NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

not really, I don't really see a need for prophets post-Jesus.

Is someone who claims he is a prophet, a prophet?

not really, I don't really see a need for prophets post-Jesus.

Jesus fulfilled the office of Prophet, so, yeah, we don't need anymore. The Apostles were prophets of a higher order, but they were only 12. And there are prophets all around, though none have the authority of the Apostles, much less the authority of the Prophets, and it's unthinkable that they should have the authority of Christ.

Is someone who claims he is a prophet, a prophet?

People claim Jesus was God, yet you except that.

Edit: Your right, Jesus never said he was God, he always called himself a servant of God. Which oddly enough adds more to the idea that he was simply a prophet, NOT God in human form.

Jesus claimed he was God, yet you except that.

I do?

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

No.

I do?

aren't you a Christian?

No.

He certainly had charisma and insight in the way religions work, but whatever his capacities, he was NOT a prophet. Or a false one, at best.

aren't you a Christian?

Not really. I come from a Jewish background brought up in a christian family (you're worst enemy), but I don't really bother with Christianity anymore.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

I don't believe that any of the so called prophets were in communication with 'God'. They were just men who held a certain philosophy that fitted for their time. It could probably be argued that people like Ghandi (despite his obsession with all things toilet related;) ) and Mandela are modern day prophets.

This brings up an interesting theological question, how is prophethood verified?

I mean anyone can claim that they are a prophet, but how do you make sure that they are?

I do?

Yes you do.

Unless you're jewish.

Are you?

If not by replying to a thread titled "Question for Christians and Jews" you have proclaimed that you are either a christian or jew. That's a fact, that. You can't take it back. You may not realise it but it is almost as binding and official as a baptism or whatever jews have.. I'm quite ignorant on that matter.

edit: ah crap.. I don't want to be a christian or a jew.. the Goddess will be displeased..

but he had a good chin though.

Trilby63;12041641']Yes you do.

Unless you're jewish.

Are you?

If not by replying to a thread titled "Question for Christians and Jews" you have proclaimed that you are either a christian or jew. That's a fact, that. You can't take it back. You may not realise it but it is almost as binding and official as a baptism or whatever jews have.. I'm quite ignorant on that matter.

Oops, my bad.

I have a question regarding, that dude, Soviestan's signature.

Does that imply that you have to be a muslim to enter heaven and if not then what is the problem?

No. But I'm an atheist, so perhaps my opinion doesn't count. You should put up a poll, so you can count the number of Christians and Jews who actually answer "yes."

Trilby63;12041716']I have a question regarding, that dude, Soviestan's signature.

Does that imply that you have to be a muslim to enter heaven and if not then what is the problem?

Soviestan recently converted to Islam. It shows just a little in his post-conversion persona.

Soviestan recently converted to Islam. It shows just a little in his post-conversion persona.

Yes.

I am a Christian

I read the Qur'an with an eye towards reconciliation between faiths as much as possible, looking for common ground, so to speak. And although there are endless similarities between the message of the Qur'an and the message of the OT, and a few NT aspects as well, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of salvation, the Qur'an says that a person can not believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again. And the NT says that a Christian must believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again for our salvation. The Qur'an says that there are no intercessors between us and God, the NT says that Jesus is our intercessor between us and God, overcoming the chasm of death and sin for us.


The two cannot be talking of the same salvation. Unless the anti-crucifixion passages of the Qur'an were added after Mohammed wrote them, then a Christian cannot believe that God influenced the Qur'an.

anyone who considers mohammed to be a profit is, by definition, a muslim. Either he's a prophet and thus his writings are divine, or he was not, and they're not.

Anyone who believed that mohammed had a line to god would believe that the writings are true. Which is the definition of a muslim.

anyone who considers mohammed to be a profit is, by definition, a muslim. Either he's a prophet and thus his writings are divine, or he was not, and they're not.

Anyone who believed that mohammed had a line to god would believe that the writings are true. Which is the definition of a muslim.

So are Baha'is Muslims?

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

Meh.

He was a prophet insofar as he was the one who, according to him and the belief of those who follow his teachings, was the one who brought God's word.

To be honest, what I think he was does not really matter. What does matter is if people who follow Islamic teachings truly believe so.

I'm an atheist Jew.

So I don't view any of Moses, Jesus or Mohammed as prophets. Jesus was a pretty cool guy though.


Incidentally I was having a look at Hinduism and here's a great idea for any religion:

Everyone has the right to be one's own saviour; one's own prophet.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?
No. A holy man yes, but not a prophet.

instead of making a new thread i'm randomly asking this question here,
how do make your own signatures? how can you see others?

Jesus claimed he was God.

Incorrect. Jesus never said that. When you met Jesus, all he said was "Follow me and leave all that **** you have behind."

I may have paraphrased a bit, but the Son of God thing wasn't started by Jesus (before he died, of course... after that... <.< >.> *whispers* He coulda come back... or it could be lies.)

I'm an atheist Jew.

So I don't view any of Moses, Jesus or Mohammed as prophets. Jesus was a pretty cool guy though.


Incidentally I was having a look at Hinduism and here's a great idea for any religion:

You know if you're in the market for a new religion why not try new and improved Discordianism?

You get to declare yourself =POPE= and invoke infallibility retroactively. You even get an official =POPE= card!

Trilby63;12041908']You know if you're in the market for a new religion why not try new and improved Discordianism?

You get to declare yourself =POPE= and invoke infallibility retroactively. You even get an official =POPE= card!

Nah. I'm agains what I term as 'organised' religion so I'd have to be against myself if I organised myself. Or something.

*brain jumps out of head and runs off in disgust at last sentence*

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

I'm not entirely sure, but I do think it is possible. I think that God inspires us all in many ways. A prophet, I think, is someone who has been inspired with a message from God and with the call to spread that message. I haven't yet read the Qu'ran, but most of what I know of Muhammed's message seems consistent with what I believe to be God's will, so I think it is very possible that he was a prophet.

Ask me again when I've finished reading the Qu'ran. =)

Nah. I'm agains what I term as 'organised' religion so I'd have to be against myself if I organised myself. Or something.

*brain jumps out of head and runs off in disgust at last sentence*

The organisation you percieve to be is just that. It is merely percieved.

The two cannot be talking of the same salvation. Unless the anti-crucifixion passages of the Qur'an were added after Mohammed wrote them, then a Christian cannot believe that God influenced the Qur'an.

Of course a Christian can believe that God influenced the Qu'ran. If you were looking for both the NT and the Qu'ran to be dictated by God, you'd have an issue. However, I don't think that prophets are imbued with infallibility. They receive a message from God, and they repeat it back as best they can - which means their understanding will be at least somewhat flawed.

I come from a Christian background, and Mohammed was never viewed as a prophet. He was viewed as an interesting monotheistic theologian, but nothing quite so definitive as a prophet.

Of course a Christian can believe that God influenced the Qu'ran. If you were looking for both the NT and the Qu'ran to be dictated by God, you'd have an issue. However, I don't think that prophets are imbued with infallibility. They receive a message from God, and they repeat it back as best they can - which means their understanding will be at least somewhat flawed.

Which is also one of the key points that I've received through my youth. I'd been taught that the prophets did their damnedest to get the message across, but because God exists on such a radically different plane from man, it's tough for people to understand exactly what he's up to.

The OT made a bunch of prophesies that the Messiah would fulfill. Jesus fulfilled them. No such prophecies were made about Mohammed. He just came from nowhere. Jesus upheld the authority of the OT Scriptures, while Mohammed said that they were corrupted. So no, I don't think that Mohammed was a prophet at all. How can one be a prophet of God and argue against the words of God's other prophets? Mohammed got Miriam and Mary confused, as well as stating that God commanded Moses to strike the rock with his staff so water would come out. In reality God told Moses to speak to it, but he disobeyed God and struck it anyway. God was displeased. By saying that Jesus was not who he said he was, Mohammed is basically calling Jesus a liar. Also, in both the Islamic and Christian prophesies of the apocalypse, a man is supposed to unite the entire world under one legal religion after a time of chaotic warfare. In the Bible, that man is the Antichrist. In the Koran, it is Mahdi, or Hidden Imam. I would say that the Bible and the Koran are diametrically opposed. Also, the whole Rushdie affair makes we wonder if Mohammed really was influenced by Satan.

The OT made a bunch of prophesies that the Messiah would fulfill. Jesus fulfilled them. No such prophecies were made about Mohammed. He just came from nowhere.

....as did most of the OT prophets - you know, the ones who actually made all those prophesies about the Messiah?

Jesus upheld the authority of the OT Scriptures, while Mohammed said that they were corrupted.

Jesus upheld them to a point, but also contradicted them. He stopped a mob that was about to uphold the OT laws by stoning an adulteress. He preached love where the OT taught hatred. He taught that one should not hold to the OT laws dictating "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." And, if Paul is to be believed, he also did away with much of the OT law.

This would suggest that God either changed his mind on much of the law or that God never actually dictated those laws. If the former is true, then God cannot be perfect, as God makes mistakes. If the latter is true, then the OT was corrupted.

You can uphold the OT as Scripture (as Muslims do) without considering it to be perfect.

So no, I don't think that Mohammed was a prophet at all. How can one be a prophet of God and argue against the words of God's other prophets?

Do you think that becoming a prophet makes a person infallible? Do they become perfect?

Mohammed got Miriam and Mary confused, as well as stating that God commanded Moses to strike the rock with his staff so water would come out. In reality God told Moses to speak to it, but he disobeyed God and struck it anyway. God was displeased.

How do you know that it was Muhammed that was confused? And even if it was, would that preclude him being a prophet? Is his message dependent on either of these things?

By saying that Jesus was not who he said he was, Mohammed is basically calling Jesus a liar.

Muhammed never said that Jesus was not who he said he was. Muhammed claimed that Jesus was not who others said he was after his death.

Also, in both the Islamic and Christian prophesies of the apocalypse, a man is supposed to unite the entire world under one legal religion after a time of chaotic warfare. In the Bible, that man is the Antichrist. In the Koran, it is Mahdi, or Hidden Imam. I would say that the Bible and the Koran are diametrically opposed. Also, the whole Rushdie affair makes we wonder if Mohammed really was influenced by Satan.

If you are so familiar with prophesies of the apocalypse, then I'm sure you know that Islamic prophesies claim, just as Christian ones do, that Christ will return to Earth in glory?

Incorrect. Jesus never said that. When you met Jesus, all he said was "Follow me and leave all that **** you have behind."

I may have paraphrased a bit, but the Son of God thing wasn't started by Jesus (before he died, of course... after that... <.< >.> *whispers* He coulda come back... or it could be lies.)

He may not have literally said it, but he very thouroughly implied it.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

I view Mohammed is a heretic and a schismatic perpetually getting his stomach cut open by demons in the fiery pits of Hell. (See Dante's Inferno)

Christian - And I think he was.

Incorrect. Jesus never said that. When you met Jesus, all he said was "Follow me and leave all that **** you have behind."

I may have paraphrased a bit, but the Son of God thing wasn't started by Jesus (before he died, of course... after that... <.< >.> *whispers* He coulda come back... or it could be lies.)

John 10:30 "I [Jesus] and the Father are one." And then it goes on to explain that the Jews got ready to stone Him for blasphemy (claiming to be God). But did He say "No, no, you misunderstand me! That's not what I meant"? No, He didn't. Instead He calls Himself the Son of God and says that His works validate His message.

I dont think that moammad was a prophet because how can he be a prophet of allah if allah doesn't exist? the dictionary defines prophety as 'a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration'. therefore, mohammad could not have been a prophet because he did not speak for God.

I dont think that moammad was a prophet because how can he be a prophet of allah if allah doesn't exist? the dictionary defines prophety as 'a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration'. therefore, mohammad could not have been a prophet because he did not speak for God.

Most Christians and Jews believe that god exists, that would certainly be a valid argument if he was addressing atheists, but he isn't.

I'm a Christian ... a seminary student at a good ol' Southern Baptist school actually (please don't throw things!) I have to side with no. The techincal issues are that the first chapter of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament says that Christ came as the ultimate revelation, that though God has spoken in the past through prophets, Christ is the be all end all of it all, so to speak :) There's also the problem of the end of Revelation, which if you take the Bible as a whole book and not just scrambled up peices, then the curses on anyone who adds to the book mean that there's no more revelation coming. There's other verses too that imply that revelation ended with Christ, but I can't think of them right now. Of course, all that only matters if you really take the Bible as 100% bonafide God's word ... I know that's not such a big deal in alot of Christian circles, so people may have other opinions (please don't take that as being negative or snarky, I'm just explaining my thought processes)

Sorry for writing a whole book :)

I'm a Christian ... a seminary student at a good ol' Southern Baptist school actually (please don't throw things!) I have to side with no. The techincal issues are that the first chapter of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament says that Christ came as the ultimate revelation, that though God has spoken in the past through prophets, Christ is the be all end all of it all, so to speak :) There's also the problem of the end of Revelation, which if you take the Bible as a whole book and not just scrambled up peices, then the curses on anyone who adds to the book mean that there's no more revelation coming. There's other verses too that imply that revelation ended with Christ, but I can't think of them right now. Of course, all that only matters if you really take the Bible as 100% bonafide God's word ... I know that's not such a big deal in alot of Christian circles, so people may have other opinions (please don't take that as being negative or snarky, I'm just explaining my thought processes)

Sorry for writing a whole book :)

*GASP!*

An evil Southern Baptist! Get the tar and feathers!

Glad to find another more conservative Christian here.

Don't apologize: you didn't write that much.

Of course a Christian can believe that God influenced the Qu'ran. If you were looking for both the NT and the Qu'ran to be dictated by God, you'd have an issue. However, I don't think that prophets are imbued with infallibility. They receive a message from God, and they repeat it back as best they can - which means their understanding will be at least somewhat flawed.

I said as far as salvation is concerned, a Christian cannot think that the Qur'an is inspired from God. IF you believe that Jesus was crucified and died at all, the Qur'an says you are wrong. Not like one Christian denomination arguing with another over the aspects of crucifixion, of how he died for your sins, but the Qur'an says he was never crucified period, thus there could be no salvation and washing of sins through Christ’s sacrifice... The implication is undeviating that the Qur’an says a Christian cannot be saved through Christ and the NT says that a Christian and only be saved through Christ.

New Testament

Hebrews 12:2
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1 John 5:1-12
1Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

6This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


Qur’an
An-Nisa (The Women)
4:157 and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:

Not reconcilable.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

I don't know much at all about Mohammed

Thanks! I'm relatively new to NS, so I wasn't really sure what to expect, ya know?

On a religious level, Muhammed cannot be a prophet because the age of prophecy has been completed. That and the minor note in Romans 16 about avoiding people and teachings oppositional to Scripture.

On a rational level, there is that small matter of Muhammed first believing he was talking to Satan and then Khadijah, a businesswoman, convinced him that it really wasn't Satan. Somehow, I just can't make that leap of logic when the man in question had his own doubts about what metaphysical being he was listening to.

But if it makes you feel complete to be a Muslim and believe Muhammed was a prophet, I'm glad you found peace.

Thanks! I'm relatively new to NS, so I wasn't really sure what to expect, ya know?

Depending on how vocal and staunch you are, you will either be hailed as the epitome of Christianity or loathed as a vile, hateful, hypocritical Fundie.

I said as far as salvation is concerned, a Christian cannot think that the Qur'an is inspired from God.

Of course one can. A Christian simply would not believe that the Qu'ran is [b]dictated[b] by God. It is perfectly possible for something that is inspired by God to be flawed. Perhaps there was something wrong with the general message of the church about salvation (as I believe there was), but Muhammed didn't completely understand it either, teaching what he thought, from his inspiration, to be true.

On the other hand, one might think that Muhammed was inspired by God to write the Qu'ran, but also brought in his own previously held beliefs that the Christian message of salvation was wrong. Paul seems to have brought in some widely held beliefs that I doubt would have been advocated by Christ, as did the writers of the OT. This does not mean that the Bible's message was not inspired.

IF you believe that Jesus was crucified and died at all, the Qur'an says you are wrong.

And if it was wrong on this point, does that mean that no truth can exist in the Qu'ran? Does it mean that Muhammed could not have been inspired by God?

The implication is undeviating that the Qur’an says a Christian cannot be saved through Christ and the NT says that a Christian and only be saved through Christ.

The Qu'ran also says quite a bit more. If it is wrong on one issue, does that make it entirely wrong?

Note that, as I understand it, Muhammed claimed that, at the end-times, Christ will come back in glory. Is that wrong simply because you disagree with some of what Muhammed claimed.

Do you think a prophet gains infallibility by virtue of being a prophet?

Depending on how vocal and staunch you are, you will either be hailed as the epitome of Christianity or loathed as a vile, hateful, hypocritical Fundie.

So... the more vocal is equivalent to the more vile?
Just curious, I'm a lapsed NSG player. But I've seen the light once again. ;)

On a rational level, there is that small matter of Muhammed first believing he was talking to Satan and then Khadijah, a businesswoman, convinced him that it really wasn't Satan. Somehow, I just can't make that leap of logic when the man in question had his own doubts about what metaphysical being he was listening to.


He freaked out after he was first contacted in that cave, according to him some great force Identifying itself as Jibreel pressed down upon him with so much force he couldn't breath. The thing told him to write, he explained that he was illiterate, so it told him to recite, and later he recalled "it was if the words had been written on my heart".

He had no clue whether god or satan contacted him, or whether he was just mad. Rather different from all the other prophets, who were told that they were being contacted by god, but that doesn't prove his message was false, but it neither proves that it was true either....

So... the more vocal is equivalent to the more vile?
Just curious, I'm a lapsed NSG player. But I've seen the light once again. ;)

No, not necessarily. If you're very vocal, but less staunch, you'll be loved. If you're less vocal and very staunch or if you're less vocal and less staunch you'll be somewhere in between. If you're very vocal and very staunch, you'll be reviled.

So... the more vocal is equivalent to the more vile?
Just curious, I'm a lapsed NSG player. But I've seen the light once again. ;)

It's really a matter of the extent to which you try and push your views. There are some fairly militant atheists around, but most people around here are pretty open to religious views as long as they aren't being pushed or forced on others. It's also generally a good idea to be able and willing to admit your own fallibility and that you just might be wrong.

Your first post was a good one. You basically said, "This is what I believe, this is where I'm coming from. You might not agree with me, and that is fine, but this is what I think." You probably won't have many problems with that, although your thought process will most likely be questioned if you hang around the religious threads much. =)

No, not necessarily. If you're very vocal, but less staunch, you'll be loved. If you're less vocal and very staunch or if you're less vocal and less staunch you'll be somewhere in between. If you're very vocal and very staunch, you'll be reviled.

Seriously, just mind your manners, and it'll all be good. ;)

No, not necessarily. If you're very vocal, but less staunch, you'll be loved. If you're less vocal and very staunch or if you're less vocal and less staunch you'll be somewhere in between. If you're very vocal and very staunch, you'll be reviled.

By "staunch", do you mean, "convinced of your own infallibility"?

There are many things I hold to very staunchly, and discuss on here quite frequently, but I haven't seen many signs that I am reviled - except maybe by the crazy-militant atheists and few fundamentalists of various religions who wish to force their views on everyone else.

He freaked out after he was first contacted in that cave, according to him some great force Identifying itself as Jibreel pressed down upon him with so much force he couldn't breath. The thing told him to write, he explained that he was illiterate, so it told him to recite, and later he recalled "it was if the words had been written on my heart".

He had no clue whether god or satan contacted him, or whether he was just mad. Rather different from all the other prophets, who were told that they were being contacted by god, but that doesn't prove his message was false, but it neither proves that it was true either....

Very true statement. The essence remains the same, though. God (Judeo-Christian Tradition) has an impeccable track record of ensuring the prophet He is using knows who He is. If anything, that's too much uncertainty to rely on.

Jesus claimed he was God, yet you except that.

When did he do that?

It's really a matter of the extent to which you try and push your views. There are some fairly militant atheists around, but most people around here are pretty open to religious views as long as they aren't being pushed or forced on others. It's also generally a good idea to be able and willing to admit your own fallibility and that you just might be wrong.

Your first post was a good one. You basically said, "This is what I believe, this is where I'm coming from. You might not agree with me, and that is fine, but this is what I think." You probably won't have many problems with that, although your thought process will most likely be questioned if you hang around the religious threads much. =)

Thanx for the clarification/assurance. And militant anythings are always fun, religious or not.

I've never had any problems on NS and I'm definitely a Christian. Though, that might be because there are always much more vocal people debating and trying to push their beliefs.

But, yes, I'm a Baptist and get along fine on here.

Seriously, just mind your manners, and it'll all be good. ;)

No, not really. No matter how mannerly you are, if you hold an extremely unpopular view, people will shift their hate from the view to you.

By "staunch", do you mean, "convinced of your own infallibility"?

There are many things I hold to very staunchly, and discuss on here quite frequently, but I haven't seen many signs that I am reviled - except maybe by the crazy-militant atheists and few fundamentalists of various religions who wish to force their views on everyone else.

By "staunch" I mean "unwilling to compromise, recant, or be quiet when one is convinced of the truth until undeniable proof is provided against a view."

And again, it depends on what the view you're being staunch on is. The more unpopular the view, the more likely you are to suffer the wrath against that view.

You're just very vocal and they like to debate with you.

Depending on how vocal and staunch you are, you will either be hailed as the epitome of Christianity or loathed as a vile, hateful, hypocritical Fundie.

It's kinda funny. The Fundie's are probably disliked more by devout evangelical Christians than anyone else ... we tend to get lumped in with them even though we're really different, esp in attitude. :( But I guess everyone has the right to be wrong, including myself ;)

It's kinda funny. The Fundie's are probably disliked more by devout evangelical Christians than anyone else ... we tend to get lumped in with them even though we're really different, esp in attitude. :( But I guess everyone has the right to be wrong, including myself ;)

I hate being lumped in with fanatics that go about preaching hate and intolerance. (If you can't tell already)

By "staunch" I mean "unwilling to compromise, recant, or be quiet when one is convinced of the truth until undeniable proof is provided against a view."

So you really do mean, "convinced of one's own infallibility, unwilling to question one's own beliefs."

And again, it depends on what the view you're being staunch on is. The more unpopular the view, the more likely you are to suffer the wrath against that view.

I really just haven't seen any "wrath" (from anyone other than people who are just generally militant) against any particular religious viewpoint, so long as the person is willing to admit that they are not God and could possibly be wrong. Now, the person is going to be questioned more if they cannot or will not back up their beliefs, unless they choose to bow out of the conversation. But questioning and revilement are not the same thing

It's kinda funny. The Fundie's are probably disliked more by devout evangelical Christians than anyone else ... we tend to get lumped in with them even though we're really different, esp in attitude. :( But I guess everyone has the right to be wrong, including myself ;)

:eek:
Wow, another person who actually understands what the difference is.

I hate being lumped in with fanatics that go about preaching hate and intolerance. (If you can't tell already)

I think just about everyone who doesn't preach hate and intolerance hates being lumped in with them. But they're just so frigging loud! =(

Of course one can. A Christian simply would not believe that the Qu'ran is dictated[b] by God.

As a matter of fact, Islam necessitates that you believe that the Qur'an was word for word dictated by God. From God, to the apparition, to Mohammed, to the ten Scribes. If any Scribes made any errors, the book was started over from the beginning. Their rule for accuracy, not mine.


It is perfectly possible for something that is inspired by God to be flawed. Perhaps there was something wrong with the general message of the church about salvation (as I believe there was), but Muhammed didn't completely understand it either, teaching what he thought, from his inspiration, to be true.

On the other hand, one might think that Muhammed was inspired by God to write the Qu'ran, but also brought in his own previously held beliefs that the Christian message of salvation was wrong. Paul seems to have brought in some widely held beliefs that I doubt would have been advocated by Christ, as did the writers of the OT. This does not mean that the Bible's message was not inspired.


And if it was wrong on this point, does that mean that no truth can exist in the Qu'ran? Does it mean that Muhammed could not have been inspired by God?


The Qu'ran also says quite a bit more. If it is wrong on one issue, does that make it entirely wrong?

Note that, as I understand it, Muhammed claimed that, at the end-times, Christ will come back in glory. Is that wrong simply because you disagree with some of what Muhammed claimed.

Do you think a prophet gains infallibility by virtue of being a prophet?


In other words, you don't believe in salvation as taught by either book, and thus, you don't see why it's hard to have a lack of faith in both equally.

As to Jesus returning in the end days, that is not in the Qur'an. That is in the Hadith.

Narrated Anas
The Prophet said, "Allah will gather the believers on the Day of Resurrection in the same way (as they are gathered in this life), and they will say, 'Let us ask someone to intercede for us with our Lord that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' Then they will go to Adam and say, 'O Adam! Don't you see the people (people's condition)? Allah created you with His Own Hands and ordered His angels to prostrate before you, and taught you the names of all the things. Please intercede for us with our Lord so that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' Adam will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking' and mention to them the mistakes he had committed, and add, "But you d better go to Noah as he was the first Apostle sent by Allah to the people of the Earth.' They will go to Noah who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention the mistake which he made, and add, 'But you'd better go to Abraham, Khalil Ar-Rahman.'

They will go to Abraham who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'But you'd better go to Moses, a slave whom Allah gave the Torah and to whom He spoke directly' They will go to Moses who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'You'd better go to Jesus, Allah's slave and His Apostle and His Word (Be: And it was) and a soul created by Him.' Theywill go to [B]Jesus who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, butyou'd better go to Muhammad whose sins of the past and the future had been forgiven (by Allah).' So they will come to me and I will ask the permission of my Lord, and I will be permitted (to present myself) before Him. When I see my Lord, I will fall down in (prostration) before Him and He will leave me (in prostration) as long as He wishes,and then it will be said to me, 'O Muhammad! Raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to; and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will then raise my head and praise my Lord with certain praises which He has taught me, and then I will intercede. Allah will allow me to intercede (for a certain kind of people) and will fix a limit whom I will admit into Paradise.


If you think it means Jesus returns in Glory by pointing at Mohamed and calling himself not worthy, then believe what you want.

You're just very vocal and they like to debate with you.

And I'm all right with that. It's when people take it beyond disagreement and into hate (because, apparently, it's okay to hate those who you think are haters) that I begin to have problems with people.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

Simple answer? No. Besides, the Bible warns against false prophets; and in my opinion Mohammed was a fasle prophet.

So you really do mean, "convinced of one's own infallibility, unwilling to question one's own beliefs."

No, I'm not. If I am convinced of something, then I should not back down until I am shown that I am in error. If I'm not convinced of something, then I can be free to do what I want. That does not mean that I think myself infallible, nor does it mean that I am unwilling to question my own beliefs. It means that I have not yet been presented with enough evidence or good enough arguments to shake my convinced mind.

An example of what you're talking about would be someone insisting that the atlas is wrong because it says the capital of Russia is Moscow, because he knows that the capital is Lisbon.

Glad to find another more conservative Christian here.

Don't apologize: you didn't write that much.
Where did he say he was conservative?

Where did he say he was conservative?

"Of course, all that only matters if you really take the Bible as 100% bonafide God's word ... I know that's not such a big deal in alot of Christian circles, so people may have other opinions (please don't take that as being negative or snarky, I'm just explaining my thought processes)"

As a matter of fact, Islam necessitates that you believe that the Qur'an was word for word dictated by God.

Perhaps. However, we aren't discussing Islam. We are discussing whether or not Muhammed was a prophet.

Christianity, if we are to take the Bible and many churches to be correct, dictates that one must believe that the Bible in its current compilation (despite its history) is the end-all be-all of revelation and is to be seen as being inerrent. However, many Christians believe that this is inconsistent with Christ's message.

In other words, you don't believe in salvation as taught by either book, and thus, you don't see why it's hard to have a lack of faith in both equally.

No, I believe in salvation as taught by Christ and detailed in the Gospels. I just don't think most churches got the message right.

While most Christians don't know it, the current description of the atonement hasn't been around forever, nor was it taught in all Christian churches. In fact, it wasn't really codified until Anselm's writings in the 9th and 10th century, and was heavily based in the Catholic doctrine of penance, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it was around in some form before that. Of course, it couldn't really have come into semi-universal use in Christian churches until after the Nicene creed and the declaration of various other beliefs as heretical.

As to Jesus returning in the end days, that is not in the Qur'an. That is in the Hadith.

...which was, if I recall correctly, also written by Muhammed. Since we are discussing whether or not Muhammed was a prophet, and not the inerrency of any of his writings, it is relevant.

If you think it means Jesus returns in Glory by pointing at Mohamed and calling himself not worthy, then believe what you want.

I'm not going to take a small snippet as the whole story any more than I would expect someone to do the same from the Bible. If you aren't careful, you can portray Christ as a racist who didn't care about anyone but Jews, but I hardly think that was Christ's message.

This passage does not describe the doctrine I have been told of by Muslims and was repeating, and, as I said earlier, I have not yet read the Qu'ran and Hadith myself.


No, I'm not. If I am convinced of something, then I should not back down until I am shown that I am in error.

Is admitting the possibility that one may be wrong "backing down"? If I admit that I may be wrong, is that the same as saying that I am wrong?

That does not mean that I think myself infallible, nor does it mean that I am unwilling to question my own beliefs. It means that I have not yet been presented with enough evidence or good enough arguments to shake my convinced mind.

And once again, an admission that you might be wrong is not the same thing as actually being convinced that you are wrong. If you cannot make this statement, I would question how convinced you really are - that you are fearful of even the contemplation of your own fallibility.

An example of what you're talking about would be someone insisting that the atlas is wrong because it says the capital of Russia is Moscow, because he knows that the capital is Lisbon.

Huh? No, that has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

An example of what I am talking about would be me saying, "I fully believe that Christ was the savior, that he died on the cross to provide us with salvation. I admit that I am a fallible human being and may be wrong, and I respect the beliefs of others. However, I am fully convinced of this, and I have yet to see anything that convinces me otherwise."

The part that many people seem to have a problem with admitting is the, "I admit that I am a fallible human being and may be wrong...." part. Many people are so weak of faith that they cannot admit this simple fact. Admitting it doesn't suggest that your faith is any weaker - it simply demonstrates that you are honest.

"Of course, all that only matters if you really take the Bible as 100% bonafide God's word ... I know that's not such a big deal in alot of Christian circles, so people may have other opinions (please don't take that as being negative or snarky, I'm just explaining my thought processes)"

Just to set the record straight, yes SHE is a conservative :eek: But I promise I don't bite.

Just to set the record straight, yes SHE is a conservative :eek: But I promise I don't bite.

Oh, my apologies.

Oh, my apologies.

That's ok, it's not like you can really tell here ... I just think it's funny to play with people's assumptions

I really just haven't seen any "wrath" (from anyone other than people who are just generally militant) against any particular religious viewpoint, so long as the person is willing to admit that they are not God and could possibly be wrong. Now, the person is going to be questioned more if they cannot or will not back up their beliefs, unless they choose to bow out of the conversation. But questioning and revilement are not the same thing

Here are some quotes. And they by no means cover all the insults (not questions or arguments) given to every person. There is most definitely wrath and hate against those who have unpopular views, whether or not that person tries to be mannerly and, though staunch, admits that they are able to be wrong.

“You realise, most people won't even bother to read a post you copied from elsewhere, right?

Not much of a witness....”

“…he wouldn't listen regardless of how nicely I phrased my sentences.”

“his ilk don't believe in a loving God, nor indeed do they believe in love at all.”

Which is simply false, and they would know it, because they responded to a post about the love of God.

“Folks, trying to debate with the rabidly superstitious is like trying to teach a pig to sing…”

“This is classic abuse victim thinking.”

“The only immoral thing here is your stupidity and I wish a god actually existed to punish you for that.”

“…do make at least a bit of an effort to get over yourselves.”

“But then I would miss my roomies gasps of atonishment that anyone could be that insane when I read his posts to them.”

“You think you are evil. You think you are dirty. You think you are unworthy. Seriously dude, this is not only sick, it's vastly disturbing. You're one step off of locking your penis in a chastity belt to prevent involuntary erections and beatting yourself with a branch of thorns to "cleans yourself of your sins".”

Here are some quotes. And they by no means cover all the insults (not questions or arguments) given to every person. There is most definitely wrath and hate against those who have unpopular views, whether or not that person tries to be mannerly and, though staunch, admits that they are able to be wrong.

“You realise, most people won't even bother to read a post you copied from elsewhere, right?

Not much of a witness....”

“…he wouldn't listen regardless of how nicely I phrased my sentences.”

“his ilk don't believe in a loving God, nor indeed do they believe in love at all.”

Which is simply false, and they would know it, because they responded to a post about the love of God.

“Folks, trying to debate with the rabidly superstitious is like trying to teach a pig to sing…”

“This is classic abuse victim thinking.”

“The only immoral thing here is your stupidity and I wish a god actually existed to punish you for that.”

“…do make at least a bit of an effort to get over yourselves.”

“But then I would miss my roomies gasps of atonishment that anyone could be that insane when I read his posts to them.”

“You think you are evil. You think you are dirty. You think you are unworthy. Seriously dude, this is not only sick, it's vastly disturbing. You're one step off of locking your penis in a chastity belt to prevent involuntary erections and beatting yourself with a branch of thorns to "cleans yourself of your sins".”

Not to be mean or anything, but why the heck are you keeping a list of comments like that? Depressing :(

This brings up an interesting theological question, how is prophethood verified?

I mean anyone can claim that they are a prophet, but how do you make sure that they are?

Well, look at the prophecies of the Bible for instance, most of them have come true, like "Israel will be born out of many nations" Wasn't Israel born because of the United Nations? Its abouts if your prophecies come true or not.

Also, it should be noted that being a prophet isn't limited to just having visions, but rather they are spiritual people that make a call for repentence and a return to God.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

Not to be mean, but I think I could be more of a Prophet that Mohammed(peace be unto him, so no, I don't regard him as one, but I will respect your religous leader and your beliefs :)

Not to be mean or anything, but why the heck are you keeping a list of comments like that? Depressing :(

Oh, I just looked back and found some. I don't keep a list.

Here are some quotes. And they by no means cover all the insults (not questions or arguments) given to every person. There is most definitely wrath and hate against those who have unpopular views, whether or not that person tries to be mannerly and, though staunch, admits that they are able to be wrong.

And you have admitted that you might be wrong in your religious views? I have yet to see it.

And you have admitted that you might be wrong in your religious views? I have yet to see it.

I have consistently said that I will not recant until someone shows me undeniable proof that I am wrong.

Instances of this? I never read the part where the Bible calls the bat a bird, nor did I read the part where pi is supposedly said to be 3. I was wrong on both counts. But, no one has been able to disprove anything else, so I will stick with them.

And whether I admit that I am fallible or not does not matter: they should not have said what they said.

I find it's generally better when discussing beliefs to say something like

"I believe __________"

rather than

"__________ is the absolute truth"

This brings up an interesting theological question, how is prophethood verified?

I mean anyone can claim that they are a prophet, but how do you make sure that they are?

The Biblical definition of a true prophet is twofold: proof by his word coming to pass, and proof by his word being consistent with existing revelation.

The proof by fortelling the future is found in Deuteronomy 18:22. "21 And if you say in your heart, "How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."

The proof by consistency is found in Isaiah 8:20. This is part of a larger passage condemning the Israelites for looking to mediums and spiritists instead of true prophets "20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Does anyone know what Islam considers to be the test of a true prophet?

I have consistently said that I will not recant until someone shows me undeniable proof that I am wrong.

Still can't do it, eh?

Recanting is another issue altogether. I'm just asking you to admit that your beliefs might be wrong.

Instances of this? I never read the part where the Bible calls the bat a bird, nor did I read the part where pi is supposedly said to be 3. I was wrong on both counts. But, no one has been able to disprove anything else, so I will stick with them.

No one can possibly disprove your religious beliefs. That's the thing with religious beliefs. You will believe what you believe, and your own experiences and discussions may modify it. The same is true of anyone. But none of us can prove our own religious beliefs, or disprove another's (unless those beliefs are somehow based in the empirical).

And whether I admit that I am fallible or not does not matter: they should not have said what they said.

Some of those weren't meant to be mean, but to express an opinion about your beliefs. Others should not have been said, but were said by the same people who call all religious people mentally insane.

Others should not have been said, but were a direct response to the disrespect you show for others, and even your own beliefs, by your inability to admit your own fallibility.

Still can't do it, eh?

Recanting is another issue altogether. I'm just asking you to admit that your beliefs might be wrong.



No one can possibly disprove your religious beliefs. That's the thing with religious beliefs. You will believe what you believe, and your own experiences and discussions may modify it. The same is true of anyone. But none of us can prove our own religious beliefs, or disprove another's (unless those beliefs are somehow based in the empirical).



Some of those weren't meant to be mean, but to express an opinion about your beliefs. Others should not have been said, but were said by the same people who call all religious people mentally insane.

Others should not have been said, but were a direct response to the disrespect you show for others, and even your own beliefs, by your inability to admit your own fallibility.

By saying that that which I am convinced (not merely think, but am convinced) is true might be wrong I go against my concious, which as a Christian is bound to Scripture, and therefore would be sinful. I'll offend Man before God, thank you.

Also, I find that it is very hypocritical (not for you, necessarily, as I don't know your thought totally) to say that Christians (or any person with religious convictions) should speak without certainty but to have no problem (even support) atheists and agnostics speaking with absolute authority.

I do not say my beliefs are infallible because I believe them. That would be arrogance in the extreme. I say that God's infallible Word teaches these things, therefore I believe them.

And if you pay attention, there is no argument here where one person is not trying to prove the other wrong. That's why it's debate. There is some discussion, but it is short lived, sadly. So the aim is to make the person recant of his/her beliefs, whether political, religious, economic, etc.

Quote where I have shown disrespect for others. I try very hard to respect everyone, regardless what I feel for their ideas.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?wouldn't that be a contradiction of terms? It would be like a Jew accepting Jesus as a savior...by doing so, they become Christian in belief, if not in name. By accepting Mohammed as a prophet, that person would be a Muslim, technically.

Jesus claimed he was God, yet you except that.accept, not except.

:eek:
Wow, another person who actually understands what the difference is.
Well, there is a difference between "fundie" and "fundamentalist Christian" as far as common use goes. Smunkee is a fundamentalist Christian...she believes in the five "fundamental" tenents of Christianity (I think they are the virgin birth, Jesus is son of God, the Resurrection...um....I forget the rest [sorry, Smunkee...I know you've told me about a dozen times now...I fail.])
A "fundie" tends to be associated with the religious right movement. Probably because it is easy to say.

Also, I find that it is very hypocritical (not for you, necessarily, as I don't know your thought totally) to say that Christians (or any person with religious convictions) should speak without certainty but to have no problem (even support) atheists and agnostics speaking with absolute authority.

An agnostic speaking with absolute authority? Amusing concept.

I do not say my beliefs are infallible because I believe them. That would be arrogance in the extreme. I say that God's infallible Word teaches these things, therefore I believe them.

And how do you know it's God's word? You....well...you believe it don't ya? "I believe this is god's word, and god's word is always right, therefore this is right" is really no intellectually different than "I believe this to be right, so it's right"

I try very hard to respect everyone, regardless what I feel for their ideas.

If you don't respect my words enough to delve into the question I present rather than saying "no, you're wrong because god said so", then you don't respect me.

Well, there is a difference between "fundie" and "fundamentalist Christian" as far as common use goes. Smunkee is a fundamentalist Christian...she believes in the five "fundamental" tenents of Christianity (I think they are the virgin birth, Jesus is son of God, the Resurrection...um....I forget the rest [sorry, Smunkee...I know you've told me about a dozen times now...I fail.])
A "fundie" tends to be associated with the evangelical movement. Probably because it is easy to say.

And what's an evangelical? Sorry, but according to what you said, you probably don't know.

An evangelical is one who believes that Christians are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by the works and meditation of Christ alone, as told by Scripture alone.

This use to describe the religious right might be somewhat accurate, but is not necessarily true.

And what's an evangelical? Sorry, but according to what you said, you probably don't know.

An evangelical is one who believes that Christians are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by the works and meditation of Christ alone, as told by Scripture alone.

This use to describe the religious right might be somewhat accurate, but is not necessarily true.

Sorry...I misstated that. Cut me some slack...I just got home from a three hour lecture, followed by a half-hour walk in freezing temperatures to come home to no dinner and no heat :(

I should have said religious right, not evangelical. My bad. I'll go fix that.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

As valid as you view Jesus as a prophet.

Sorry...I misstated that. Cut me some slack...I just got home from a three hour lecture, followed by a half-hour walk in freezing temperatures to come home to no dinner and no heat :(

I should have said religious right, not evangelical. My bad. I'll go fix that.

I'm glad it's not as cold here today. But why didn't you have any heat?

Maybe, it's because I tried that, and you refused to listen. Much less, you attacked (not once, but consistently) and have refused to discuss anything, preferring to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "It's all belief!" So, until you are ready to discuss what we believe, I'm not going to discuss.

That's not a lack of respect. That's keeping myself from temptation.

I'm sorry, you actually provided proof? I missed it.

That's all I've ever asked of you, all I ever asked of anyone with any religious belief.

You want to believe in it? Fine. The minute you start using your belief as justification however, or expect me to believe in it to, I ask one tiny, simple thing.

Just a little proof.

And when you're ready to provide that, great. Until then, no, I'm not going to give you an inch. I will accept no answer that boils down to "the bible says so".

Because once again my divinely inspired post it note of god says otherwise. And you can't prove that wrong either.

I'm sorry, you actually provided proof? I missed it.

That's all I've ever asked of you, all I ever asked of anyone with any religious belief.

You want to believe in it? Fine. The minute you start using your belief as justification however, or expect me to believe in it to, I ask one tiny, simple thing.

Just a little proof.

And when you're ready to provide that, great. Until then, no, I'm not going to give you an inch. I will accept no answer that boils down to "the bible says so".

Because once again my divinely inspired post it note of god says otherwise. And you can't prove that wrong either.

I'm through. I'm sorry that I said what I said in that last post. It was sinful of me, and I do aplogize. But you just absolutely infuriate me at times. That's no excuse for my behavior, just an explanation.

And as for proof, I have none to give. I gave support, and I gave testimony. That's why it's religion. That's why your beliefs are religion. You can't prove them, and no matter how much you say that it's not, it all comes down to faith.

I'm glad it's not as cold here today. But why didn't you have any heat?

Broke sometime around noon. I can see my breath :(

Landlord is down there now, fixing it.

Broke sometime around noon. I can see my breath :(

Landlord is down there now, fixing it.

Oh, I'm sorry. :(

At least it's being fixed quickly, though, right?

I'm through. I'm sorry that I said what I said in that last post. It was sinful of me, and I do aplogize. But you just absolutely infuriate me at times. That's no excuse for my behavior, just an explanation.

I am curious if your supposed irritation with me is just masked insecurity on your part. Really I have asked nothing radical. Nothing I wouldn't ask anyone else who tried to convince me of a certain way.

And as for proof, I have none to give. I gave support, and I gave testimony. That's why it's religion. That's why your beliefs are religion. You can't prove them, and no matter how much you say that it's not, it all comes down to faith.

Ah yes, but here's the catch. You recognize you have no proof to a belief, yet continue to be CERTAIN you are right (your word, not mine, certain). How can one be CERTAIN of something without proof?

Again I submit perhaps you're just not as certain as you think you are, and mask this insecurity as anger whenever someone tries to question your belief.

Oh, I'm sorry. :(

At least it's being fixed quickly, though, right?

With any luck...since heat is included in rent, I don't really get to know what is wrong...but it seems he's been down there for a while.

And, contrary to my nature, the sympathy is appreciated :)

I am curious if your supposed irritation with me is just masked insecurity on your part. Really I have asked nothing radical. Nothing I wouldn't ask anyone else who tried to convince me of a certain way.

I am not angry about being questioned. Only about the manner in which it is done.

Ah yes, but here's the catch. You recognize you have no proof to a belief, yet continue to be CERTAIN you are right (your word, not mine, certain). How can one be CERTAIN of something without proof?

I didn't say there was no proof (or if I did, I was being careless). What I said was that I can give no proof, that I cannot prove it to you. I have the inner working of the Holy Spirit, which cannot help but prove to me that I ought to be convinced of these things. But I cannot give that to you, nor can I use it to prove to you what I believe. But that does not mean that there is no proof. It's splitting hairs, but I think this is an instance when that hair must be split.

Muhammed never said that Jesus was not who he said he was. Muhammed claimed that Jesus was not who others said he was after his death.



If you are so familiar with prophesies of the apocalypse, then I'm sure you know that Islamic prophesies claim, just as Christian ones do, that Christ will return to Earth in glory?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." It appears to me as if Jesus is claiming ALOT for himself there. And yes, I am very well aware that Jesus returns in Islamic philosophy. Your point is?

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

No, not in the slightest.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3254/jesumuhamcompdh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

No, not in the slightest.


Wow that was some biased stuff there:

Muhammed did not fulfill any biblical prophecy

Some might say that he fulfilled the Messianic bibilical prophesy and that Jesus was the falsity - to be fair I don't believe that either was a Messiah so, you know, like, whatever.

As valid as you view Jesus as a prophet.

Do you mean you do view him as prophet? Because I do view Jesus as a prophet, I simply don't think he was the son of God or God in human form.

This brings up an interesting theological question, how is prophethood verified?

I mean anyone can claim that they are a prophet, but how do you make sure that they are?

If the coming of the prophet has been foretold in scriptures/oral traditions then it would be the confirmation of those foretold things.

If not, then by the performance of miracle.

Atleast some muslims claim that Muhammed performed miracles like splitting the moon.

no, infact i just drew a picture of the prophet mohommad and stuck it in the window of my car. not only do i not believe your religion, i dont respect it at all, all of those bombings and american flag burnings kinda soured me on that whole respect for islam thing.

no, infact i just drew a picture of the prophet mohommad and stuck it in the window of my car. not only do i not believe your religion, i dont respect it at all, all of those bombings and american flag burnings kinda soured me on that whole respect for islam thing.

Ya know, in your case a simple yes or no would have done.

Jesus claimed he was God, yet you except that.

Where did he claim that?

no, infact i just drew a picture of the prophet mohommad and stuck it in the window of my car. not only do i not believe your religion, i dont respect it at all, all of those bombings and american flag burnings kinda soured me on that whole respect for islam thing.

You can not like and not respect something without being a dick to other people

No.

He certainly had charisma and insight in the way religions work, but whatever his capacities, he was NOT a prophet. Or a false one, at best.

how do you know a true prophet from a false one? :confused:

Where did he claim that?

fixed.

As valid as you view Jesus as a prophet.

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims do view Jesus as a prophet. I worked with a Muslim and he sure did, and said they did. Jesus is even talked about in the Quran. But they do not believe Jesus is the Lord and Saviour or the great I am or the only way to the Father.. and neither do the Jews for that matter. I don't think alot of jews even believe or acknowledge he existed much less speak of him as a prophet. [ "any divergence from the tenets of Biblical Judaism espoused by Jesus would disqualify him from being considered a prophet in Judaism." link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus)]. --Messianic Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism) do, but as you can see " virtually all Jewish denominations, Jewish groups, [9] [10] national Jewish organizations, [11] and many others reject this classification and regard these groups as Christian. "

Not sure how good this site is, since I'm not very knowledgable of Islam (maybe Soviestan can let us know) but here .. http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_24.htm

If I'm not mistaken, Muslims do view Jesus as a prophet. I worked with a Muslim and he sure did, and said they did. Jesus is even talked about in the Quran. But they do not believe Jesus is the Lord and Saviour or the great I am or the only way to the Father.

Not sure how good this site is, since I'm not very knowledgable of Islam (maybe Soviestan can let us know) but here .. http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_24.htm

You are correct, in fact if you check the bottom of the previous pg, you'll noticied I mentioned that. ;)

No. Otherwise I would be Muslim.

However that does not mean I do not respect your right to believe he was a prophet.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?No. Because the god he is supposed to be a prophet for is an invented god. There were never any prophets for that god, neither Moses, nor Elijah, nor Jesus. It's all a big fat lie.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?As valid as you view Jesus as a prophet.Muslims do in fact view Jesus as the second most important prophet. They even believe in his virgin birth.

No way he´s a prophet.

Middle East religions, ( especially this one :headbang: ) who are so full of cr@p...

To the original question.
I could go either way. I don't see why he couldn't be. And what he said was no all that radicaly diferent then chrisitianity.
Quran is interesting read, and does say some inteligent things. Hadith on the other hand I don't belive at all (how the hell would someone know what Mohamed said, that contradicts Quran, 90 years after Mohamed died?)
I am christian, of no denomination, I don't belive in organised religion, because as soon as somone is placed above you by the religion his views can disrupt your relationship with God.
I also don't belive there is only one true way.

anyone who considers mohammed to be a profit is, by definition, a muslim.

A profit eh? Well, I wouldn't know. Betting on him was kinda iffy, but he had better odds than Jesus since he did at least use violence to keep his head where it was.

I couldn't resist. :p

no, infact i just drew a picture of the prophet mohommad and stuck it in the window of my car. not only do i not believe your religion, i dont respect it at all, all of those bombings and american flag burnings kinda soured me on that whole respect for islam thing.


Heh this one made me Laugh. Ohh please before you get all shirty let me explain. I'm all for patriotism(sorta) that isn't what made me laugh, but the whole flag buring thing. Does it really make people that angry. Shit man it's just a flag, it's not likeit's your mum, what's that all about then umm?

No way he´s a prophet.

Middle East religions, ( especially this one :headbang: ) who are so full of cr@p...That's Judaism, Christianity, Islam, right?

By saying that that which I am convinced (not merely think, but am convinced) is true might be wrong I go against my concious, which as a Christian is bound to Scripture, and therefore would be sinful. I'll offend Man before God, thank you.

You are a dishonest person then, or at least you are dishonest in this subject. Anyone who cannot admit that they might be wrong is claiming infallibility.

If admitting the truth goes against your conscience, that highly suggests that your faith is very weak indeed, as it cannot even stand up to an honest admission of your own fallibility.

Also, I find that it is very hypocritical (not for you, necessarily, as I don't know your thought totally) to say that Christians (or any person with religious convictions) should speak without certainty but to have no problem (even support) atheists and agnostics speaking with absolute authority.

No human being can speak with absolute authority. We are all fallible and all may be wrong.

Meanwhile, I'm not saying that Christians should speak without certainty. You may be very certain that you are correct. But, to be honest, you must admit the possibility that you are wrong. In fact, to ever question your beliefs at all (something you claimed earlier to do), you must first admit that you might be wrong.

I do not say my beliefs are infallible because I believe them. That would be arrogance in the extreme. I say that God's infallible Word teaches these things, therefore I believe them.

Even if you believe that everything in the Bible is God's infallible word faithfully copied down from a God that was dictating it out, there is still the problem of your own fallibility. Even if every word in the Bible is absolutely correct, it is still be filtered through your fallible mind and your fallible interpretation. This means, once again, that you may be incorrect. To claim that your interpretation is absolutely the teachings of God's infallible word is to claim your own infallibility, exactly the "arrogance in the extreme" you claim to want to avoid.

Either you may be wrong, or you are infallible. Which is it?

And if you pay attention, there is no argument here where one person is not trying to prove the other wrong. That's why it's debate.

Of course, not everything is a debate. I have had quite a few religious discussions, even on NSG, where neither of us was trying to convince the other of anything. We simply sought to understand the other's viewpoint and where that person was coming from.

There is some discussion, but it is short lived, sadly. So the aim is to make the person recant of his/her beliefs, whether political, religious, economic, etc.

Is that always your goal?

Quote where I have shown disrespect for others. I try very hard to respect everyone, regardless what I feel for their ideas.

Every time you claim that your own interpretation of God's word or God's inspiration is the absolutely correct one, with no chance of being wrong, you have disrespected every other human being on the planet.

Do you view the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) as a prophet?

No, why should we?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." It appears to me as if Jesus is claiming ALOT for himself there. And yes, I am very well aware that Jesus returns in Islamic philosophy. Your point is?

Indeed, but there is dispute as to precisely what was meant by that. Perhaps following Christ's example and Christ's message is that way, that life.

My point is that you are trying to create a dichotomy where none exists. As I have already said, if you think a prophet must be infallible, and must record only infalliible words, you aren't going to think that Muhammed was a prophet. But if you believe that a prophet remains fallible, like all the rest of us human beings, it is perfectly possible that he was. If you believe the message of Christ to be true, the fact that Muhammed sees Christ as a major figure in the end-times, just as Christian prophets/apostles do seems to support the idea that Muhammed may also have been granted knowledge by God.

No, not in the slightest.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3254/jesumuhamcompdh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
You should have listed Moses in that table, too.

No, why should we?Who do you view as a prophet?

Who do you view as a prophet?

You never studied the Old and New Testament. I can't be bothered to teach it to you in an online forum.

No, not in the slightest.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3254/jesumuhamcompdh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that Jesus was a mere prophet?

If Christ was truly God, isn't it a bit unfair to use him as the standard for a mere human prophet? Would you expect any prophet to live up to Jesus' standard?

You never studied the Old and New Testament. I can't be bothered to teach it to you in an online forum.I studied the Old and New Testament thoroughly. But those writings contain no indication on what you think.

Nope.

I studied the Old and New Testament thoroughly. But those writings contain no indication on what you think.

Yes, they do.

I don't see Muhammed's name anywhere in there.

Also, read Revelations carefully. It specifically mentions that there will be no more prophets after the end of that particular book.

No, not in the slightest.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3254/jesumuhamcompdh0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Wow. That's the most biased thing I've ever read. And I think it makes mohammed look good. Or at least human. It makes Jesus look like a robot.