[fapfapfap]

Originally Posted by Evil Twin ↗

That is a COMPLETELY invalid statement.

First, Islam is not a Biblical religion.

LOL. Yes it is.

Originally Posted by Evil Twin ↗

It's a good idea to know what you're talking about when making such statements. You took the time to look up a Bible verse, you should have taken the time to consider to whom it was written as well.

Please take your own advice.

[Kman2203]

Originally Posted by chrisnsal ↗

MOUTHY MUSLIM CUNT , THEY NEED TO SHUT THE FUCK UP , MOUTHY CUNTS, MOST MUSLIMS ARE ROCKY ROAD SUPPORTERS ANYWAY, INBRED CUNTS ! DEATH TO THE FUCKING MUSLIMS AND I MEAN EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM !

Not all Muslims are barbaric or support extremist behaviour old chap....

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

In another place you stated that you replied to a different poster with reason and fact. Very well, that is an appropriate approach, and I will follow it.

First point: According to Islam prior to Mohammed God revealed truth to a series of prophets beginning with Adam and including such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. Leviticus is ascribed to Moses by both Jews and Christians. Thus it is simply not true that Islam is not a Biblical religion. While Muslims hold that presently existing versions of the Old Testament contain later textual corruptions, and so don't accept everything therein, they do respect as inspired those portions that are not in disagreement with the Koran.

Second point: From the fact that the Levitical Law was given to the Israelites it does not follow that it is invalid today. By your reasoning the Ten Commandments would also be invalid today, as they were given specifically to the Israelites. No Christian theologian would say that the Ten Commandments are currently invalid. Yes, ASPECTS of the Levitical Law are superseded, according to Christian doctrine, particularly those pertaining to the functioning of the priesthood and the entire sacrificial system, since Christ is taken to be the ultimate sacrifice which fulfilled the requirement of sacrifice for sin once and for all. In general, which OT requirements are/are not valid for Christians can only be determined on a case by case basis, through a careful comparison of the New Testament to the Old. Indeed, such studies have resulted in various positions among Christians over the centuries regarding the matter - no unanimity exists.

Third point: I concur with the statement that it's a good idea to know what you're talking about.

Acknowledging parts of the Old Testament for being historically correct and accepting the Book in its entirety as a foundation for a set of beliefs are two completely different things. I can accept that parts of the quran may be historically correct (not inspired), but that does not mean that I espouse any of its teachings. To be a truly Biblical religion, its fundamental beliefs must be based on the Bible, and the Bible alone.

I agree with you completely that the Ten Commandment law was not done away with. Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments." If He intended for us to do otherwise, I feel quite certain He would have made it clear before His death. The Bible never said anything about the Ten Commandments being nailed to the cross, it only states that the "law which was contrary to us" was nailed to the cross. The Bible is full of examples describing the Ten Commandments as just the opposite. One good example, Paul said (long after Jesus' death) "I delight in the law of God" (Romans 7:22). A clear distinction is made between the two laws and the Bible is very consistent on that point.

Romans 13:10 says "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." A religion which promotes hate and the killing of all who are not like themselves does not match up with anything in the Bible. How you can say Islam is a Biblical religion is beyond me.

[davebaron666]

Originally Posted by chrisnsal ↗

MOUTHY MUSLIM CUNT , THEY NEED TO SHUT THE FUCK UP , MOUTHY CUNTS, MOST MUSLIMS ARE ROCKY ROAD SUPPORTERS ANYWAY, INBRED CUNTS ! DEATH TO THE FUCKING MUSLIMS AND I MEAN EVERY FUCKING ONE OF THEM !

yup kill 20% of earth population that will solve everything....simpleton..

[philovan]

Originally Posted by Evil Twin ↗

Acknowledging parts of the Old Testament for being historically correct and accepting the Book in its entirety as a foundation for a set of beliefs are two completely different things. I can accept that parts of the quran may be historically correct (not inspired), but that does not mean that I espouse any of its teachings. To be a truly Biblical religion, its fundamental beliefs must be based on the Bible, and the Bible alone.

I agree with you completely that the Ten Commandment law was not done away with. Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments." If He intended for us to do otherwise, I feel quite certain He would have made it clear before His death. The Bible never said anything about the Ten Commandments being nailed to the cross, it only states that the "law which was contrary to us" was nailed to the cross. The Bible is full of examples describing the Ten Commandments as just the opposite. One good example, Paul said (long after Jesus' death) "I delight in the law of God" (Romans 7:22). A clear distinction is made between the two laws and the Bible is very consistent on that point.

Romans 13:10 says "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." A religion which promotes hate and the killing of all who are not like themselves does not match up with anything in the Bible. How you can say Islam is a Biblical religion is beyond me.

The concept of a "Biblical religion" is itself quite vague. It may be understood in the strict sense that you advocate ("it's fundamental beliefs must be based on the Bible, and the Bible alone"). If so, you are obviously correct in that Islam is not such a religion. However, a looser notion of "Biblical religion" may also be employed whereby any faith with historical and, to some extent, dogmatic roots in the Bible or portions of the Bible may qualify for this designation. On that basis Islam would be properly so conceived given that it places Mohammed at the end of a long line of prophets which include major Old Testament figures as well as Jesus of Nazareth (even accepting the dogma of his virgin birth). Thus the disagreement here may be largely one of semantics.

On your other major point Islam does not, as a general policy, promote the hatred of and killing of all non Muslims. There are places in the Koran where violence against unbelievers is condoned under specific circumstance, but the same is true of the Old Testament (e.g. in the genocidal conquest of Canaan, the slaughter of the prophets of Baal). Oh yes, never forget that the God of the Old Testament (presumably the God of the New Testament also, contra Marcion) at one point annihilated the entire human race with the exception of eight people. Thus it is no shock that he also sanctioned the slaughtering of unbelievers by his followers when their perceived wickedness reached a certain level. One may grant that Jesus of Nazareth taught a more forgiving and tolerant ethic than that of the Old Testament, but portions of the latter match up well with the Koran when it comes to dealing with wicked unbelievers, and it is primarily the Old Testament which is in mind when Islam is described as a "Biblical" religion.

[fapfapfap]

Evil Twin, your snarky attempt at condescension and intellectual superiority has officially backfired in a huge way. It's time to wave the white flag.

[OneSkiWonder]

Least they covered his head so he couldn't see the ground coming up at him.

[LrlynJy]

one of the reason why first world countries dont like them muslim terrorists.. this method could severely cut the voting population by half in almost anywhere else if it becomes legal....

although, from things i heard from my relatives who worked in muslims countries for long periods. Muslims would rather rape men of other nationalities than women. i heard they do not get punishment for that. and its the only way their poor citizens can get a carnal life because they could not afford to buy their own woman. So why would they punish gays?

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by philovan ↗

The concept of a "Biblical religion" is itself quite vague. It may be understood in the strict sense that you advocate ("it's fundamental beliefs must be based on the Bible, and the Bible alone"). If so, you are obviously correct in that Islam is not such a religion. However, a looser notion of "Biblical religion" may also be employed whereby any faith with historical and, to some extent, dogmatic roots in the Bible or portions of the Bible may qualify for this designation. On that basis Islam would be properly so conceived given that it places Mohammed at the end of a long line of prophets which include major Old Testament figures as well as Jesus of Nazareth (even accepting the dogma of his virgin birth). Thus the disagreement here may be largely one of semantics.

On your other major point Islam does not, as a general policy, promote the hatred of and killing of all non Muslims. There are places in the Koran where violence against unbelievers is condoned under specific circumstance, but the same is true of the Old Testament (e.g. in the genocidal conquest of Canaan, the slaughter of the prophets of Baal). Oh yes, never forget that the God of the Old Testament (presumably the God of the New Testament also, contra Marcion) at one point annihilated the entire human race with the exception of eight people. Thus it is no shock that he also sanctioned the slaughtering of unbelievers by his followers when their perceived wickedness reached a certain level. One may grant that Jesus of Nazareth taught a more forgiving and tolerant ethic than that of the Old Testament, but portions of the latter match up well with the Koran when it comes to dealing with wicked unbelievers, and it is primarily the Old Testament which is in mind when Islam is described as a "Biblical" religion.

Thank you for responding as you did. I had not considered a loose interpretation of the word Biblical, only having used the literal definition in the past myself. Understanding your interpretation of the word changes things considerably. While I disagree with using a loose interpretation for a word instead of an actual definition, especially in this particular situation, I would concede that there is room for both schools of thought, as long as it is understood in the way which you just explained it.

On your second paragraph, the difference between the Old Testament Israelites and Muslims who adhere to a strict interpretation of the Quran is this. The battles fought by the Israelites were not fought simply because their opponents were evil nations. They were enemies of Israel, and would have done everything they could to destroy them. They were specific targets which were a threat to their survival, not just bad people in general.

The example you gave of the killing of the prophets of Baal happened after a long day spent proving that Baal was a false god and the God of Heaven is the one true God. Pretty good read, actually.

Mohamed, on the other hand, didn't start promoting violence in his writings until after his move to Medina. There, he was among a more sympathetic audience, and a much greater number of followers as well. The similarities with the Jewish and Christian people ceased to exist and animosities rapidly increased. His peaceful writings were set aside in favor of more vitriolic writings.

So here's my question. And I really mean this as a question. How do those in the Islamic community reconcile the passages in the Quran regarding abrogation? You have obviously read my posts in the past, and have likely seen where I have stated that I know most Muslims are not bad people. Those who do not follow this rule and only follow his early writings where he does not advocate violence against unbelievers must deal with it some way. I would honestly like to know what that is.

[Evil Twin]

Originally Posted by fapfapfap ↗

Evil Twin, your snarky attempt at condescension and intellectual superiority has officially backfired in a huge way. It's time to wave the white flag.

No condescension, no intellectual superiority, I'm no better than anybody else here. But instead of sitting on the sidelines and cheerleading, (twice so far in this thread) give me your input. I hate being wrong just as much as anyone else, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll take my lumps and learn from it so I won't be wrong the next time.

Philovan has given me some great feedback which has changed my understanding on how some (or maybe many) view Islam as a Biblical religion. That doesn't make my view wrong, it just means it differs from his.

I have read many of your previous posts and you seem like a pretty reasonable person. I am open to further changing my views on Islam, but you have to convince me.