Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Islam need a Reformation?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 256 of 300 (228597)
08-01-2005 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 7:40 PM


Oxymorons?
CanadianSteve writes:
They are oxymorons, who have lost every case they've presented before the rabbinate and Israeli courts..
I'm really beginning to think I got of at the wrong floor.
What is "they are oxymorons" supposed to mean? Referring to the Jews? Are you using a non-standard definition of "oxymoron" too?
(Just a question. Bow. Scrape.)

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 7:40 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 8:34 PM ringo has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 257 of 300 (228600)
08-01-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by jar
08-01-2005 8:01 PM


Re: Assumptions vs Conclusions
i doubt that there is a number of christians at EvC who dispute my understanding of a required Christian belief in Christ and salvation falsifies my assertion. Chances are the majority of these people, or all, belong to liberal churches (to which i attributed this change), or believe in the doctrines of these liberal churches - doctrines which arose as such only in the last generation or two. Moreover, while i do welcome this change, i do so, nonetheless, with circumspection, as i also realize that the theology behind it is dubious. Of course, if it becomes widely accepted doctrine, then it won't really matter - and I'll be pleased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 8:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 9:08 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 4:19 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 258 of 300 (228602)
08-01-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by ringo
08-01-2005 8:05 PM


Re: Oxymorons?
messianic jews are otherwise known as "Jews For Jesus." They claim to be Jews, despite having converted to another faith. Thus, why i describe them as oxymorons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by ringo, posted 08-01-2005 8:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by ringo, posted 08-01-2005 9:13 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 259 of 300 (228603)
08-01-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 8:32 PM


rather a typical response.
i doubt that there is a number of christians at EvC who dispute my understanding of a required Christian belief in Christ and salvation falsifies my assertion.
What does that mean? LOL
Do you doubt that there are other Christians here at EvC believe that a belief in in Christ is not required for salvation, or are you saying that the fact that there are Christians that believe that others than Christians can be saved does not falsify your assertion that all Christians believe only Christians can be saved?
The idea that Christ died for all mankind is not all that new, certainly dating back to at least the 4th. Century AD.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 8:32 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:21 PM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 260 of 300 (228604)
08-01-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 8:34 PM


Re: Oxymorons?
CanadianSteve writes:
why i describe them as oxymorons.
Maybe that's your whole problem here: you're speaking a language that nobody but you understands.
There are people out there reading this, you know. And all they have to go on is what you say. They can't read your mind to understand what you mean.
How about using terminology the same way the rest of us use it? And if you must use an obscure alternate definition, for God's sake, tell us what it is.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 8:34 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 261 of 300 (228607)
08-01-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
08-01-2005 9:08 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
Don't you think you should leave out the "LOL" if civil dialogue is desired?
I grant that I was not clear.
You argued that the existence of Christian EvC posters who do not agree with the doctrine that one must accept Christ in order to have one's soul saved and enter heaven proves I am wrong about this aspect of christian theology. It does not. Chances are pretty good that they are members of liberal churches, which only in the past generation or two have become liberal and subsequently have altered this theology. That is, beforehand, they too would have taken it as gospel that a belief in Christ is essential for entry to heaven. Moreover, most Christian theologians even today would point to key NT passages that support the traditional view. Thus, while for various reasons i welcome the change, i remain dubious that it has theological validity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 9:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 9:34 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 08-02-2005 4:36 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 262 of 300 (228612)
08-01-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 9:21 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
re: dropping the LOL; Not really.There's been a consistent pattern throughout this whole thread, you present something and someone posts a rebutal and you respond with some nonsense response such as "Chances are pretty good that they are members of liberal churches, which only in the past generation or two have become liberal and subsequently have altered this theology."
Here is one of the translations of the Nicene Creed, compiled in the 4th. AD.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
Note the bolded area.
For us men and for our salvation.
No mention there that salvation was only for Christians.
AbE:
This is straying OT so I will not debate the theology particulars in this thread, but I will point out that there are Christians that do not believe Salvation is only for Christians.
This message has been edited by jar, 08-01-2005 08:35 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:21 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:41 PM jar has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 263 of 300 (228614)
08-01-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by jar
08-01-2005 9:34 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
Of course, you're welcome to the opinion that my responses have been silly. i suspect most intelligent people would see it otherwise.
As for teh theology we're discussing, not being a christian and not bgeing knowledgeable enough, I have to be careful. However, i have read, many times, the rationale for this. here's one example.
Is Jesus the only way to Heaven? | GotQuestions.org

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 9:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 9:48 PM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 267 by CK, posted 08-02-2005 6:23 AM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 08-02-2005 11:05 AM CanadianSteve has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 264 of 300 (228616)
08-01-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 9:41 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
Fine, and I could point you to discussions here on the subject.
I am happy to let the readers determine the relative worth of the various postings.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:41 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 265 of 300 (228673)
08-02-2005 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 8:32 PM


Re: Assumptions vs Conclusions
You are right, Steve, that the orthodox Christian view is that only those who are in Christ are saved. But there's really no point in arguing it further on this thread that I can see. Jar is right that there are many here who consider themselves Christians who deny this basic orthodox tenet. Also, although you are also right that this denial is a position of some liberal churches, there are apparently others who call themselves Christians who share it who are not so easy to classify. (EvC has made me aware of a more amazing variety of theologies than I had any idea could exist, even in a world full of idiosyncratic theologies.) Oh well. You are right, though, if that's any consolation considering that I'm the only one here who is likely to confirm it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 04:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 8:32 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 300 (228675)
08-02-2005 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 9:21 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
Don't you think you should leave out the "LOL" if civil dialogue is desired?
Good point, he would if he did (desire civil dialogue that is). He doesn't.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 10:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:21 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 267 of 300 (228686)
08-02-2005 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 9:41 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
I have a string of post-graduate qualifications and I am about to finish a PhD - I guess that would make me intelligent.
I think your posts are silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:41 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-02-2005 10:49 AM CK has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 268 of 300 (228792)
08-02-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by CK
08-02-2005 6:23 AM


Re: rather a typical response.
I am a professional counsellor, have similar qualifications, have published professional articles, and have presented at peer-reviewed conferences. i think your response is both silly amd immature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by CK, posted 08-02-2005 6:23 AM CK has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 269 of 300 (228797)
08-02-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by CanadianSteve
08-01-2005 9:41 PM


Re: rather a typical response.
Add another vote for "silly".
Or does "silly" mean something completely different in SteveSpeak?
My intelligence, or lack thereof, is on record in my posts here.
So is yours.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-01-2005 9:41 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by CanadianSteve, posted 08-02-2005 12:15 PM ringo has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 270 of 300 (228798)
08-02-2005 11:06 AM


Article citing the Islamic civil war. Suggests reformation
"Secondly, they must look at the reinterpretation of their texts, the Koran, hadith and Sharia, and the reformation of their faith. Mundir Badr Haloum has described this as ”exorcising’ the terrorism from Islam. Mahmud Muhammad Taha argued for a distinction to be drawn between the Meccan and the Medinan sections of the Koran. He advocated a return to peaceable Meccan Islam, which he argued is applicable to today, whereas the bellicose Medinan teachings should be consigned to history. For taking this position he was tried for apostasy, found guilty and executed by the Sudanese government in 1985. Another modernist reformer was the Pakistani Fazlur Rahman, who advocated the ”double movement’; i.e., understanding Koranic verses in their context, their ratio legis, and then using the philosophy of the Koran to interpret that in a modern, social and moral sense. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zayd, an Egyptian professor who argued similarly that the Koran and hadith should be interpreted according to the context in which they originated, was charged with apostasy, found guilty in June 1995 and ordered to separate from his wife.
The US-based Free Muslims Coalition, which was set up after 9/11 to promote a modern and secular version of Islam, has proposed the following:
1. A re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century, where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.
2. Separation of religion and state.
3. Democracy as the best form of government.
4. Secularism in all forms of political activity.
5. Equality for women.
6. Religion to be a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God, not to be forced on anyone."
For the earlier and latter parts of this article:
Page Not Found - JIM BALL

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024