of the creation of man, as they feared that free will could lead man into wickedness. The angels, according to Abdullah's commentary, lack free will and simply worship Allah. Adam, on the other hand, is able to learn other things, such as emotions and the names of objects. Allah tells Adam to tell the angels of these things and they are amazed, and Allah is all like "See, I told you that this was a good idea." All the angels bow to man, with the exception of Iblis, who feels that man is beneath him. According to Abdullah: "...Iblis (Satan) would be one of the angels. But, the theory of fallen angles i not accepted in Muslim theology. In Surah 18, Iblis is spoken of as a Djinn." Interestingly enough, the Sufis believe that Iblis is right up there with Mohammad as the most devoted of Allah's followers. All of the other angels/djinn bowed to Adam as if he were a god. But Iblis refused, showing that he did not put man above Allah, and he suffered for it by being banished to hell. But why would Allah banish such a devoted follower to hell for refusing to bow to another, lesser being?
From Adam, Eve is created and they are given Eden to live in. The story goes the way of the Torah, and they are expelled from Eden and given Earth for a dwelling place. Allah tells Adam that repentance is possible.
And that's as far as I've gotten. I think this will just turn into a general Quran thread, where I'll try and write down some of the things that I find interesting. I like the unexplainable Muqatta'at that precede some of the Surahs, as it smacks of mysticism, and I like mysticism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 14:32:30 GMT
There is a huge shift between the OT and the NT. Jesus swept all the old covenant away, and gives us the new covenant... Love God, love each other. Do those two things and you are already close to Heaven. I’m not disagreeing with what Jesus did beyond saying he fulfilled the old covenant. He did not do this by changing the tone of scripture. Nothing has changed regarding Gods purpose from Genesis to Revelation. People only make this statement based on the things they remember about each. They ignore or forget the centuries upon centuries of time God allowed people to do as they wished against his wishes in the OT and forgave some pretty bad lowlifes. They ignore or forget the absolute carnage Jesus and other NT writers describe that will happen to the wicked. Again I’m all ears the moment someone can explain the differences in tone because after reading them both it’s all pretty consistent. Here ya go
|
|
|
The Quran
Jun 11, 2019 14:46:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2019 14:46:18 GMT
I’m not disagreeing with what Jesus did beyond saying he fulfilled the old covenant. He did not do this by changing the tone of scripture. Nothing has changed regarding Gods purpose from Genesis to Revelation. People only make this statement based on the things they remember about each. They ignore or forget the centuries upon centuries of time God allowed people to do as they wished against his wishes in the OT and forgave some pretty bad lowlifes. They ignore or forget the absolute carnage Jesus and other NT writers describe that will happen to the wicked. Again I’m all ears the moment someone can explain the differences in tone because after reading them both it’s all pretty consistent. Here ya go lol Are you really trying to suggest this stuff shows contradictions between NT and OT? At least it now is no longer just a picture. I’ll create a thread for the link today for a long term discussion since everyone else is too lazy to do so.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 11, 2019 20:21:01 GMT
lol Are you really trying to suggest this stuff shows contradictions between NT and OT? At least it now is no longer just a picture. I’ll create a thread for the link today for a long term discussion since everyone else is too lazy to do so.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jun 12, 2019 7:08:42 GMT
Allah or Yahweh? They’re both fake. Allah, clearly.
Regardless of whether you and I believe in him, billions of people do, and that matters. I think it is worthwhile to understand that belief.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jun 12, 2019 8:37:49 GMT
Allah, clearly.
Regardless of whether you and I believe in him, billions of people do, and that matters. I think it is worthwhile to understand that belief.
You’re correct that people should understand Islam. They should also learn more about their own religion if they have one. However both Islam and Christianity have an equal amount of evidence for being true....that amount is zero. True. However, I think that there are more than enough threads on this board about Christianity's bullshit. I would like to try and keep THIS one about Islam, and its bullshit (although that has probably already been a failure based on the past couple of posts).
Any particular thoughts on Surah's I or II of the Quran?
|
|
gawaher
Freshman
@gawaher
Posts: 65
Likes: 16
|
Post by gawaher on Jun 12, 2019 23:14:11 GMT
Muslims, or what eventually became Muslims, were already worshipping Allah prior to Mohammad. He was just one deity among others whose image was kept in the Ka’ba. I already made this thread about the origin of this misconception and the person who first brought idols to Mecca.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 13, 2019 1:24:10 GMT
I have read the Koran and the Hadith three times to date. As I do not know Arabic, my translation is in English. However, I had a Muslim friend read it for accuracy and she approved of the translation. POF, she kissed the books as she handed them to me.
I also lived in Egypt for a month. We spoke quite a bit to the Egyptian people daily. I also studied the culture both modern and ancient.
|
|
|
The Quran
Jun 13, 2019 6:31:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jun 13, 2019 6:31:33 GMT
I have read the Koran and the Hadith three times to date. As I do not know Arabic, my translation is in English. However, I had a Muslim friend read it for accuracy and she approved of the translation. POF, she kissed the books as she handed them to me.
I also lived in Egypt for a month. We spoke quite a bit to the Egyptian people daily. I also studied the culture both modern and ancient. Cool. Any particular thoughts on Surahs I and II?
|
|