Are Jesus and Muhammad (i.e. Mohammed) Alike?

Fishy

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Anger is not a sin. Jesus never sinned. Jesus never changed the Word of God--Jesus is the Word.

Is that why Jesus contradicted god on many things? When god said kill the sinners Jesus said don't kill.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Jesus said be nice to everybody, those things don't sound nice. Jesus said let god judge, yet they are allowed to carry out the punishment without anybody knowing. Jesus preached one thing, the bible preaches something else.

Fatima

i think you must be objective in choosing these sites , you take site from christians view in islam i know the result before i read it ,thats unfaire.

take info from this site

islamreligion.com

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Fishy
Is that why Jesus contradicted god on many things? When god said kill the sinners Jesus said don't kill.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Jesus said be nice to everybody, those things don't sound nice. Jesus said let god judge, yet they are allowed to carry out the punishment without anybody knowing. Jesus preached one thing, the bible preaches something else.

Under the Old Testament God the Father reveals to us the truth that He is justice and righteousness personified. God will not tolerate sin, He is of purer eyes than to behold sin. God the Father could only be appeased as it were by the shed blood of bulls and goats, but these were temporary, makeshift provisions for sin, that God permitted to atone for or cover over sin. But notice: God did not just forgive people of their sins just because He felt like it as such. If there is one thing that you must take to heart about God my friend that is this: God is passionate about justice, holiness, and righteousness. Everything that God does must flow through this sieve as it were. Some people are taken aback as it were at God as He is revealed in the Old Testament because He seems to be so harsh, cruel, and impatient. But those who hold this conception about God do so because they don't understand God's righteousness. A true Judge has zero tolerance for wrongdoing and God is Judge of all the earth, higher than any Supreme Court Justice. However, under the New Testament it seems as though God's anger against sin and/or sinners has been mollified. What happened? Let me break it down for you. God has always been lovingkind, merciful, gentle, longsuffering, etc., but He could not show that side of His nature fully because He had not yet sent His Son Jesus to pay for our sins. God had to be strict, relatively inflexible, and rigid in terms of how He dealt with sinners and sin. Judges are supposed to be meticulous, and hold every sin accountable, judge it against a standard of righteousness then impose sentence accordingly. That is what God did. The Bible states that the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The law of Moses represents a standard of righteousness and judgment. Notice that grace (i.e. undeserved mercy) and truth came through Jesus Christ. As sinners by nature and will we all deserve the harsh judgment of God. But through Jesus Christ God can once again extend His love and mercy to us. God is righteous and just, this is Who He is not just what He exemplifies, and as a result He must deal with sin swiftly and with righteous indignation. God hates sin, because it defies Who He is, and nothing and no one is greater than God, not even sin. God so loved the world (see God is Love too) that He gave....People don't realize just How much God the Father sacrificed and gave up when He offered His only Begotten Son as payment for our sins.

Jesus came to earth to die for the sins of the world. But in the course of doing this Jesus did things to reveal the true nature of the Father. To you Fishy it appears that Jesus is contradicting His Father, but in reality Jesus is showing us another side of the Father. On the one hand the Father God is righteously indignant against sin and sinners, but that is just one side of God, and it is based on His righteousness. But God is also Love. This is the side of the Father that Jesus expresses to the world. We see Jesus having compassion on the multitudes that He ministered to and healing them, comforting them, feeding them, delivering them from demon possession, and even raising them from the dead. Jesus said that if we have seen Him then we have seen the Father. How Jesus? In Jesus' actions. Everything that Jesus said and did was a reflection of His Father's actions. So, Fishy, there is no contradiction, just a change in God's dealings with humanity (not a change in God, but a change in His interactions with us) thanks to Jesus. God wants the world to know that He can be a Father to everyone now that sin is no longer an issue or barrier between Him and us. The sin wall is non-existent as far as God not holding our sins against us. Our sins can be washed away, blotted out, and removed as far as the east is from the west if we simply ask Him to through Jesus. But all of God's love for the world is accessible only through Jesus Christ. If we reject God's love as revealed and made available through Jesus Christ then we have no excuse for suffering God's wrath against sin.

Fishy

Yes i'm not really going to read all of that, because i've seen your previous posts. Those sites you listed are still wrong though and like xyz posted anger is a sin, so Jesus did sin... Perhaps you should reply to those things instead of just isolating the one thing and spouting out a lot of propoganda...

Those sites lied and apparently don't even know the bible well, so really why should we listen to them?

lord xyz

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes i'm not really going to read all of that, because i've seen your previous posts. Those sites you listed are still wrong though and like xyz posted anger is a sin, so Jesus did sin... Perhaps you should reply to those things instead of just isolating the one thing and spouting out a lot of propoganda...

Those sites lied and apparently don't even know the bible well, so really why should we listen to them? I don't think he's going to answer that and/or read it. But I'm happy that you posted that incase an unsuspecting christian thinks JIA is making any sense.

判0oONY

lord xyz

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Anger is not a sin for the second time. Oh, and I thought that it was circular reasoning, wrong, and all of those other things that you say for me to use the Bible to support my statements? So then why did you just do it? Although you are still wrong in your usage. No, anger is not a sin. 1. The Bible is bad when debating science and facts, not christianity.
2. Anger is a sin.

Bardock42

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Anger is not a sin for the second time. Oh, and I thought that it was circular reasoning, wrong, and all of those other things that you say for me to use the Bible to support my statements? So then why did you just do it? Although you are still wrong in your usage. No, anger is not a sin.

You don't get the difference, do you? If he is talking about what the Bible said he can use the Bible as source (only source), if he is talking about what the bible says being fact he can't.....

RocasAtoll

JHY;

If I hate Jews is it a sin? If I hate Blacks is it a sin? If I hate Polish people?

Alfheim

ThePittman

JIA get over it, Wrath is anger and that is it. Wrath is an older term for extreme anger but it still means anger most referred to God and not man.

Alliance

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Are Jesus and Muhammed alike? Find out here:

http://www.carm.org/islam/Jesus_Muhammad.htm

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/thechristiandifference.shtml

http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/IslamShortComp.htm

http://members.aol.com/AllahIslam/part3.html

Resarch hint: If a site has a colored background, its usually not a credible source.

Anyway, Muhammed is a historical person. There is no real proof of Christs existance.

lord xyz

You've intreged me to take that a step further Gregory. Just thought you'd like to know.

Gregory

I'm please; I'd rather have intrigued JIA into doing a little research, but I suppose we should be realistic in our expectations.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Gregory
I'm please; I'd rather have intrigued JIA into doing a little research, but I suppose we should be realistic in our expectations. laughing out loud

Fatima

i think that people have brains to read and search about prophet mohammed , no need for this useless topic to spread the heatrd .

i dont know why you hate Islam ...tell us the reason maybe we will help you .

lord xyz

Originally posted by Fatima
i think that people have brains to read and search about prophet mohammed , no need for this useless topic to spread the heatrd .

i dont know why you hate Islam ...tell us the reason maybe we will help you . Just so you know, I don't hate Islam, in fact it makes more sense to me than Christianity. (Except for that whole covering up women and women serving man shit). These christians hate Islam because of the holy war. And a few other reasons like 9/11.

lil bitchiness

No Jesus and Muhammad were not alike. They were totally different.

The only alikeness between Islam and Christianity however, is the fairy tale.

Both religions consist of some sadistic deity who will torture you slowly and painfully for the rest of eternity.

But the differance between the Prophets are great, and basic ones are rather obvious.

First one is that Jesus tried to change the already existing laws of a religion (Judaism) into something more hippie like, while Muhammad tried to incorporate everything about Pagan Arabian religion, plus himself as a leader.

Some other differances include -

Muhammad lead raids and battles, while Jesus didn't.

Also Muhammad was recorded in the holy books(Hadith), by Muslims themselves to be a paedo, while Jesus was not recorded to be a paedo.

Muhammad was recorded, by Muslims, in holy book to have tortured and killed, while Jesus was not recorded to have tortured and killed.

Muhammad was recorded by Muslims and historians to have been a warlord, while Jesus was not recorded to be a warlord.

etc...etc...etc...

They are generally very different anyway - not sure why we're comparing them to begin with?

While I do not agree with anything Muhammad did, said, nor do I agree with his existance, that does not however prove devinity of Jesus.
In fact, Muhammad had nothing to do with Jesus...provided that is what you were trying to prove.

Fatima

i think you have no right to talk about prophet mohammed like that .......unless you have adegree in islam religion

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Fatima
i think you have no right to talk about prophet mohammed like that .......unless you have adegree in islam religion
Who says?

Sister, I have the right to critisise anything I like, and you are going to have to deal with it.
Just because you agree with an ideology, I don't have to. I have the right to disagree, and I will exercise that right to the maximum.

If I believe something is not right, or that it is enslaving or dangerous to its followers or otherwise, I will speak out against it.

I have a brain, and I am not afraid to use it - I couldn't give a damn what a bunch of ignorant/arrogant westerners are going to say regarding that. (obviously, not directed at you)

mahasattva

Originally posted by Fatima
i think you have no right to talk about prophet mohammed like that .......unless you have adegree in islam religion

A degree holds no value when it comes to critical thinking. Everyone has a right to scrutinize the people's beliefs/faith including you. That is the true path of a truth-seeker....

"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it."--- The Buddha Sakyamuni

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by mahasattva
A degree holds no value when it comes to critical thinking. Everyone has a right to scrutinize the people's beliefs/faith including you. That is the true path of a truth-seeker....

"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it."--- The Buddha Sakyamuni

thumb up

My favourite quote by Buddha.

Fatima

Originally posted by lord xyz
Just so you know, I don't hate Islam, in fact it makes more sense to me than Christianity. (Except for that whole covering up women and women serving man shit). These christians hate Islam because of the holy war. And a few other reasons like 9/11.

i really respect your opinions in islam ,

your view in women cover up , its really sensetive

if you have a diamond , you will show it to people so that they greed in her or you will keep it for your self .

this diamond is the women in islam ,

did you ask your self why rape rate in western country is more than in islamic country ,in addition , i read american statistic show that there is more than 1200 rape crime everyday . thats awful

Alliance

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I have a brain, and I am not afraid to use it - I couldn't give a damn what a bunch of ignorant/arrogant westerners are going to say regarding that. (obviously, not directed at you)

Bullshit. You're the one who has no argument, just personal attacks.

Fatima

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Who says?

Sister, I have the right to critisise anything I like, and you are going to have to deal with it.
Just because you agree with an ideology, I don't have to. I have the right to disagree, and I will exercise that right to the maximum.

If I believe something is not right, or that it is enslaving or dangerous to its followers or otherwise, I will speak out against it.

I have a brain, and I am not afraid to use it - I couldn't give a damn what a bunch of ignorant/arrogant westerners are going to say regarding that. (obviously, not directed at you)

critisise the thing you know about it , not talking about something you didnt study or read , and form it as you like , or because you hate it .

Alliance

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
thumb up

My favourite quote by Buddha.

One you don't follow.

Originally posted by Fatima
did you ask your self why rape rate in western country is more than in islamic country ,in addition , i read american statistic show that there is more than 1200 rape crime everyday . thats awful

Maybe, but I don't think its a strict correlation.

<><><>

Keep in mind that many women covered themselves (similar to many devout Christians do) as a sign of high faith. It WAS a personal choice, and should have remained that way.

lord xyz

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Muhammad lead raids and battles, while Jesus didn't. Didn't Jesus fight the Romans?

Gregory

More like 1800. But America has the highest rate of rape of any countries that publish that information; it shouldn't be treated as the "typical" western country.

Regarding the other discussion on hand, Jesus certainly didn't lead raids or battles againts the Romans. But it's false to say he never used violence; according to John, he assaulted the money-changers with a whip.

Bardock42

Originally posted by lord xyz
Didn't Jesus fight the Romans?

I don't recall such an event.

Alliance

Originally posted by lord xyz
Didn't Jesus fight the Romans?

Never happened.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't recall such an event. Originally posted by Alliance
Never happened. Then why did the Romans crucify him?

crazy

Originally posted by Alliance
Bullshit. You're the one who has no argument, just personal attacks.

Yea the hate just pours from lil, anyone else notice it?

Btw these sources are as credible as chick tracts.

RocasAtoll

Originally posted by Alliance
Bullshit. You're the one who has no argument, just personal attacks.

Where'd that come from?

Fishy

Originally posted by Fatima
critisise the thing you know about it , not talking about something you didnt study or read , and form it as you like , or because you hate it .

So are you claiming Mohammed did not fight wars and did not kill people? That would kinda contradict the Quran now wouldn't it?

Gregory

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then why did the Romans crucify him?

It's not really clear. "Because the Jewish leadership asked them to" would seem to be the answer you get from the gospels. I think Pilate goes so far as to say that Jesus hasn't actually done anything worthy of crucifixion.

Alliance

Originally posted by lord xyz
Then why did the Romans crucify him?

I don't believe there was really much intervention from Rome.

I've never really found a good reason. He was a heretic?

Fishy

Originally posted by Gregory
It's not really clear. "Because the Jewish leadership asked them to" would seem to be the answer you get from the gospels. I think Pilate goes so far as to say that Jesus hasn't actually done anything worthy of crucifixion.

Which would be a semi-good reason actually. The Quran however claims that Jesus wasn't crucified and that seems just as logical if you ask me.

Alliance

Originally posted by crazy
Yea the hate just pours from lil, anyone else notice it?

Btw these sources are as credible as chick tracts.

I agree with lil on a lot of other things, but she's way off on Islam.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Where'd that come from?

From about a month of arguments on Islam.

RocasAtoll

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't believe there was really much intervention from Rome.

I've never really found a good reason. He was a heretic?

I think its along the lines they were lied to. Jewish leaders probably told them he was leading a rebellion.

Alliance

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I think its along the lines they were lied to. Jewish leaders probably told them he was leading a rebellion.

Honesly, I'm fairly confidnet the Romans didn't giva a sh*t.

They only started caring when Christians wouldn't pay their taxes.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Alliance
Bullshit. You're the one who has no argument, just personal attacks.

I have an argument, it is you who has none.

I have presented my arguments over and over again, but you don't have the knowledge to rebute, so your only thing is ''you are discriminating''

DISPROVE my claims on Islam, or STFU.

debbiejo

*waits for reponse* eat

lord xyz

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't believe there was really much intervention from Rome.

I've never really found a good reason. He was a heretic? The Jews and Romans were having a war, the Romans decided that if they kill the king of the Jews, the rest will follow. And what was Jesus claiming to be?

debbiejo

No, Jesus never said he was King of the Jews......

lord xyz

Originally posted by debbiejo
No, Jesus never said he was King of the Jews...... But people said he was. The King of Kings n al that.

Regret

Originally posted by debbiejo
No, Jesus never said he was King of the Jews...... But, when asked if he would deny being such he was silent.

Fatima

both mohammed and jesus are prophets ...they are human make amistake .

debbiejo

Originally posted by Regret
But, when asked if he would deny being such he was silent. Silence doesn't mean anything......

Regret

Originally posted by Fatima
both mohammed and Jesus are prophets ...they are human make amistake . Both fit the term prophet, if both existed they were human. Without sin and without mistake are two separate concepts. Perfection may not absolutely negate the possibility of mistake. Christ did not tell his parents before leaving the family in his youth and discussing religion with the elders, this may have been a mistake, I am sure my wife and I would considering our sons to have made a mistake if they did similar.

Muhammad was a great man with noble aspirations, I would claim Christ was the same.
Muhammad began a powerful religion that is often misinterpreted by its followers, Christ did the same.
Muhammad was a loving individual, Christ was the same.
Muhammad was carried away in the spirit to view areas, Christ had the same occurrence, albeit Christ was taken by Satan whereas Muhammad was taken by an angel.
Muhammad was a persuasive individual, Christ was also.
Both taught good principles.

Alliance

Muhammad certainly had vision. Much more than Christ.

That makes him better in many respects, imo.

Regret

Originally posted by debbiejo
Silence doesn't mean anything...... It is if the accusation that is having a denial requested may be considered treason. Christ, if he did not deny, was conceding that the Jew claims that he was the sovereign King of Israel and above the jurisdiction of Caesar were accurate.

Regardless of the meaning or intent of Christ's silence it satisfied Roman law regarding his crucifixion. It was easier to kill Jesus than it was to deal with a mob of Jewish fanatics. The Romans didn't care whether or not Christ died, killing him would calm the fanatics that were bothering them.

Regret

Originally posted by Alliance
Muhammad certainly had vision. Much more than Christ.

That makes him better in many respects, imo. Lol, Hitler had vision. Vision does not lead to a person being better in any way. Muhammad made mistakes in pursuit of his vision, else the middle east would be a more calm and peaceful area, it is not.

Alliance

Most men make mistakes in pursuit of their vision.

It kind of comes with the territory.

The vision is still glorious.

Regret

Originally posted by Alliance
Most men make mistakes in pursuit of their vision.

It kind of comes with the territory.

The vision is still glorious. Perhaps, but a glorious vision still does not make a better person.

Alliance

I never said it did, I said (meant) I liked men with vision better with men without.

Its a personal thing, likes and dislikes.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by Alliance
Most men make mistakes in pursuit of their vision.

It kind of comes with the territory.

The vision is still glorious.

And what was that vision?

Alliance

A vision would be some change you wish to see in the world.

A man with a goal is more of a man than one randomly wandering through life with no purpose for himself.

Regret

Originally posted by Alliance
I never said it did ? Originally posted by Alliance Muhammad certainly had vision. Much more than Christ.
That makes him better in many respects, imo.

Originally posted by Alliance
I said (meant) I liked men with vision better with men without.

Its a personal thing, likes and dislikes.
If you meant liked men with vision better than men with out, that works, but it doesn't necessarily make him better. I also disagree with your assessment of the level of their visions.

Alliance

Originally posted by Alliance
Muhammad certainly had vision. Much more than Christ.

That makes him better in many respects, imo.

I think that pretty well states that:

1. Muhammad is not absolutely better than Christ
2. This is my opinon.

Originally posted by Regret
If you meant liked men with vision better than men with out, that works, but it doesn't necessarily make him better. I also disagree with your assessment of the level of their visions.

Ok.

lord xyz

Actually, there is a difference between Muhammed and Jesus. Muhammed was a philosopher, Jesus, was not. And that is the difference.

Regret

Originally posted by lord xyz
Actually, there is a difference between Muhammed and Jesus. Muhammed was a philosopher, Jesus, was not. And that is the difference. Actually, if you read Christ's words, the words that people actually state he said, he comes across very much as a philosopher. Only the narative surrounding his words changes the perception, the same as Muhammad.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lord xyz
When I first saw the thread title, I thought it was a good thread comparing how Jesus is no different to Muhammed and other prophets. Then I saw "by JesusIsAlive" so I knew it was going to be another thread full of lies and made up shit that only makes sense to JIA.

I have never lied or made up anything in over 2000 posts.

Why don't you provide specific examples of the things whereof you accuse me so that I can address those allegations, instead of making blanket, unsubstantiated statements about me?

Show me what you claim that I have lied about, and show me what I have made up.

JesusIsAlive

crazy

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Show me what is unfair about it. If you cannot show me then your claims are baseless and without merit.

The bias is unfair, I showed you in pretty good detail why chick tracts lacked merit and how there sources were not all too great and you basically said you believe it regardless so theres not much I can do about that.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lord xyz
7 deadly sins

Pride
Gluttony
Greed
Anger (Wrath)
Lust
Envy
Laziness

There is no such thing as 7 deadly sins. Here is what the Bible calls them:

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination
to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Xyz, neither anger nor wrath is included in the seven things that God calls an abomination (Incidentally, God calls these things an abomination not deadly sins). So where did anger and wrath come from in you list?

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes i'm not really going to read all of that, because i've seen your previous posts. Those sites you listed are still wrong though and like xyz posted anger is a sin, so Jesus did sin... Perhaps you should reply to those things instead of just isolating the one thing and spouting out a lot of propoganda...

Those sites lied and apparently don't even know the bible well, so really why should we listen to them?

Support your allegations with specific instances. Show me how and/or in what way that those links lied, don't just make glib remarks that have no basis in truth.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
JHY;

If I hate Jews is it a sin? If I hate Blacks is it a sin? If I hate Polish people?

Yes it is a sin to hate other people.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Alfheim
ditto.

What are you saying ditto to or about? Xyz has not substantiated his allegations about me lying or making things up. Until such time that he shows me where I have done what he alleges your concurrence with what he says about me is equally untrue and unfounded.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by ThePittman
JIA get over it, Wrath is anger and that is it. Wrath is an older term for extreme anger but it still means anger most referred to God and not man.

I never disputed that wrath and anger are somewhat synonymous. But that is not the issue. Xyz has presented a list of what he calls 7 deadly sins. There is no such thing. But anger by, of, and in itself is not a sin. What a person does while angry is what determines whether their anger is just and unjust (i.e. sinful).

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lord xyz
I decided to click the first link. Oh, how wrong it is.

Now anyone with a sensible mind will know that this is not only lying, but doing so to desperately make Jesus look like a good person, make Jesus and the Bible to be true, and worse of all, shunning Islam (which last time I checked is a form of racism).

Have a nice day.

What about the quotes in that post? What about the 7 deadly sins? They clearly state Anger to be sinful.

I decided to click the first link. Oh, how wrong it is.

How so? You seem to be very proficient at making accusations but you are terrible at substantiating them.

Now anyone with a sensible mind will know that this is not only lying, but doing so to desperately make Jesus look like a good person, make Jesus and the Bible to be true, and worse of all, shunning Islam (which last time I checked is a form of racism).

There are many people on this forum with sensible minds (I am one of them) and we have yet to see you substantiate your allegations that the links have provided false information (i.e. that the creators of those respective links have lied). Last time that you checked? What did you check, what reference, what source? Shunning Islam is not a form of racism. I shun a lot of things including religions but I am not racist. I make discriminations about many things as well but that does not mean that I am racist. Again, I will be waiting for you to support your baseless accusations.

Have a nice day.

I will have a nice day and I hope that you do as well.

What about the quotes in that post? What about the 7 deadly sins? They clearly state Anger to be sinful.

What about those quotes? They are just that but there is no validity or merit behind those quotes. They certainly did not come from the Bible. I don't care what you say, the Bible does not call anger a sin, it is what a person does while angry that constitutes a sin.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Fatima
i think that people have brains to read and search about prophet mohammed , no need for this useless topic to spread the heatrd .

i dont know why you hate Islam ...tell us the reason maybe we will help you .

No one is spreading hatred. If you characterize facts presented in comparative, analytical form hatred then you don't understand what hatred is. Hatred would be to present false, malicious, untrue statements about someone or something. But everything that those links provided is factual and true. So, no there is no hatred being spread here.

The only thing that I hate is sin, and lies are definitely sinful. So, I don't hate anything or anyone except sin, satan, demons, and evil. Islam is not ordained of God (meaning that the God of the Bible is not its Founder). All of the religions of the world were started by satan to divert people from the true God as revealed in the Bible.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lord xyz
Just so you know, I don't hate Islam, in fact it makes more sense to me than Christianity. (Except for that whole covering up women and women serving man shit). These christians hate Islam because of the holy war. And a few other reasons like 9/11.

You don't speak for Christians so you don't know what we hate. The only thing that I hate is sin, satan, demons, and evil. Islam is not of God; therefore, it must be of satan. God did not found the Islamic religion. So if the true God is not the Founder, that only leaves one possible person who could have instituted it: that's right, the devil.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lord xyz
Didn't Jesus fight the Romans?

There is no record anywhere on the planet that Jesus ever fought the Romans or anyone else for that matter. I wonder where you get your information from because it certainly is not from the Bible.

Strangelove

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no such thing as 7 deadly sins. Here is what the Bible calls them:

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination
to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Xyz, neither anger nor wrath is included in the seven things that God calls an abomination (Incidentally, God calls these things an abomination not deadly sins). So where did anger and wrath come from in you list? While it is true that the 7 deadly sins are not mentioned in the Bible, the idea was introduced by a Saint, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't God speak through the saints?

According to St. Gregory the Great, Wrath or anger is the 3rd most serious Deadly Sin. Of course, Wrath is only a deadly sin when it is applied for no good reason, as you said. But Wrath is a sin. Although wrath isn't something that God explicity disapproves of (i.e. stated in the Bible), you have to admit, Anger for any reason isn't good. Reason is good. Serenity is good. Anger defies both of these virtues.

fini

Originally posted by Fatima
i think you must be objective in choosing these sites , you take site from christians view in islam i know the result before i read it ,thats unfaire.

take info from this site

islamreligion.com

I agree , IT IS quite unfair.

LETS try an analogy with food.
Curry Goat
Someone who never heard of it, or just knows a very little will be automatically turned of by it and say bad stuff without even trying it out. While those who Do know it, may like or Love it.

Same goes for what Fatima said, those people in those sites, dont know or understand Islam fully to appreciate it, so they write about the things that they see on the surface.

They never ever talk to anyone who are muslims now and intend on staying as a muslim.

Would you trust the word of people who try to talk for everyone, epecially when they are in the minority?? NO!!
Anyone who uses their GOD- GIVEN RIGHT, to use their brain to understand and/or love others WOULD see that!!!!!!!

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Fatima
both mohammed and jesus are prophets ...they are human make amistake .

Jesus Christ is true God and true Man (i.e. Jesus is God in human flesh). But Muhammad was/is just a man.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Regret
Both fit the term prophet, if both existed they were human. Without sin and without mistake are two separate concepts. Perfection may not absolutely negate the possibility of mistake. Christ did not tell his parents before leaving the family in his youth and discussing religion with the elders, this may have been a mistake, I am sure my wife and I would considering our sons to have made a mistake if they did similar.

Muhammad was a great man with noble aspirations, I would claim Christ was the same.
Muhammad began a powerful religion that is often misinterpreted by its followers, Christ did the same.
Muhammad was a loving individual, Christ was the same.
Muhammad was carried away in the spirit to view areas, Christ had the same occurrence, albeit Christ was taken by Satan whereas Muhammad was taken by an angel.
Muhammad was a persuasive individual, Christ was also.
Both taught good principles.

There is a stark contrast between Jesus Christ and Muhammad, but I have already provided links at the outset of this thread that detail those great differences.

Alliance

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is a stark contrast between Jesus Christ and Muhammad, but I have already provided links at the outset of this thread that detail those great differences.

Except the links are aaources that 2 year old would use.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Regret
But, when asked if he would deny being such he was silent.

That is not true. Jesus received a fusillade of false accusations (i.e. false, trumped up testimonies) as He stood before the chief priests, the elders, all the council, and the false witnesses. It is only in reference to these allegations that Jesus remained silent as they continued to interrogate Him.

But when asked whether He was the King of the Jews or the Son of God, Jesus did not keep silent but boldly declared that He was.

Lord Urizen

1) JIA....give it up already...you're arguments are tiring and no one's convinced, have you noticed ?

2) Jesus and Mohammed are nothing alike. Jesus didn't slaughter innocent people, Mohammed DID !

Alliance

Yes...making the crown of thorns history's most ironic and hilarious execution getups.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Regret
Actually, if you read Christ's words, the words that people actually state he said, he comes across very much as a philosopher. Only the narative surrounding his words changes the perception, the same as Muhammad.

Jesus was/is not a philosopher, He is the Son of the living God. The words that Jesus spoke were/are spirit and they are life. Furthermore, Jesus said that He spoke those things that He had seen, heard, been taught, learned, and was commanded to speak by/from His Father (in Heaven).

The words of philosophers are just that, the words of men. Hence, there is no comparison between the two.

Lord Urizen

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus was/is not a philosopher, He is the Son of the living God. The words that Jesus spoke were/are spirit and they are life. Furthermore, Jesus said that He spoke those things that He had seen, heard, been taught, learned, and was commanded to speak by/from His Father (in Heaven).

The words of philosophers are just that, the words of men. Hence, there is no comparison between the two.

Jesus was just a man. A Great man, but a man nonetheless. Get over it !

Buddha's better anyway.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by crazy
The bias is unfair, I showed you in pretty good detail why chick tracts lacked merit and how there sources were not all too great and you basically said you believe it regardless so theres not much I can do about that.

With all due respect crazy I was not talking to you and my question to Fatima has nothing in the world to do with Chick Tracts.

Alliance

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
With all due respect crazy I was not talking to you and my question to Fatima has nothing in the world to do with Chick Tracts.

This is a public forum, if you wnat to have a private conversation, use pms.

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by lord xyz
Actually, there is a difference between Muhammed and Jesus. Muhammed was a philosopher, Jesus, was not. And that is the difference.

Actually, this is wrong. Merely through evidence of what one and the other preached.

The reason why there is a massive debate regarding whether Jesus was thought by Buddhists/Hindus was because his words correlated to those of Buddha and Krishna.

The very religion Muhammad brought in (which already existed, for the larger part) is ''submission'' to him and to God
(hence word Islam, meaning submission.)

Allah already existed as the God of Moon, as did pretty much every other aspect of Islamic religion today. Raise of Muhammad was political and social as well AS religious. This is a complete life set.

I the Hadiths you will find EVERYTHING about how you are to lead your life, from birth, to having a shit, to what side of the table you are to pass a glass of milk, all the way to the fact that you are not allowed to whipe your hands on a cloth, before you've licked your fingers.

The reason Muhammad was not a philosopher was simply because he did not bring in any philosophy which was different to what Arabs already had.
Hence Arabs doubted him up until the last one was killed off.

Arabs were also smarter than a lot of people will think. When Muhammad came to them and told them he is a prophet of god Arabs asked him for PROOF!

They asked him to call upon Allah and Angels so they, for themselves can see him as a prophet of God.
To think of Arabs as backward, savage or stupid before Muhammad does not do justice to the Pagan Arbaians at all.
However it is a very popular thought, for whatever reason.

Jesus was a different kind of prophet - he had a philosophy, (which as I already said correlates with a lot of ''Eastern'' religions of enlightenment and inner peace, etc.)

My personal thought is that Jesus was not a son of Deity, but that it is merely something attributed to him by his followers in his memory our of respect for him, which later became ''gospel'' for Christians. (gospel - boom boom chisss!!).

As a historical figure, I respect Jesus, much more so than I respect Muhammad.
Muhammad was an interesting figure, and he should NOT be mixed and compared to Jesus.

They initially had different kinds of ideas and different kinds of vision for the world. It is the same thing as comparing Che Guevara and Gandhi.

I like Che, for the political reasons, for the underlying thing he wanted to happen, however he cannot compare to Gandhi, who inevitably resented anything which advocated violence.

lord xyz

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The very religion Muhammad brought in (which already existed, for the larger part) is ''submission'' to him and to God
(hence word Islam, meaning submission.)

Allah already existed as the God of Moon, as did pretty much every other aspect of Islamic religion today. Raise of Muhammad was political and social as well AS religious. This is a complete life set.

I the Hadiths you will find EVERYTHING about how you are to lead your life, from birth, to having a shit, to what side of the table you are to pass a glass of milk, all the way to the fact that you are not allowed to whipe your hands on a cloth, before you've licked your fingers.

The reason Muhammad was not a philosopher was simply because he did not bring in any philosophy which was different to what Arabs already had.
Hence Arabs doubted him up until the last one was killed off.

Arabs were also smarter than a lot of people will think. When Muhammad came to them and told them he is a prophet of god Arabs asked him for PROOF!

They asked him to call upon Allah and Angels so they, for themselves can see him as a prophet of God.
To think of Arabs as backward, savage or stupid before Muhammad does not do justice to the Pagan Arbaians at all.
However it is a very popular thought, for whatever reason.

Jesus was a different kind of prophet - he had a philosophy, (which as I already said correlates with a lot of ''Eastern'' religions of enlightenment and inner peace, etc.)

My personal thought is that Jesus was not a son of Deity, but that it is merely something attributed to him by his followers in his memory our of respect for him, which later became ''gospel'' for Christians. (gospel - boom boom chisss!!).

As a historical figure, I respect Jesus, much more so than I respect Muhammad.
Muhammad was an interesting figure, and he should NOT be mixed and compared to Jesus.

They initially had different kinds of ideas and different kinds of vision for the world. It is the same thing as comparing Che Guevara and Gandhi.

I like Che, for the political reasons, for the underlying thing he wanted to happen, however he cannot compare to Gandhi, who inevitably resented anything which advocated violence. So what you're saying is Muhammed is a crazy fundamentalist.

Makes sense. (But is Jesus no different?)

lil bitchiness

Originally posted by lord xyz
So what you're saying is Muhammed is a crazy fundamentalist.

Makes sense. (But is Jesus no different?)

I don't think Muhammad was any more extreme than a lot of Arabs were at the time. He had a different vision which he followed through.
He was also born in the most powerful family in Arabian peninsula. He wanted to be a leader, and he ended up being so.
Religion was a small matter, effectively used.

Jesus had an eye on completely different thing. He preached his little ideas, but he never had the system or anything to that effect - it is the establishment of church which saw to that.
I think the biggest favour Christians can do for Christ, is to separate him from the Church.

I also respect the fact that he had endured a lot of pain and in the end a death for what HE believed in.
I like the idea that he refused to denounce his ideas in the face of torture and death.

What Christians did later, I always doubt was inspired by Jesus' example.
Just look at the ''turn the other cheek'' and ''love thy neighbour''. It is like the most ''forgotten'' part of Bible...ever.

RocasAtoll

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No one is spreading hatred. If you characterize facts presented in comparative, analytical form hatred then you don't understand what hatred is. Hatred would be to present false, malicious, untrue statements about someone or something. But everything that those links provided is factual and true. So, no there is no hatred being spread here.

The only thing that I hate is sin, and lies are definitely sinful. So, I don't hate anything or anyone except sin, satan, demons, and evil. Islam is not ordained of God (meaning that the God of the Bible is not its Founder). All of the religions of the world were started by satan to divert people from the true God as revealed in the Bible.

You're sites are false, JHY.

So you're going to contradict what you tried to say in the first paragraph by condemning her and her religion? Nice spread of hatred JHY.

crazy

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
With all due respect crazy I was not talking to you and my question to Fatima has nothing in the world to do with Chick Tracts.

Fatima in MY OPINION is too ignorant of the facts to really disprove you, but plenty of people have disproven your claims before so I wanted to point that out, chick tracts was just one of the things and I mentioned them specifically because of your love of them.

Regret

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is a stark contrast between Jesus Christ and Muhammad, but I have already provided links at the outset of this thread that detail those great differences. Regardless, Muhammad and Christ were alike in a great many ways, unless, of course, you believe Christ was not the things I listed as him being.

Regret

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus was/is not a philosopher, He is the Son of the living God. The words that Jesus spoke were/are spirit and they are life. Furthermore, Jesus said that He spoke those things that He had seen, heard, been taught, learned, and was commanded to speak by/from His Father (in Heaven).

The words of philosophers are just that, the words of men. Hence, there is no comparison between the two. So you are stating that Christ was not a person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy, and he was not a person who is calm and rational under any circumstances? Christ was/is these things, imo, and thus he was by definition a philosopher.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by crazy
Fatima in MY OPINION is too ignorant of the facts to really disprove you, but plenty of people have disproven your claims before so I wanted to point that out, chick tracts was just one of the things and I mentioned them specifically because of your love of them.

It does not change the fact that I was talking pointedly to her and not you.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Regret
Regardless, Muhammad and Christ were alike in a great many ways, unless, of course, you believe Christ was not the things I listed as him being.

They were not alike I provided links that show this.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Regret
So you are stating that Christ was not a person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy, and he was not a person who is calm and rational under any circumstances? Christ was/is these things, imo, and thus he was by definition a philosopher.

By your definition? Regret, philosophers speak the word of man. But Jesus spoke the Word of God. You can't see the difference between the two? Jesus was not a philosopher.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
...I also respect the fact that he had endured a lot of pain and in the end a death for what HE believed in.
I like the idea that he refused to denounce his ideas in the face of torture and death.

What Christians did later, I always doubt was inspired by Jesus' example.
Just look at the ''turn the other cheek'' and ''love thy neighbour''. It is like the most ''forgotten'' part of Bible...ever.

Jesus did not die for what He believed in. Jesus died to save you, me, and everyone else from our sins.

You can't see love every time someone tells you about Jesus? You think that we spread the gospel for our health or because we don't have anything else to do?

Jesus had a lot to say about many different subjects. People just get fixated on certain things that Jesus said because they need a convenient excuse to justify their conscience every time a Christian attempts to spread the gospel. We are accused of judging others and being mean-spirited when in reality we are not. What happens when we spread the gospel is that unbelievers feel convicted of their sin and because they don't know how to deal with it, they lash out at what they believe to be the cause of their self-awareness in terms of feeling convicted of sin--the Christians. It is your own sinfulness just like the Bible states that is the problem and not Christians. If you do not acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner then you cannot be saved, because you don't think that you need salvation from sin (when in truth you do).

So this my take on this whole issue.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by lord xyz
Try asking your teacher. Say, didn't I post a link to Wikipedia about it? I think I did. Why don't you look at that instead of talking from your ass.

Here is what I said:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is no such thing as 7 deadly sins. Here is what the Bible calls them:

Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination
to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

Xyz, neither anger nor wrath is included in the seven things that God calls an abomination (Incidentally, God calls these things an abomination not deadly sins). So where did anger and wrath come from in you list?

I stand by what I said. Wikipedia is not the Bible and the term "7 deadly sins" is not in the Bible. It might be in Wikipedia but if you want to dialogue with me about the what is contained in the Bible then you need to use the Bible.

Lord Urizen

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus did not die for what He believed in. Jesus died to save you, me, and everyone else from our sins.

Which was part of his beleif. So he did die for what he beleived in...a very noble man ! Jesus seems like a great person indeed yes

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You can't see love every time someone tells you about Jesus? You think that we spread the gospel for our health or because we don't have anything else to do?

Not really...most of the people who preach about Jesus often seem hypocritical, full of BS, and hateful to me. Just look at George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Shirley Phelps Roper, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell...

It seems to me that the reason many Christian preachers "spread their gospel" with such annoying persistance is because in order to validate thier own faith, they need others to agree with them.

Otherwise, their faith becomes weak and means nothing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Jesus had a lot to say about many different subjects. People just get fixated on certain things that Jesus said because they need a convenient excuse to justify their conscience every time a Christian attempts to spread the gospel.

The same way many Christians need an excuse from their Bible to commit acts of prejudice.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We are accused of judging others and being mean-spirited when in reality we are not.

Many of you are judgemental and mean spirited yes

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

You really ARE delusional roll eyes (sarcastic)

Non Believers get annoyed that people who know NOTHING about them are making judgements on them and telling them how to live thier lives.

We also get annoyed when you bring your mythology into our politics and try to erase logic and reason from everyday life.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

"sinfulness" is an adjective that has no factual basis to declare it relevant in anyway.

Christians AND non-Christians are both equally responsible and capable for the evils that occur in this world. You are not exempt from your own faults just because you happen to beleive some imaginary character sees you as special

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If you do not acknowledge the fact that you are a sinner then you cannot be saved, because you don't think that you need salvation from sin (when in truth you do).

The word "sinner" means nothing to me

Do I acknowledge that I have flaws and do not always live up to a morally clean slate? Ofcourse bro...but the high and mighty JIA wants to judge us all as sinners in denial when he needs to take a good look at himself first.

He without sin shall cast the first stone

-Jesus Christ

You are just as good or evil as any one of us on these forums. You have equal moral standing just like the rest of us, and you are ONLY human just like the rest of us. You are no better than any of us here, so please...spare us the lectures buddy.

You have flaws of your own, you have "sins" of your own, you are NOT morally exempt, and you need to stop being a hypocrit.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

A take with too much sentiment and very little factual basis.

Regret

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
By your definition? Regret, philosophers speak the word of man. But Jesus spoke the Word of God. You can't see the difference between the two? Jesus was not a philosopher. Only one is necessary for the term to fit, Christ fits them all.

crazy

Originally posted by Regret
Only one is necessary for the term to fit, Christ fits them all.

That definition is the work of Satan, I think JIA would agree with me in saying that he has gotten to you and dictionary.com

Regret

Originally posted by crazy
That definition is the work of Satan, I think JIA would agree with me in saying that he has gotten to you and dictionary.com Are you saying that Christ is not a specialist in philosophy? You literalistic Christians are rather poor in intellect I believe. You say God can do anything, yet he is not the master of any philosophy? Does God have no philosophy? What is philosophy?

Christ most definitely was/is a philosopher.

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by Regret
Are you saying that Christ is not a specialist in philosophy? You literalistic Christians are rather poor in intellect I believe. You say God can do anything, yet he is not the master of any philosophy? Does God have no philosophy? What is philosophy?

I believe he was joking.

This reminds me of a rather heated debate one of my classes had last year (a tute to do with paganism, Christianity and Judaism in the Middle East - period of Christian persecutions and Jewish rebellion.)

The subject was the difference between the philosophers and religious figures at the time and whether they really were inseparable. There is good and valid logic behind comparing the two. Naturally the difference set them apart and make the two separate fields - but the thing about religion and philosophy is that they do share features.

However one big difference is the way in which they approach question and answer - a philosopher is commonly seen to approach the world and the acts and like of it and the things that inhabit it on a natural and personal level of responsibility and purpose where as religion tends to look for answers outside the realm of the mortal world. Likewise where the message comes from - a philosopher him/herself or the philosophers of the past while a religious figure might believe/claim their message is derived from a divine source.

Jesus was a religious figure, and it could be argued he was also a philosopher, but there is a reason why religious figure is use as opposed to philosopher.

Robtard

JIA... I do have a question, why make a thread like this? Anyone that has debated with you in the past and/or read enough of your post can vouch that you hold nothing but disdain for Islam. So why make a post for the sole purpose to demonize one religious figure in hopes of glorifying another?

Regret

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I believe he was joking.

However one big difference is the way in which they approach question and answer - a philosopher is commonly seen to approach the world and the acts and like of it and the things that inhabit it on a natural and personal level of responsibility and purpose where as religion tends to look for answers outside the realm of the mortal world. Likewise where the message comes from - a philosopher him/herself or the philosophers of the past while a religious figure might believe/claim their message is derived from a divine source.

Jesus was a religious figure, and it could be argued he was also a philosopher, but there is a reason why religious figure is use as opposed to philosopher. Commonly being the key term. Regardless of common view the definition is the definition. If someone asks me about American Republicans, I could say they are commonly rich corporate types or religious types. If someone asks me about American Democrats, I could say they are commonly hippie rich kid types. Are either of these true? In some cases yes, technically though? No. Religious figures that teach are in fact presenting a philosophy on life, regardless of whether it fits a non-theological perspective or even considers such a perspective is irrelevant, it is a philosophy on existence. Such a philosophy could be true, it also could not be. We could be brains in a vat, much as the scenario is overused since the Matrix, such a philosophy is no different in scope than the religious philosophies existent today.

Maybe, but if not I responded. Lately I have been rather tired, and humour is sometimes lost on me.

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by Regret
Commonly being the key term. Regardless of common view the definition is the definition.

Although the common view is based upon definition. Compare your definition of philosophy:

With one of religion:

or alternativly Theology:

Now as I mentioned both share similarities, but the differences are sufficiently prominent enough to separate them into distinct categories. And ultimate the differences outweigh the similarities.

Both religion and philosophy can deal with how one should live their life - as does the law. Is the law also a philosophy? Religious teachers present a view of life - yes - but a religious view. Strip away the religion and you might have a philosophy (as I have seen with Buddhism.) However if you stripped away the religion from Christianity would it still be Christianity since the basis of it is accepting Jesus as the Messiah? Clearly not.

Similarities yes, but the differences in approach, purpose and origin of the theory put forward separate a philosopher from a preacher.

And back to that definition of philosophy - which ones exactly would you say Jesus belongs under?

1.Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. - Well I guess so, but isn't the way advised to be through God rather then intellect?
2.Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. - I don't think so.
3.A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. - No.
4.The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. - Did Jesus engage in critical analysis of belief?
5.The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. - The theology applies here.
6.The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. - No.
7.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. - No really.
8.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. - Kind of, but a philosophy of life generally doesn't have a religious component.

So in a way yes - philosophical elemants, but far from being comprahensive. Just like a philosophers could be judged against a religious or theological definitions and seem to fall under some of the listings, but still be considered a philosopher. The differences outwiegh the similarities.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Robtard
JIA... I do have a question, why make a thread like this? Anyone that has debated with you in the past and/or read enough of your post can vouch that you hold nothing but disdain for Islam. So why make a post for the sole purpose to demonize one religious figure in hopes of glorifying another?

Question Robtard: have you read every one of my posts in this thread? I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine first.

lord xyz

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question Robtard: have you read every one of my posts in this thread? I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine first. Yeah, because the second question usually is answered before the first isn't it?

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question Robtard: have you read every one of my posts in this thread? I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine first.

Well the underlying agenda once again seems to be the comparison of someone you believe is the child of God (and more) and a human male representing a religion you believe to be wrong and born from the worship of a "moon God" - and worse, due in part to Chick Tract portrayals.

Arguably I would say he has a point in asking why you needed to make a thread when you have made your opinions on the matter clear many times before.

lord xyz

I would just like to say that the moon and sun, are a lot more of gods than Jesus could ever be. I mean think about it,

Life: If it wasn't for the sun and moon, we wouldn't have the energy needed to make water, plants, animals, and our lives themselves.

Emotion: Both the sun and moon provide weather, which creates mood and atmosphere, can't say much about Jesus.

Science: If it wasn't for the sun and moon, people would never have understood outer-space, biology, how energy transfers, and many more.

Yes, the sun and moon are more of gods than Jesus. Infact, I like to see the sun and moon as gods. After-all, you can actually see them almost every day! And they've been here all the time.

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by lord xyz
I would just like to say that the moon and sun, are a lot more of gods than Jesus could ever be. I mean think about it,

Life: If it wasn't for the sun and moon, we wouldn't have the energy needed to make water, plants, animals, and our lives themselves.

Emotion: Both the sun and moon provide weather, which creates mood and atmosphere, can't say much about Jesus.

Science: If it wasn't for the sun and moon, people would never have understood outer-space, biology, how energy transfers, and many more.

Yes, the sun and moon are more of gods than Jesus. Infact, I like to see the sun and moon as gods. After-all, you can actually see them almost every day! And they've been here all the time.

Exactly why the moon and sun figured so prominently in ancient mythologies. Even lacking the science to truly understand the two they knew the importance of them.

This is links up with a possible theory on why the Genesis account was presented in such a way - purposely trying to limit the influence of the sun and moon in the eyes of potential followers and set themselves apart from the Egyptians and the like (which is a tactic to avoid gradual cultural assimilation.)

Robtard

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well the underlying agenda once again seems to be the comparison of someone you believe is the child of God (and more) and a human male representing a religion you believe to be wrong and born from the worship of a "moon God" - and worse, due in part to Chick Tract portrayals.

Arguably I would say he has a point in asking why you needed to make a thread when you have made your opinions on the matter clear many times before.

Exactly and to the point.

Robtard

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Question Robtard: have you read every one of my posts in this thread? I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine first.

Answer: Yes, I read the entire first page where you defend Jesus as being "without sin" and then I skimmed through the pages here and there. AND! I did this before I asked you the question. Your ball.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Robtard
Answer: Yes, I read the entire first page where you defend Jesus as being "without sin" and then I skimmed through the pages here and there. AND! I did this before I asked you the question. Your ball.

Just like I suspected. Read every one of my posts in this thread because I have already explained the answer to your question/statement.

Terrorist

http://www.slipstreamproductions.net/public/meme/Jesus_Not_Happy.jpg

Terrorist

http://www.slipstreamproductions.net/public/meme/Jesus_Leave_Out.jpg

Robtard

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Just like I suspected. Read every one of my posts in this thread because I have already explained the answer to your question/statement.

Let me guess... Ask Jesus for forgiveness and except him into my heart as the one and only true God while I will still have the chance before he comes back to rapture away his church and I am left on the sidelines burning in eternal damnation?

You didn't answer my question though, you just said it's there somewhere for me to find.

Robtard

Originally posted by Terrorist
http://www.slipstreamproductions.net/public/meme/Jesus_Not_Happy.jpg

Okay, this picture is funny...

crazy

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by crazy
I was being sarcastic, sorry I guess I am bad at it.

I got it.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Exactly why the moon and sun figured so prominently in ancient mythologies. Even lacking the science to truly understand the two they knew the importance of them.

This is links up with a possible theory on why the Genesis account was presented in such a way - purposely trying to limit the influence of the sun and moon in the eyes of potential followers and set themselves apart from the Egyptians and the like (which is a tactic to avoid gradual cultural assimilation.) Also, the Celts in Britain, knew of salses and equinoxes without any science, all they did was look up. Christians couldn't even figure out the Earth was round.

As for the Egyptians, something tells me that they didn't believe all those myths that we think. After all, what evidence to people have that ancient egyptians didn't have a sense of humour?

Regret

Originally posted by crazy
I was being sarcastic, sorry I guess I am bad at it. Sorry, I did not see the sarcasm. Sarcasm is sometimes difficult to convey in text, also, like I mentioned, I have been rather tired lately, an aspect of age and illness that is unavoidable.

Regret

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although the common view is based upon definition. Compare your definition of philosophy:

With one of religion:

or alternativly Theology:

Now as I mentioned both share similarities, but the differences are sufficiently prominent enough to separate them into distinct categories. And ultimate the differences outweigh the similarities.

Both religion and philosophy can deal with how one should live their life - as does the law. Is the law also a philosophy? Religious teachers present a view of life - yes - but a religious view. Strip away the religion and you might have a philosophy (as I have seen with Buddhism.) However if you stripped away the religion from Christianity would it still be Christianity since the basis of it is accepting Jesus as the Messiah? Clearly not.

Similarities yes, but the differences in approach, purpose and origin of the theory put forward separate a philosopher from a preacher.

And back to that definition of philosophy - which ones exactly would you say Jesus belongs under?

1.Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. - Well I guess so, but isn't the way advised to be through God rather then intellect?
2.Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. - I don't think so.
3.A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume. - No.
4.The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. - Did Jesus engage in critical analysis of belief?
5.The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. - The theology applies here.
6.The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology. - No.
7.A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. - No really.
8.A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life. - Kind of, but a philosophy of life generally doesn't have a religious component.

So in a way yes - philosophical elemants, but far from being comprahensive. Just like a philosophers could be judged against a religious or theological definitions and seem to fall under some of the listings, but still be considered a philosopher. The differences outwiegh the similarities. Which is entirely your opinion, I disagree, and hold that Christ, and other religious figures, were philosophers. I do not hold that they were only philosophers, but they were philosophers as well as other things.

Lord Urizen

I agree with Regret. Jesus Christ is definately a philosopher in all aspects.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I agree with Regret. Jesus Christ is definately a philosopher in all aspects. A philosopher who shared the same beliefs as many others at that time. I mean, what's not say that Jesus wasn't the leader of the pack, maybe the rest of the pack died before he was crucified? Who knows?

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by Regret
Which is entirely your opinion, I disagree, and hold that Christ, and other religious figures, were philosophers. I do not hold that they were only philosophers, but they were philosophers as well as other things.

Well I am arguing from the perspective of definition. There is a reason, a very good reason, why the two terms are not interchangable.

The way in which they approached the questions.

The source from which they believed answer could be derived.

The way in which they viewed humanity

The fields they gave prominence to in approaching the questions they asked.

I have already stated that there are similarities. But the differences divide a philosopher from a religious leader. They are not the same. The similarities are not enough to make them fit under the same heading.

A firefighter and a paramedic are both rescue workers just as a philosopher and religious figure are both teachers. They both have similarities, but the difference in the way they work, the fields in which they operate, the kind of knowledge they utilise and work with means they can be defined by that single heading.

Jesus could only truly be considered a philosopher if the religious aspect was removed. If he was just a man preach a mans view of life. However due to the religious nature and origin claimed by his view he can not truly be classified as a philosopher first. He is a religious leader. However I think that he, if he existed, was just a man, and that his views are manmade. I think all religious leaders have been. In this sense I think all religious leaders are psuedo-philosophers. That there religion is based pureply on philosophy. However the arguement here I am operating under the concept of Jesus's claims being true.

Do you have some sort of theory as to why philosopher and religious leader should be interchangeable simply because both at some point might present a message for life? Because to my knowledge that alone is not enough in terms of scholarship. The fact remains the difference define them as two separate groups.

JesusIsAlive

Originally posted by Robtard
Let me guess... Ask Jesus for forgiveness and except him into my heart as the one and only true God while I will still have the chance before he comes back to rapture away his church and I am left on the sidelines burning in eternal damnation?

You didn't answer my question though, you just said it's there somewhere for me to find.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No one is spreading hatred. If you characterize facts presented in comparative, analytical form hatred then you don't understand what hatred is. Hatred would be to present false, malicious, untrue statements about someone or something. But everything that those links provided is factual and true. So, no there is no hatred being spread here.

The only thing that I hate is sin, and lies are definitely sinful. So, I don't hate anything or anyone except sin, satan, demons, and evil. Islam is not ordained of God (meaning that the God of the Bible is not its Founder). All of the religions of the world were started by satan to divert people from the true God as revealed in the Bible.

The reason that I asked you if you had read all of my posts in this thread is because if you had, you would have come across this post. This post sums up why I made this thread. Thanks.

lord xyz

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The reason that I asked you if you had read all of my posts in this thread is because if you had, you would have come across this post. This post sums up why I made this thread. Thanks. That post is racist, offensive to all and down right wrong. It's more about you hating Islam if anything. Saying Muhammed is a bad man whereas Jesus is truethfully a god.

The first link you posted says Jesus came back to life. That is ****ing bullshit. How the **** can anyone come back to life?

Robtard

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The reason that I asked you if you had read all of my posts in this thread is because if you had, you would have come across this post. This post sums up why I made this thread. Thanks.

Thanks for replying, and I was right when I guessed "Ask Jesus for forgiveness and except him into my heart as the one and only true God ...", because that is all your really saying in your post above/below. Either you've become extremely formulaic, or I'm a mind reader...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
All of the religions of the world were started by satan to divert people from the true God as revealed in the Bible.

lord xyz

Wow, this thread has started countless debates on comepletely different subjects, that really be in their own independant threads.

Imperial_Samura

Originally posted by Regret
I am not stating that a religious leader is a philosopher or that a philosopher is a religious leader, such is absurd.

You said "... hold that Christ, and other religious leaders, were philosophers."So if you aren't saying a religious leader is a philosopher what are youy saying by stating "I believe Jesus was a philosopher amongst other things."

No, manner of approach is important, since it is part of what defines a philosopher as a philosopher. Go back and look at your little defintion and note the sections that deal with how a philosopher operates (their method as it were) and compare it with religion or theology. Manner of approach is highly relevant in terms of definition here, as the manner of approach is the first step in coming to the over all philosophy or religious claim.

Oh? The fact a philosophers source might be a past philosophers works or their concept of the human mind is irrelevant. I guess you consider the source of a religious leaders theories (say the Bible or the Prophet or a God) equally irrelevant? I suggest you look into the religion vs. philosophy debate and you will see the source from which the definition, the descriptor is derived is highly relevant to defining a philosopher and a religious figure.

Correct, but in a way that set them apart of your average "the gods did this. Worship the gods" kind of world view. Many philosophers have more in common with political scientists or sociologists then a priest, in the early days many philosophical works were arguements against gods in favor of humanity.

Correct, but not both at the same time. Jesus did not have a philosophy life and a religious life. He preached a religion. His source was claimed to be God. They are not interchangeable. If he had presented a philosophy based upon his religion it would be justified. Or if he, like a guru, built a religion from a philosophy - but that wasn't the case. Jesus was a religious figure. Ultimately all you have done is reaffirmed what I said - there are valid similarities between a philosopher and a theology. However the difference are sufficient to overcome the similarities.

A religious figure cane be a philosopher as long as the necessary criteria are met in the philosophical thought. Jesus preached a religion. Jesus preached a religious approach to life, and gave religious reasons to live it. Philosophical similarities, but the differences are still there to classify him first as a religious figure, not a philosopher (remembering as well the numerous Christian texts in the middle ages that spoke out against philosophy in favor of religion.)

As above - we were dealing with Jesus, but we can expand. Certain religions are far more philosophical in nature and the religious aspect far more balanced. Buddhism is approached by many as a philosophy rather then a religion. It is very balanced. Christianity on the other hand - is it Christianity is one strips away the divine aspect? Simple question - if you remove Jesus is it still Christianity? Or is it merely a philosophy of nonaggression like numerous other philosophies? Because Buddhism can maintain its tenants even removed of the divine aspect - Christianity can't, nor can Islam.

You can argue that a religious figure can also be a philosopher. However you can't claim they can be both at the same time if aspects necessary for definition aren't present. Since Jesus presented works of a solely religious basis derived from a religious mindset and outlook his qualification as a "philosopher" is very shaky.

Australian bias (that is I am working with Australian ones) - they undergo similar training but diverge - a paramedic is a paramedic, a fire man a fireman. Both have the designator "emergency worker" but the difference essentially stop them being interchangeable. One is not the other. However one can be both (two jobs) but not at the same time (since there is no paramam or firemedic) - however they can use the skills from one in the other. There are religious leaders who are also philosophers, but that is still two different disciplines held by a single person, just like the emergency worker example. Was Jesus a philosopher because he presented the Christian doctrine however? No. The Bible is not a philosophical text, it is a religious one. And since the Bible is our source on Jesus and his teachings Jesus is locked in as a religious figure, not a philosophical one, and definitely not philosopher and religious figure.

They are exclusionary if the only teaching from an individual is religious in nature. I believe we are on the same path with the "a person can be a religious figure and a philosopher" - I know professors with doctorates in both philosophy and theology.

However they are rarely if ever both at the same time. And a religious figure, just because of the superficial similarities between a philosophical theory of life and a religious one, is not automatically classifiable as also a philosopher. The argument that Jesus is also a philosopher lacks grounding or justification as the teaching he presented (as per mainstream Christianity) lock him into the role of religious figure, and there is nothing to indicate he deserves the co-title of "Philosopher" - he delivered nothing to the world that would justify the title "philosopher", Christianity can not be broken down to pure philosophy because of the defining theological aspects that insure the Bible and Jesus's teachings remain religious in nature.

So it is correct to say "A religious figure could also operate as a philosopher" but not correct to say " religious figure presents a religious theory of life and thus is also a philosopher." A philosopher requires criteria to be met to qualify as a philosopher, just as a religious figure requires criteria to be a religious figure. Some religious figures were philosophers as well, but not all.

Regret

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You said "... hold that Christ, and other religious leaders, were philosophers."So if you aren't saying a religious leader is a philosopher what are youy saying by stating "I believe Jesus was a philosopher amongst other things."

No, manner of approach is important, since it is part of what defines a philosopher as a philosopher. Go back and look at your little defintion and note the sections that deal with how a philosopher operates (their method as it were) and compare it with religion or theology. Manner of approach is highly relevant in terms of definition here, as the manner of approach is the first step in coming to the over all philosophy or religious claim.

Oh? The fact a philosophers source might be a past philosophers works or their concept of the human mind is irrelevant. I guess you consider the source of a religious leaders theories (say the Bible or the Prophet or a God) equally irrelevant? I suggest you look into the religion vs. philosophy debate and you will see the source from which the definition, the descriptor is derived is highly relevant to defining a philosopher and a religious figure.

Correct, but in a way that set them apart of your average "the gods did this. Worship the gods" kind of world view. Many philosophers have more in common with political scientists or sociologists then a priest, in the early days many philosophical works were arguements against gods in favor of humanity.

Correct, but not both at the same time. Jesus did not have a philosophy life and a religious life. He preached a religion. His source was claimed to be God. They are not interchangeable. If he had presented a philosophy based upon his religion it would be justified. Or if he, like a guru, built a religion from a philosophy - but that wasn't the case. Jesus was a religious figure. Ultimately all you have done is reaffirmed what I said - there are valid similarities between a philosopher and a theology. However the difference are sufficient to overcome the similarities.

A religious figure cane be a philosopher as long as the necessary criteria are met in the philosophical thought. Jesus preached a religion. Jesus preached a religious approach to life, and gave religious reasons to live it. Philosophical similarities, but the differences are still there to classify him first as a religious figure, not a philosopher (remembering as well the numerous Christian texts in the middle ages that spoke out against philosophy in favor of religion.)

As above - we were dealing with Jesus, but we can expand. Certain religions are far more philosophical in nature and the religious aspect far more balanced. Buddhism is approached by many as a philosophy rather then a religion. It is very balanced. Christianity on the other hand - is it Christianity is one strips away the divine aspect? Simple question - if you remove Jesus is it still Christianity? Or is it merely a philosophy of nonaggression like numerous other philosophies? Because Buddhism can maintain its tenants even removed of the divine aspect - Christianity can't, nor can Islam.

You can argue that a religious figure can also be a philosopher. However you can't claim they can be both at the same time if aspects necessary for definition aren't present. Since Jesus presented works of a solely religious basis derived from a religious mindset and outlook his qualification as a "philosopher" is very shaky.

Australian bias (that is I am working with Australian ones) - they undergo similar training but diverge - a paramedic is a paramedic, a fire man a fireman. Both have the designator "emergency worker" but the difference essentially stop them being interchangeable. One is not the other. However one can be both (two jobs) but not at the same time (since there is no paramam or firemedic) - however they can use the skills from one in the other. There are religious leaders who are also philosophers, but that is still two different disciplines held by a single person, just like the emergency worker example. Was Jesus a philosopher because he presented the Christian doctrine however? No. The Bible is not a philosophical text, it is a religious one. And since the Bible is our source on Jesus and his teachings Jesus is locked in as a religious figure, not a philosophical one, and definitely not philosopher and religious figure.

They are exclusionary if the only teaching from an individual is religious in nature. I believe we are on the same path with the "a person can be a religious figure and a philosopher" - I know professors with doctorates in both philosophy and theology.

However they are rarely if ever both at the same time. And a religious figure, just because of the superficial similarities between a philosophical theory of life and a religious one, is not automatically classifiable as also a philosopher. The argument that Jesus is also a philosopher lacks grounding or justification as the teaching he presented (as per mainstream Christianity) lock him into the role of religious figure, and there is nothing to indicate he deserves the co-title of "Philosopher" - he delivered nothing to the world that would justify the title "philosopher", Christianity can not be broken down to pure philosophy because of the defining theological aspects that insure the Bible and Jesus's teachings remain religious in nature.

So it is correct to say "A religious figure could also operate as a philosopher" but not correct to say " religious figure presents a religious theory of life and thus is also a philosopher." A philosopher requires criteria to be met to qualify as a philosopher, just as a religious figure requires criteria to be a religious figure. Some religious figures were philosophers as well, but not all. I think we have now come to a point where our disagreement is based in "when is a person a philosopher and when is he not." I believe a person can be both at the same time, it is just more difficult to differentiate between the religious and the philosophical aspects in their communication. You seem to hold that the two cannot exist simultaneously and compliment one another in the communications.