NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/02/muslim.minister.defrocked/index.html

By Patrick Oppmann
CNN

SEATTLE, Washington (CNN) -- Ann Holmes Redding has what could be called a crisis of faiths.

For nearly 30 years, Redding has been an ordained minister in the Episcopal Church. Her priesthood ended Wednesday when she was defrocked.

The reason? For the past three years Redding has been both a practicing Christian and a Muslim.

"Had anyone told me in February 2006 that I would be a Muslim before April rolled around, I would have shaken my head in concern for the person's mental health," Redding recently told a crowd at a signing for a book she co-authored on religion.

Redding said her conversion to Islam was sparked by an interfaith gathering she attended three years ago. During the meeting, an imam demonstrated Muslim chants and meditation to the group. Redding said the beauty of the moment and the imam's humbleness before God stuck with her.

"It was much more this overwhelming conviction that I needed to surrender to God and this was the form that my surrender needed to take," she recalled. "It wasn't just an episode but .... was a step that I wasn't going to step back from."

Ten days later Redding was saying the shahada -- the Muslim declaration of belief in the oneness of God and acceptance of Mohammad as his prophet.

But Redding said she felt her new Muslim faith did not pose a contradiction to her staying a Christian and minister.

"Both religions say there's only one God," Redding said, "and that God is the same God. It's very clear we are talking about the same God! So I haven't shifted my allegiance."

The imam at the Islamic Center in Seattle, Washington, where Redding prays said she brings the best of both traditions to her beliefs.

"Coming from an example of wanting to be Christ-like and coming from the perspective of wanting to follow the best example -- the example of our prophet Mohammed -- it all makes sense then," Benjamin Shabazz said.

There are many contradictions between the two religions. While Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, Christianity worships him as the son of God.

James Wellman, who chairs the department of comparative religion at the University of Washington, said that while it is not unusual for people to "mix and match" beliefs, it is almost unheard of for a minister to claim two religions.

"When you take ordination as a Christian minister, you take an explicit vow of loyalty to Jesus. It's hard for me to understand how a Christian minister could have dual loyalties," Wellman said.

Redding said she sees the theological conflicts but that the two religions, at their core, "illuminate" each other.

"When I took my shahada, I said there's no God but God and that Mohammed is God's prophet or messenger. Neither of those statements, neither part of that confession or profession denies anything about Christianity," she said.

To her parishioners and family, though, Redding has turned her back on her faith and office. There was, she said, "universal puzzlement" at her decision to convert to Islam but still remain an Episcopal minister.

"I have people who love me very much who really don't want me to do this, and I love them very much. And I would love to be able to say, 'Because I love you I will renounce my orders' or 'I will renounce Islam' ... I hate causing pain to people who love me, that's not my intention," Redding said.

The Episcopal Church also rejected Redding's religious choice.

"The church interprets my being a Muslim as 'abandoning the church,' " she said. "And that [there] comes an understanding that you have to be one or the other, and most people would say that. It simply hasn't been my experience that I have to make a choice between the two."

The Diocese of Rhode Island, where Redding was ordained, told her to leave either her new Muslim faith or the ministry. A diocese statement said Bishop Geralyn Wolf found Redding to be "a woman of utmost integrity. However, the Bishop believes that a priest of the Church cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim."

Even though she has been defrocked, Redding said she is not capable of turning her back on either faith. She said she wants to continue speaking about and teaching religion and perhaps even travel to the Hajj, a journey to Mecca that every Muslim is supposed to make in their lifetime.

Redding said she does not want her belief in two religions to diminish the value she holds for both Christianity and Islam. Each faith by itself is enough to fulfill a person spiritually, she said.

"It's all there. I am not saying you have to go somewhere else to be complete. Some people don't need glasses, some people need single lenses. I need bifocals."

I'm excited for the potential shitstorm this thread may cause. I only hope it doesn't degenerate to the point of being locked.

Can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim? Can someone adhere to two religions that contain several contradictions? If a regular person can be both Christan and Muslim, can a Minister or other ordained member of one of the religions adhere to both? What are your thoughts?

It makes sense to me. And yes, the two religions are contradictory; in Christianity, Jesus is divine, while in Islam, he's a mere prophet, and having any good other than Allah would be blasphemous.

You can't be a member of Christianity and of Islam, the 2 contradict each other on many points, particularly the divinity of Jesus.

Nope... the two religions are in conflict, and you cannot be both.

It's like being a Catholic and a Mormon.

since either religion contains numerous contradictory bits, what's adding a few more?

Nope... the two religions are in conflict, and you cannot be both.

It's like being a Catholic and a Mormon.

Or a Man City supporter and a Man Utd supporter.

What's the problem with two seperate things contraditing each other? There are contradictions within each group alone, I'm sure. Why bother caring about more?

You can't be a member of Christianity and of Islam, the 2 contradict each other on many points, particularly the divinity of Jesus.

Christianity contradicts itself on many points. What's the harm in more contradiction?

Clearly Homeland Security should take her into custody and... question her on possible cell members and operations.

-----

But on a more serious note, if someone can find a common link between two religions and practice them both, more power to them.

http://rockymountainway.mlblogs.com/jobu.jpghttp://www.magellantraders.net/images/products/detail/37910.jpg

"Jobu, Buddha. Buddha, Jobu. Now I don't want no trouble out of you."

since either religion contains numerous contradictory bits, what's adding a few more?

also, religion always does this. takes random bits from whatever is current, mixes them up, eventually starts calling itself something different. it's an age-old religious tradition.

yeah she needed to be defrocked. if they had excommunicated her that would have been outrageous.

What's the problem with two seperate things contraditing each other? There are contradictions within each group alone, I'm sure. Why bother caring about more?The problem is that as a minister she has a duty to maintain the beliefs of her respective Church. Which, she failed to do so when she became a Moslem.

yeah she needed to be defrocked. if they had excommunicated her that would have been outrageous.No, it really wouldn't be because she has failed in her oath to her religion that she took as a minister.

Good. I'm glad she was defrocked.

If she claims to be both Christian and Muslim, then she probably isn't either, but rather some strange mingling of the two. What it most sounds like is that she likes Muslim sensibilities while still holding to Christian philosophies, but the fact that she says that Christianity and Islam worship the same God, shows she doesn't truly understand either. Christianity's God is trinitarian (One God, Three Persons) and Islam's is unitarian (One God, One Person).

also, religion always does this. takes random bits from whatever is current, mixes them up, eventually starts calling itself something different. it's an age-old religious tradition.

They either do this through an official hierarchical scheme, do so in such a way that the hierarchy simply doesn't know but finds out later and is forced to adopt it for practical reasons, or they branch off and form their own sect.

The defrocking makes sense.

No, it really wouldn't be because she has failed in her oath to her religion that she took as a minister.
yeah thats why its proper to defrock her

but christianity and islam are the same religion in different clothing. they are both dedicated to submitting to the will of god.

yeah thats why its proper to defrock her

but christianity and islam are the same religion in different clothing. they are both dedicated to submitting to the will of god.

Excepting all the theological differences (which is hard to do), aren't they still different?

Islam is about submitting and serving, yes?

But Christianity is about reconciliation to God through Christ's blood. Submitting and serving come out of gratitude for that reconciliation, but that's not the goal.

also, religion always does this. takes random bits from whatever is current, mixes them up, eventually starts calling itself something different. it's an age-old religious tradition.

It's called syncretism. Given the fact that the holy books of Christianity and Islam have a few plotholes large enough to drive a mechanized division through, I don't see what's the big deal. However, I'm pretty certain that others will be quite capable of spotting the splinter in their opponent's eyes.

Excepting all the theological differences (which is hard to do), aren't they still different?

Islam is about submitting and serving, yes?

But Christianity is about reconciliation to God through Christ's blood. Submitting and serving come out of gratitude for that reconciliation, but that's not the goal.
hmmm seems to me that just yesterday, in that "is homosexuality wrong?" thread i read a post by a devout christian who said that he didnt really understand god's beef with gays but god's will is gods will so homosexuality is wrong.

the theology is... window dressing. it varies widely from christian sect to christian sect anyway. they are all concerned with what god REALLY wants us to do and each has its own interpretation. islam is the same. if there wasnt the insistence that arab social norms are what god really wants--women covered from head to toe, for example--there would be no reason for a westerner not to add it to their belief menu.

hmmm seems to me that just yesterday, in that "is homosexuality wrong?" thread i read a post by a devout christian who said that he didnt really understand god's beef with gays but god's will is gods will so homosexuality is wrong.

the theology is... window dressing. it varies widely from christian sect to christian sect anyway. they are all concerned with what god REALLY wants us to do and each has its own interpretation. islam is the same. if there wasnt the insistence that arab social norms are what god really wants--women covered from head to toe, for example--there would be no reason for a westerner not to add it to their belief menu.

If I may continue with the menu metaphor:

Are you saying that Islam is a salad and Christianity a salad but one has ranch dressing and the other Italian?

I'm saying that Islam is beef and Christianity is pork. And both are topped with cheese, but even those cheeses are different.

Is that poor metaphor?

since either religion contains numerous contradictory bits, what's adding a few more?

Yahbut the Episcopal higher ups decide what can be contradictory and what can't, not the individual. And they've decided this can't.

It's a bit like joining a cricket club and then complaining that you got thrown out because all you wanted to do is play football. (and about as important).

The problem is that as a minister she has a duty to maintain the beliefs of her respective Church. Which, she failed to do so when she became a Moslem.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. It's really helpful.

However, the point is that since there are many contradictions in Christianity that precede this, why is it an issue that there are any other?

Of course, as the bible says (or close to it...) "The world of man is a lie. Only the word of god is true."

Now... Who wrote the bible again?...

Of course, as the bible says (or close to it...) "The world of man is a lie. Only the word of god is true."

Now... Who wrote the bible again?...

Book? Chapter? Verse?

The orthodox answer is that men whom Jesus called specifically, or those once removed (like Luke or Mark who traveled extensively with the Apostles) were kept from error by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So, yeah, that argument has already been answered. You can argue that the orthodox answer is bunk, but the statement "man is fallible" has been answered.

Yahbut the Episcopal higher ups decide what can be contradictory and what can't, not the individual. And they've decided this can't.

It's a bit like joining a cricket club and then complaining that you got thrown out because all you wanted to do is play football. (and about as important).

I don't think there's any disagreement that the Church had the right and the authority to defrock her for this. The question is whether they should have. Are Christianity and Islam mutually exclusive?

Interestingly enough, there's a hybrid religion in Nigeria called "Chrislam," which merges the two.

Book? Chapter? Verse?

The orthodox answer is that men whom Jesus called specifically, or those once removed (like Luke or Mark who traveled extensively with the Apostles) were kept from error by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So, yeah, that argument has already been answered. You can argue that the orthodox answer is bunk, but the statement "man is fallible" has been answered.

Sadly I've forgotten. And I don't have a bible any longer. I'll see if I can look it up.

The statement "man is fallible" has been answered by claiming the holy spirit intervened to ensure accuracy? And is there any proof of this? Funny that you ask me for a reference and at the same time ask me to take something on faith.

Now excuse me while I search for what you asked.

since either religion contains numerous contradictory bits, what's adding a few more?

/\ This /\

since either religion contains numerous contradictory bits, what's adding a few more?

Such as?

[/Devil's advocate]

Sadly I've forgotten. And I don't have a bible any longer. I'll see if I can look it up.

The statement "man is fallible" has been answered by claiming the holy spirit intervened to ensure accuracy? And is there any proof of this? Funny that you ask me for a reference and at the same time ask me to take something on faith.

Now excuse me while I search for what you asked.

:rolleyes:

I'm not asking you to accept anything; I'm merely presenting you with the argument, which can be and has been strongly argued against. It's a theological argument, not a textual argument.

I'm asking you to cite the verse you quoted, because I don't think it exists. There may be something similar, but that exact verse, or even a verse with that meaning, I do not think exists.

"Let god be true, but every man a liar" Romans 3:4

There's one example. Not the one I was looking for, but I'm still searching. If I find it I'll let you know.


---------------

You're not asking me to accept anything? Then why argue? Did you know that arguing is a means to convince someone of an idea?

Now, since it seems that you weren't aware of this I'll let it slide as you just stating something you believe. BUT, if you want to insist it's an "arguement" then I'm going to ask for evidence (not passages) to support your claim.

I don't think there's any disagreement that the Church had the right and the authority to defrock her for this. The question is whether they should have. Are Christianity and Islam mutually exclusive?

I gather that Jesus being divine is sort of the entire point of the Episcopal church, and if you take that away there's really not all that much left.

So it's different about being contradictory about gay bishops or women priests, because ultimately those things weren't the point, just sort of a side issue. And, so I'd have to say yes: in this case they are mutually exclusive.

It's a bit like Jews for Jesus.

Such as?

[/Devil's advocate]

Here's one:
Who was Abijam's mother?
Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom

1 Kings 15:1-2
Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah. Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

2 Chronicles 13:1-2
Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah. Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel.

Another:

What were the names of the apostles?
Matthew 10:2-4
Simon (Peter)
Andrew
James (son of Zebedee)
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James (son of Alphaeus)
Lebbaeus (surname Thaddeus)
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot

Mark 3:16-19
Simon (Peter)
James (son of Zebedee)
John
Andrew
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James (son of Alphaeus)
Thaddeus
Simon the Canaanite
Judas Iscariot

Luke 6:14-16
Simon (Peter)
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Matthew
Thomas
James (son of Alphaeus)
Simon (Zeolotes)
Judas (brother of James)
Judas (Iscariot)

Acts 1:13
Peter
James
John
Andrew
Philip
Thomas
Bartholomew
Matthew
James (son of Alphaeus)
Simon Zeolotes
Judas (brother of James)

Such as?[/Devil's advocate]

Some more:
Did Jesus baptize anyone?

Yes.

John 3:22
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

No.

John 4:2
Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.

And

Who was to blame for original sin?

Eve

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam

Romans 5:12
By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.

Clearly Homeland Security should take her into custody and... question her on possible cell members and operations.

-----

But on a more serious note, if someone can find a common link between two religions and practice them both, more power to them.

http://rockymountainway.mlblogs.com/jobu.jpghttp://www.magellantraders.net/images/products/detail/37910.jpg

"Jobu, Buddha. Buddha, Jobu. Now I don't want no trouble out of you."

:fluffle:

"Let god be true, but every man a liar" Romans 3:4

There's one example. Not the one I was looking for, but I'm still searching. If I find it I'll let you know.

You should read the entire chapter for context: Romans 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&version=47)

The verse is saying that although there may have been those entrusted with the truth of God who were faithless and liars, God is still faithful and makes His truth still known. Which is an argument against your statement that because those who claim to know God lie that God does not make Himself known.



You're not asking me to accept anything? Then why argue? Did you know that arguing is a means to convince someone of an idea?

Now, since it seems that you weren't aware of this I'll let it slide as you just stating something you believe. BUT, if you want to insist it's an "arguement" then I'm going to ask for evidence (not passages) to support your claim.

Good grief, calm down.

I wasn't claiming to believe it, actually, if you read my post. I do believe it, but that's beside the point. I was saying that your statement had no merit, because it's not the position held by the Church anyway. Your position or argument is not applicable.

We can argue about the orthodox position, idea or argument if you want.

In using the word argument, I can be referring to our discussion here or to the larger discourse about how God interacts with man, an argument lasting for centuries.

...

Can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim? Can someone adhere to two religions that contain several contradictions? If a regular person can be both Christan and Muslim, can a Minister or other ordained member of one of the religions adhere to both? What are your thoughts?

Someone can be both a Christian and a Muslim. Ann Holmes Redding is living proof of that.

And since these religions contradict each other on some minor theological points, she is also proof that someone can adhere to two or more religons that contradict each other. I would argue that it would be easier to reconcile two similar religions like Islam and Christianity than it would be to reconcile two vastly different ones like Christianity and Shinto. Of course, Santeria is proof that even vastly different faiths can be reconciled.

Whether or not a minister can be both depends on the religious community. I'll expand on that below.

The problem is that as a minister she has a duty to maintain the beliefs of her respective Church. Which, she failed to do so when she became a Moslem.

No, it really wouldn't be because she has failed in her oath to her religion that she took as a minister.

Really? What exactly was her oath, and how exactly did she break it?

Yahbut the Episcopal higher ups decide what can be contradictory and what can't, not the individual. And they've decided this can't.

It's a bit like joining a cricket club and then complaining that you got thrown out because all you wanted to do is play football. (and about as important).

Right. So in this particular religious community, which is hierarchical, the decision is made by others based on their understanding of historical revelation and tradition. Her particular experience (that, on a practical level, the faiths are reconcilable) is ignored.

Dyakovo, thanks for the sources. :)

Dyakovo, thanks for the sources. :)

There really is plenty more...

Contradictions in the Bible

Has there ever been a just person?

The evangelists were fiction-writers -- not observers or eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other. -- Porphyry, Against the Christians 2, 12-15

1. How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

2. Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?

3. How many sons did Abraham have?

4. Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech?

5. Who was Abijam's mother?

6. How were Abijam and Asa related?

7. How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab's house?

8. How old was Abram when Ishmael was born?

9. How many sons did Absalom have?

10. When did Absalom rebel against David?

11. The two contradictory creation accounts.

12. Who was Achan's father?

13. How many of Adin's offspring returned from Babylon?

14. How many of Adonikam's offspring returned from Babylon?

15. How should adultery be punished?

16. Is it wrong to commit adultery?

17. Was Haman an Agagite?

18. Was Ahaz buried with his fathers?

19. When did Ahaziah begin to reign?

20. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

21. Did the city of Ai exist after Joshua destroyed it?

22. What tribe was Aijalon from?

23. Does God want some to go to hell?

24. Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

25. Was David alone when asking for the holy bread at Nob?

26. Who was Amasa's father?

27. How should the Ammonites be treated?

28. Who was Anah?

29. How long does God's anger last?

30. From what were the animals created?

31. Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

32. What were the names of the apostles?

33. Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?

34. How many of Arah's offspring returned from Babylon?

35. What was in the ark of the covenant?

36. Was Asa perfect?

37. Did Asa remove the high places?

38. How many of Asaph's offspring returned from Babylon?

39. When did Jesus ascend into heaven?

40. Did Peter ask Jesus where he was going?

41. On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

42. Is the day of the Lord at hand?

43. How many of Azgad's offspring returned from Babylon?

44. When did Baasha die?

45. How many languages were there before the Tower of Babel was built?

46. How many of Bani's offspring returned from Babylon?

47. In whose name is baptism to be performed?

48. Did Jesus baptize anyone?

49. Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff?

50. Who was to blame for original sin?

51. Who was Bashemath's father?

52. What was the volume of the molten sea in Solomon's temple?

53. How many of Bebai's offspring returned from Babylon?

54. Who named Beersheba?

55. Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?

56. Should we believe everything?

57. How many believers were there at the time of the ascension?

58. How old was Benjamin when his clan migrated to Egypt?

59. Who were the sons of Benjamin?

60. Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?

61. Who asked Jesus for the best seats in heaven?

62. How many of Bethlehem and Netophah's offspring returned from Babylon?

63. How many of Bezai's offspring returned from Babylon?

64. How many of Bigvai's offspring returned from Babylon?

65. Who makes people deaf and blind?

66. How many blind men were healed near Jericho?

67. Does the blood of animal sacrifices take away sin?

68. Should every man bear his own burden?

69. Who buried Jesus?

70. On what day did the temple burn?

71. Did God command the Israelites to make him burnt offerings?

72. Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

73. What became of Cain?

74. Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?

75. Will those who call on the Lord be delivered?

76. Can God do anything?

77. How long was the Egyptian Captivity?

78. Is casting out devils a sign of a true Christian?

79. Is it OK to have a census?

80. Did the Centurion ask Jesus directly to help his servant?

81. What did the Centurion call Jesus when he died?

82. How high was the chapiter?

83. How many men did David kill?

84. Is childbearing sinful?

85. Is it a a good thing to be childish?

86. How did Jesus respond when questioned by the high priest?

87. Is circumcision required?

88. To whom were the cities of Exhtaol and Zoreah given?

89. Did the cock crow before or after Peter's denial?

90. What color was Jesus' robe?

91. Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection?

92. Is God the author of confusion?

93. Is it OK to covet?

94. Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crow twice?

95. Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion?

96. Is it OK to curse people?

97. Will God curse the earth?

98. Are those who obey the law cursed?

99. When did the Temple curtain rip?

100. Who carried Jesus' cross?

101. Generations from David to the Babylonian Captivity

102. How did David kill Goliath?

103. The sons of David born in Hebron

104. Did David sin?

105. Which sons of David born in Jerusalem?

106. From which of David's sons was Jesus descended?

107. When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre?

108. Did Adam die on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

109. Is death final?

110. How many of Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekoda's offspring returned from Babylon?

111. To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus?

112. Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

113. Can the devil capture us at will?

114. Is the devil free to roam?

115. Who can cast out devils in the name of Jesus?

116. Where did the devils ask not to go?

117. Does God desire animal sacrifices?

118. Must everyone die?

119. Is divorce ever permissible?

120. Does anyone do anything good?

121. Who put the robe on Jesus?

122. Did Jesus drink on the cross?

123. When did the earth dry after the flood?

124. Does God dwell in darkness or in light?

125. Will the earth last forever?

126. What kind of animals may we eat?

127. How should the Edomites be treated?

128. Did Lot's daughters think God had killed every man?

129. Did Luke include everything that Jesus did?

130. Did Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to Egypt or Nazareth?

131. Did the eleven disciples believe the two men?

132. Who did Elhanan kill?

133. Was John the Baptist Elijah?

134. When will the end of the world come?

135. How should we treat our enemies?

136. Has anyone ever ascended into heaven?

137. Did Enoch die?

138. Was Enoch the sixth or the seventh from Adam?

139. Will Ephraim return to Egypt?

140. When was Eve created?

141. Is everyone descended from Adam and Eve?

142. Is God the creator of evil?

143. Do evildoers prosper?

144. Did Moses see God face to face?

145. Is Salvation by faith alone?

146. Were the men with Paul knocked to the ground?

147. Is it possible to fall from grace?

148. How many years of famine?

149. Is is OK to call your father (or anyone else) father?

150. Did Moses fear the king?

151. Should we look for signs in the heavens?

152. Should we fear God?

153. Who bought the potter's field?

154. When did the cursed fig tree die?

155. When did Jesus curse the fig tree?

156. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead?

157. To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?

158. How long was the ark afloat?

159. How long did the flood last?

160. Did everyone (except for Noah and his family) die in the flood?

161. Will the righteous flourish?

162. Which flying creeping things may we eat?

163. Is it OK to call someone a fool?

164. Is it good to be foolish?

165. Who forces non-believers to disbelieve?

166. How many generations from Jesus to Abraham?

167. Can God be found?

168. From what were the fowls created?

169. Do humans have free will?

170. Were the disciples frightened or gladdened when they saw Jesus?

171. Does God ever get furious?

172. Genealogy of Jesus (Mt.1 vs Lk.3)

173. Genealogy of Jesus (Mt.1 vs 1 Chr.)

174. When was the Holy Ghost given?

175. Does God ever lie?

176. Does God love everyone?

177. Does God know what is everyone's heart?

178. How many gods are there?

179. How much gold, silver, and clothing did the people give?

180. Who killed Goliath?

181. Is anyone good?

182. Who was greater: Jesus, Solomon, or John the Baptist?

183. Is it OK for men to have long hair?

184. Is it good to be happy?

185. Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus?

186. Who hardened the Pharaoh's heart?

187. Should we follow our own heart?

188. When was heaven created?

189. Does God help in times of need?

190. Who was Heman's father?

191. Did Herod think Jesus was John the Baptist?

192. How many talents of gold did Hiram send Solomon?

193. Is only God holy?

194. Who sent the Holy Ghost?

195. How should homosexuals be treated?

196. Where did Aaron die?

197. How many horsemen did David take?

198. At what time of day was Jesus crucified?

199. Does God approve of human sacrifices?

200. Were humans created before or after the other animals?

201. Which tribe was Hyram from?

202. Was Zechariah Iddo's son or grandson?

203. Is it OK to make images?

204. Which came first: the calling of Peter and Andrew or the imprisonment of John the Baptist?

205. Is incest forbidden?

206. Are we punished for the sins of others?

207. Did Saul inquire of the Lord?

208. Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when the women arrived?

209. Will God destroy those that intermarry?

210. Can God stop iron chariots?

211. How old was Ishmael when he was abandoned by Abraham?

212. Who bought the sepulchre in Sechem from the sons of Hamor?

213. Where was Jacob buried?

214. How many were in Jacob's family when they came into Egypt?

215. Was Jarius' daughter alive when Jesus was approached?

216. Did Jeconiah have any sons?

217. Was Jechoniah the son or the grandson of Josiah?

218. When did Jehoash become king of Israel?

219. How old was Jehoachin when he began to reign?

220. Who succeeded Jehoiakim as king?

221. Did Jehoiakim die in Babylon or near Jerusalem?

222. Did Jehoshaphat remove the high places?

223. Did Abraham know God's name?

224. Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi?

225. When was the man (or men) healed?

226. Did Paul go to Jerusalem from Damascus immediately after his conversion?

227. How many sons did Jesse have?

228. When was Jesus born?

229. Was Joseph the father of Jesus?

230. Did Jesus know everything?

231. Did Jesus bear witness of himself?

232. What will happen to Jews when they die?

233. Will there be many Jews?

234. Did God commend or condemn Jehu for the killings at Jezreel?

235. Where was Joash buried?

236. Who brought evil on Job?

237. Who cast Jonah into the sea?

238. Where did John baptize?

239. Who was Jesus' grandfather on his father's side?

240. Where did Josiah die?

241. How did King Josiah die?

242. How long did Jotham reign?

243. How did Judas die?

244. Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss?

245. To judge or not to judge.

246. Does Jesus judge people?

247. Has there ever been a just person?

248. Is anyone justified?

249. Was Keturah Abraham's wife or concubine?

250. To kill or not to kill.

251. Who was the father of Kish?

252. Does God know and see everything?

253. Who was Korah's father?

254. Who was Laban's father?

255. What were the last words of Jesus?

256. Should we obey human or divine law?

257. When did God kill Leviathan and the sea dragon?

258. Is it wrong to lie?

259. What is the human lifespan?

260. How many of Lod, Hadid, and Ono's offspring returned from Babylon?

261. Has the sun ever stood still in the sky for 24 hours?

262. Who is the Lord of this world?

263. Was Lot a righteous man?

264. Should we love or hate our brother?

265. Was Mahli the son of Levi?

266. Will everyone see the majesty of God?

267. Did Elisha receive Elijah's mantle before or after Elijah is taken up into heaven?

268. Is marriage a good thing?

269. Should Christians be concerned with material things?

270. Was Moses meek?

271. Is God merciful?

272. How many children did Michal have?

273. Did the Israelites kill every male in Midian?

274. How many people did God kill for "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab"?

275. How did God say the Moabites should be treated?

276. Did any Moabite enter the congregation of the Lord?

277. Is money good or bad?

278. Who was Moses' father-in-law?

279. Was Moses a good speaker?

280. What's new?

281. What is the correct new moon sacrifice?

282. If God likes you, will everyone else like you too?

283. When did Noah enter the ark?

284. How should nonbelievers be treated?

285. Is it OK to take oaths?

286. Are those who believe Jesus is the Christ of God?

287. How many officers did Solomon have?

288. How old was Abraham when he left Haran?

289. Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived?

290. Do Christians need to obey Old Testament laws?

291. How many overseers did Solomon have?

292. Who owns the earth?

293. How many of Pahathmoab, Jeshua, and Joab's offspring returned from Babylon?

294. How should parents be treated?

295. How many days is unleavened bread to be eaten during the passover?

296. Was Jesus crucified the day before or the day after the Passover meal?

297. Did Paul see Jesus on the road to Damascus?

298. Did Paul visit all of the disciples when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion?

299. Is God warlike or peaceful?

300. Is the law of God perfect?

301. Who wrote the Pentateuch?

302. Were the Pharisees baptized by John?

303. Can women be church leaders?

304. How high were the pillars?

305. Were plants created before or after humans?

306. Should we try to please others?

307. How many children of the porters returned from Babylon?

308. How many men were possessed with devils?

309. What did Jesus do after his baptism?

310. How much power did Jesus have?

311. Do Christians know how to pray?

312. When David fled to Nob, what was the priest's name?

313. On what day of the month was Jehoiachin released from prison?

314. Should Christians pray in public?

315. Is every word of God pure?

316. Was Rahab saved by faith or works?

317. Who raised Jesus from the dead?

318. Was Jesus a ransom for many or for all?

319. Can God be found through reason alone?

320. Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus when he first appeared to her?

321. Should we rejoice when we see our enemies suffer?

322. Is it OK for a divorced woman to remarry?

323. Does God repent?

324. Does God respect anyone?

325. Did both thieves revile Jesus?

326. Is wealth a sign of righteousness or of wickedness?

327. Has there ever been a righteous person?

328. Does righteousness come from following the Law?

329. Is it necessary to keep the sabbath?

330. How should Sabbath-breakers be punished?

331. Who may offer sacrifices to God?

332. Who was the father of Salah?

333. Did the Samaritans receive Jesus?

334. Should the gospel be preached to everyone?

335. Who was Samuel's firstborn son?

336. Was Samuel a Ephraimite or a Levite?

337. Did Sarah have faith that she would conceive?

338. When did Satan enter Judas?

339. How did Saul die?

340. Did Saul's family die with him?

341. When did David meet Saul?

342. What must you do to be saved?

343. Were the Israelites to spare the trees in the countries they invaded?

344. Did Jesus have secret teachings?

345. Was Sisera asleep when he was murdered?

346. Is all scripture inspired by God?

347. Should we let others see our good works?

348. Can God be seen ?

349. How many of Senaah's offspring returned from Babylon?

350. Should you serve God alone?

351. What is the earth set upon?

352. How should a man who has sex with a menstruating woman be punished?

353. Do bad things happen to good people?

354. What did the sign over Jesus' head say?

355. Did Jesus perform many signs and wonders?

356. What did Judas do with the silver?

357. Do Christians sin?

358. Where did Moses receive the Ten Commandments?

359. How many singing men and women returned from Babylon?

360. Were the men or angels inside the tomb sitting or standing?

361. What was Jesus' sixth commandment?

362. Does God sleep?

363. How many soldiers?

364. Who brought Joseph into Egypt?

365. How many sons did God have?

366. Who were the sons of Heman?

367. Was Jesus silent during his trial before Pilate?

368. Does God have a body?

369. How many stalls did Solomon have?

370. When were the stars made?

371. Is it wrong to steal?

372. How should strangers be treated?

373. Is Jesus peaceful ?

374. Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection?

375. Did the women immediately tell the disciples?

376. Did Jesus say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"?

377. Can God be tempted?

378. Who tempted David to number Israel?

379. Has God ever tempted anyone?

380. Is it OK to test (or tempt) God?

381. Can theives go to heaven?

382. How did God address Jesus at his baptism?

383. For How much did David by the threshing floor?

384. Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus before his ascension?

385. When when did the transfiguration occur?

386. May Adam eat from any tree?

387. What were the twelve tribes of Israel?

388. How many animals of each kind did Noah take into the ark?

389. Is there an unforgivable sin?

390. Is it OK to marry unbelievers?

391. Where did God kill Uzza?

392. What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?

393. Did the men with Paul hear the voice?

394. Where did Moses get water from a rock?

395. Does God ever tire?

396. Was Jonah swallowed by a fish or a whale?

397. Who made the arc of the covenant?

398. Who wrote the (second set of) ten commandments?

399. Does God destroy both the righteous and the wicked?

400. Do the wicked live long?

401. Is God's will always done in heaven?

402. Is wisdom a good thing?

403. Does wisdom make people happy?

404. How many men were in the king's presence?

405. Who is for or against Jesus?

406. Who did the women see at the tomb?

407. How many women came to the sepulchre?

408. Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand?

409. Can only God work wonders?

410. How are people judged by God?

411. How many of Zattu's offspring returned from Babylon?

412. Who was Zechariah's father?

413. How was Zedekiah related to Nebuchadnezzar?

414. Did Zedekiah see the king of Babylon?

415. Who was Zerubbabel's father?

416. Where does God dwell?

Those are all instances of the bible contradicting itself (or in the case of a couple possibly contradicting itself).

I don't see any reason why someone can't be a christian and a muslim.

I see a few reasons why someone can't be an Episcopalian Minister and a muslim.

Pity really, that would make for a very interesting attire.

I don't see any reason why someone can't be a christian and a muslim.

I see a few reasons why someone can't be an Episcopalian Minister and a muslim.

Pity really, that would make for a very interesting attire.

Are Episcopals the ones that wear red robes? I'm imagining something like the Imperial Guards from Star Wars....which would be absolutely awesome.

Dude, just write a book. :p

You should read the entire chapter for context: Romans 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&version=47)

The verse is saying that although there may have been those entrusted with the truth of God who were faithless and liars, God is still faithful and makes His truth still known. Which is an argument against your statement that because those who claim to know God lie that God does not make Himself known.





Good grief, calm down.

I wasn't claiming to believe it, actually, if you read my post. I do believe it, but that's beside the point. I was saying that your statement had no merit, because it's not the position held by the Church anyway. Your position or argument is not applicable.

We can argue about the orthodox position, idea or argument if you want.

In using the word argument, I can be referring to our discussion here or to the larger discourse about how God interacts with man, an argument lasting for centuries.

Oh cool. Another arguement with passages. And it's the same explanation that you gave.

I wish you could see how calm I was... But I guess it's not too imporatant. Feel free to assume anything you want about me.

It seems logical to me that you'd only argue something if you believed it. But I suppose I did slip there, didn't I?

My comment has no merit? Because it makes sense or because... well... why? I can't think of any other reason why it would have "no merit."

I'm not here to argue church positions so much as I am to inquire as to where the line is drawn for the churches actions. IE: The crusades are holy (essentially around to exterminate a people in an area) while the destruction of present day Israel (essentially meant to exterminate a people in an area) is detested. That's not what I'm wondering right now, but that is something I wouldn't mind knowing the reason behind.

Now, if you can provide reason why some contradictions are okay and others aren't WITHOUT anything that is based on faith I'd love to hear it. If not, then quite frankly I don't care.


And LASTLY,

if you're going too use words from the English language to mutually converse with someone, I suggest that instead of being misleading you stick to currently accepted definitions. Not to mention, if you're arguing with me you should argue with me. If you're not then you shouldn't.

Are Episcopals the ones that wear red robes? I'm imagining something like the Imperial Guards from Star Wars....which would be absolutely awesome.

http://www.sanangelodiocese.org/userfiles/knick(1).jpg

Apparently not

No more than you can be made of both matter and anti-matter.

The Episcopal Church may be the first Christian body in the history of Western Civilization to apostasize en masse. I hear the Sixth Circle of Dante's Inferno is opening up a whole new section in anticipation. They're calling it "Redding Acres."

Congratulations, Redding. You just added to the weight of the sins of the world Christ carried on His back on the way to Calvary.

Congratulations, Redding. You just added to the weight of the sins of the world Christ carried on His back on the way to Calvary.
I imagine its about as heavy as the weight of the idiocy you add to the internet.

http://www.sanangelodiocese.org/userfiles/knick(1).jpg

Apparently not

I thought they had long brightly colored sashes. Hmm.

I wish you could see how calm I was... But I guess it's not too imporatant. Feel free to assume anything you want about me.

Your diction and syntax are the same style I use when I am supremely annoyed.

So, we're different people. I apologize for shoving you into my mold.

It seems logical to me that you'd only argue something if you believed it. But I suppose I did slip there, didn't I?

See below

My comment has no merit? Because it makes sense or because... well... why? I can't think of any other reason why it would have "no merit."

Poor diction on my part.

You were assaulting the idea that we can know God or have certainty about God if we are evil. I pointed out that that isn't the idea the church hold to anyway. I was merely pointing out that you're attacking a position not held by the church. So, your comment is not applicable. You can attack the church or the church's position, if you want, but don't attribute a false position to it.

I'm not here to argue church positions so much as I am to inquire as to where the line is drawn for the churches actions. IE: The crusades are holy (essentially around to exterminate a people in an area) while the destruction of present day Israel (essentially meant to exterminate a people in an area) is detested. That's not what I'm wondering right now, but that is something I wouldn't mind knowing the reason behind.

Well, whether you want to be or not, you are arguing positions (or at least inquiring about them). The Church's position at the time of the Crusades was that such activity was commendable. Now the opposite stance is taken.

Even if no change in position was made, there is still an argument or a position which holds the two in tension. Again, we are back to arguing (or at least inquiring about) positions.

Now, if you can provide reason why some contradictions are okay and others aren't WITHOUT anything that is based on faith I'd love to hear it. If not, then quite frankly I don't care.

Contradictions are never okay. Paradoxes on the other hand...

And where do you expect to get in a discussion about religion if you're going to discount any idea of faith? If you want to understand faith, you have to assume it for the sake of argument.

And LASTLY,

if you're going too use words from the English language to mutually converse with someone, I suggest that instead of being misleading you stick to currently accepted definitions. Not to mention, if you're arguing with me you should argue with me. If you're not then you shouldn't.

argue - definitions 1, 3 and 4 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argue)

argument - definitions 3, 4, 6 and 7 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)

No more than you can be made of both matter and anti-matter.

The Episcopal Church may be the first Christian body in the history of Western Civilization to apostasize en masse. I hear the Sixth Circle of Dante's Inferno is opening up a whole new section in anticipation. They're calling it "Redding Acres."

Congratulations, Redding. You just added to the weight of the sins of the world Christ carried on His back on the way to Calvary.

That's a bit of heavy accusation (not that I disagree).

No more than you can be made of both matter and anti-matter.

The Episcopal Church may be the first Christian body in the history of Western Civilization to apostasize en masse. I hear the Sixth Circle of Dante's Inferno is opening up a whole new section in anticipation. They're calling it "Redding Acres."

Congratulations, Redding. You just added to the weight of the sins of the world Christ carried on His back on the way to Calvary.

Not that I expect you to return and actually defend your assertions (that would just be silly!) but how is she an apostate? And if she is an apostate, how does that make her whole church an apostate?

I imagine its about as heavy as the weight of the idiocy you add to the internet.

:D

No more than you can be made of both matter and anti-matter.

The Episcopal Church may be the first Christian body in the history of Western Civilization to apostasize en masse. I hear the Sixth Circle of Dante's Inferno is opening up a whole new section in anticipation. They're calling it "Redding Acres."

Congratulations, Redding. You just added to the weight of the sins of the world Christ carried on His back on the way to Calvary.

I imagine its about as heavy as the weight of the idiocy you add to the internet.

Not that I expect you to return and actually defend your assertions (that would just be silly!) but how is she an apostate? And if she is an apostate, how does that make her whole church an apostate?



:D

I just heard that the Episcopal Church is going to rename itself The First Church of the Lidless Eye, and it'll hold its first sermon at the National Cathedral in Mordor, D.C.

Your diction and syntax are the same style I use when I am supremely annoyed.

So, we're different people. I apologize for shoving you into my mold.



See below



Poor diction on my part.

You were assaulting the idea that we can know God or have certainty about God if we are evil. I pointed out that that isn't the idea the church hold to anyway. I was merely pointing out that you're attacking a position not held by the church. So, your comment is not applicable. You can attack the church or the church's position, if you want, but don't attribute a false position to it.



Well, whether you want to be or not, you are arguing positions (or at least inquiring about them). The Church's position at the time of the Crusades was that such activity was commendable. Now the opposite stance is taken.

Even if no change in position was made, there is still an argument or a position which holds the two in tension. Again, we are back to arguing (or at least inquiring about) positions.



Contradictions are never okay. Paradoxes on the other hand...

And where do you expect to get in a discussion about religion if you're going to discount any idea of faith? If you want to understand faith, you have to assume it for the sake of argument.



argue - definitions 1, 3 and 4 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argue)

argument - definitions 3, 4, 6 and 7 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)

No hard feelings.


Am I attacking? As far as I am concerned, mine was a legitimit question about an actual event.


Which is it? Are you suggesting I'm arguing or inquiring? I'd like to maintain that my initial intent was the pursuit of better understanding. Like I said, a discussion about the crusades isn't what I'm aiming for. Regardless, the church certainly seems to change it's positions frequently.

You know, there is a difference between arguing and inquiring. As for my questioning you, you seem to know. Is it so wrong to ask for reasons or evidence, since you seem to know these things?


So something that goes against itself is not okay, but something that goes against itself is... what? You never said your position.

I don't think I could ever assume faith as proof. The two things are, obviously different. What I don't get is how anyone could take something like that? If someone assured you that you'd live longer by draining a 1/4 ounce of blood each day would you believe them?


Thanks for the links. If you read the definitions, please note that "reasons" are required in arguements. And that arguements are meant to disprove something. I say thanks because you (purposefully or not) support what I said.

I gather that Jesus being divine is sort of the entire point of the Episcopal church, and if you take that away there's really not all that much left.

So it's different about being contradictory about gay bishops or women priests, because ultimately those things weren't the point, just sort of a side issue. And, so I'd have to say yes: in this case they are mutually exclusive.

Of course, one could accept Muhammad as a prophet without denying the divinity of Christ, so long as one does not believe that being a prophet makes one infallible.

So one really could be both Christian and Muslim, so long as one did not try to take the holy books of either as absolutely infallible.

I just heard that the Episcopal Church is going to rename itself The First Church of the Lidless Eye, and it'll hold its first sermon at the National Cathedral in Mordor, D.C.

I kindly ask your permission to sig this. :D

I kindly ask your permission to sig this. :D

Go on ahead.

:D

Go on ahead.

:D

Thanks! :D

So one really could be both Christian and Muslim, so long as one did not try to take the holy books of either as absolutely infallible.

Taking any religious text as infallible is always a bad idea, since that forces denial of human errors or adaptation to changing times and social values.

Let's see -- one person decides to invest belief and energy into TWO human interpretations of the Divine instead of one. Where's the problem? She's merely half the atheist that Muslims or Christians are.

As a Taoist, I see no conflict. They are both Abrahamic. All three Abrahamic religions and their various offshoots have many, massive internal contradictions - it's something they learn to rationalize away. I'm sure, eventually, they'll rationalize away the contradictions between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and all the strange and wonderful permutations thereof) and develop a new, internally contradictory religion which will, in it's turn, declare the previous three null and void. And the killing will go on.

Am I attacking? As far as I am concerned, mine was a legitimit question about an actual event.

You said: Of course, as the bible says (or close to it...) "The world of man is a lie. Only the word of god is true."

Now... Who wrote the bible again?...


That seems to be an attack against the idea of biblical inerrancy and infallibility to me.

Which is it? Are you suggesting I'm arguing or inquiring?

I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter which you are doing. You're still getting into a mess of positions. "This is where we draw the line" is a position.

I'd like to maintain that my initial intent was the pursuit of better understanding. Like I said, a discussion about the crusades isn't what I'm aiming for. Regardless, the church certainly seems to change it's positions frequently.

I don't want to discuss the Crusades either. They were merely an example. Church positions don't really change that frequently. Amount and frequency are not the same thing. Changes (especially central ones) usually come all at once in a huge upheaval, like the Reformation or the current Barthian trend in Protestantism.

You know, there is a difference between arguing and inquiring. As for my questioning you, you seem to know. Is it so wrong to ask for reasons or evidence, since you seem to know these things?

You are free to inquire or argue, whichever you wish. I need something more concrete to answer, though. "Where do you draw the line?" is a lot more nebulous than it may seem.

So something that goes against itself is not okay, but something that goes against itself is... what? You never said your position.

Contradiction is never okay. We can argue about what paradox is. Not that I want to argue about, merely that it's arguable. I define a paradox as that which seems to contradict, but does not contradict or that which seems to contradict but is actually held in tension. So since it doesn't contradict, it's on the other hand from contradiction, it's the opposite of never okay, it's okay.

I don't think I could ever assume faith as proof. The two things are, obviously different. What I don't get is how anyone could take something like that? If someone assured you that you'd live longer by draining a 1/4 ounce of blood each day would you believe them?

Assuming faith for the purpose of argument (or for inquiry if you prefer) is not the same as assuming it in every sphere of life. Assuming it to understand a position is exactly that. Once you understand the position, you are free to throw that faith away.

Thanks for the links. If you read the definitions, please note that "reasons" are required in arguements. And that arguements are meant to disprove something. I say thanks because you (purposefully or not) support what I said.

:rolleyes:

Did you even read it? To argue is to maintain in reasoning. My argument is that which I am trying to argue. I am proposing this argument as true and in my argument, I will present these arguments as reasons for why my argument is true.

English (and language as a whole) is squishy.

You said:


That seems to be an attack against the idea of biblical inerrancy and infallibility to me.



I'm suggesting that it doesn't matter which you are doing. You're still getting into a mess of positions. "This is where we draw the line" is a position.



I don't want to discuss the Crusades either. They were merely an example. Church positions don't really change that frequently. Amount and frequency are not the same thing. Changes (especially central ones) usually come all at once in a huge upheaval, like the Reformation or the current Barthian trend in Protestantism.



You are free to inquire or argue, whichever you wish. I need something more concrete to answer, though. "Where do you draw the line?" is a lot more nebulous than it may seem.



Contradiction is never okay. We can argue about what paradox is. Not that I want to argue about, merely that it's arguable. I define a paradox as that which seems to contradict, but does not contradict or that which seems to contradict but is actually held in tension. So since it doesn't contradict, it's on the other hand from contradiction, it's the opposite of never okay, it's okay.



Assuming faith for the purpose of argument (or for inquiry if you prefer) is not the same as assuming it in every sphere of life. Assuming it to understand a position is exactly that. Once you understand the position, you are free to throw that faith away.



:rolleyes:

Did you even read it? To argue is to maintain in reasoning. My argument is that which I am trying to argue. I am proposing this argument as true and in my argument, I will present these arguments as reasons for why my argument is true.

English (and language as a whole) is squishy.

So me supporting a claim I made that there are contradictions with a blatant contradiction (which, I suppose isn't if you're willing to take that a spirit goes around censoring people - but then why would there be opposed views?) is an attack? I have to disagree. I just felt it was necessary to not run around shouting ideas without having a basis for them.


Okay. So where's the churches position? Where do they draw the line? It seems to change. A lot.


Then don't. Yes, they are different. However, they do work well together. Like, say, if I were to do something to the amount of 50 times in one week, one might suggest that it was frequent.


Then allow me to, rather than start by saying something that has nothing to back it up. And, if that's unclear, let me be more specific; If the church is so full of contradictions already, then why is it unacceptable for it to have an individual who contradicts themself?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox?qsrc=2888
So we can argue what a paradox is? Looks to me like "paradox" is a different way to say "contradiction." But, of course, that's just the English language. If you want to be misleading again, by all means... By the way, do you have anything to support that these contradictions only seem like contradictions?


Let me jump into my own life now. After 12 years, starting at birth, of being strict Roman Catholic, I came to realize that to accept something on faith just seemed silly. I thought I was a smart person so I assumed it would be okay. So I asked for proof. Proof of god, proof of anything religious. There was none. As a result my religious experience ended then. I'm not anti god. Not at all. I would be thrilled if somethingg so great and powerful was watching over everything. But that isn't the case, it would seem.
Now, back to the conversation. I have seen things from a clouded, faith based view point. Now I see things from a logical perspective. Logically, one cannot argue with faith.


Right. So... where are those reasons you talked about? And the evidence to support them?

Of course, one could accept Muhammad as a prophet without denying the divinity of Christ, so long as one does not believe that being a prophet makes one infallible.

So one really could be both Christian and Muslim, so long as one did not try to take the holy books of either as absolutely infallible.

I'm pretty sure that would rule out being a muslim though.

I'm also pretty sure this isn't about the holy books. (Well it might be in the case of Islam, but not with the Episcopal church).

she is obviously mentally ill and a threat to society. Lock her up in an institution.

I'm pretty sure that would rule out being a muslim though...

Why?

Oh, and congrats to Gauthier for making it into my sig not once, but twice, and in the same day! :D

Have a cookie!

So me supporting a claim I made that there are contradictions with a blatant contradiction (which, I suppose isn't if you're willing to take that a spirit goes around censoring people - but then why would there be opposed views?) is an attack? I have to disagree. I just felt it was necessary to not run around shouting ideas without having a basis for them.

I really don't understand why we're talking past each other so much. Maybe it's because I'm speaking more metaphorically than factually?

When I say 'attack' and 'assault' I do not mean that you are coming at it with an axe or a sword or whatever. I mean that you are declaring it false. You are attacking the idea. That's all I mean.

Okay. So where's the churches position? Where do they draw the line? It seems to change. A lot.

Which church? The Church? We're to fractured to talk about as a whole in regards to institutionalized doctrine or process.

Roman Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? Episcopalians/Anglicans (the denomination in the article)? Presbyterians/Reformed? Who are you asking about?

Then don't. Yes, they are different. However, they do work well together. Like, say, if I were to do something to the amount of 50 times in one week, one might suggest that it was frequent.

If we were looking at that week by itself, then, yes, we could say that. Were we looking at your entire life, and saw that you only did that thing one other time in your life, we would probably not call it frequent.

Then allow me to, rather than start by saying something that has nothing to back it up. And, if that's unclear, let me be more specific; If the church is so full of contradictions already, then why is it unacceptable for it to have an individual who contradicts them?

You have yet to produce a contradiction held by an orthodox branch of Christianity that is so central to the doctrine of the Church as the divinity of Jesus. Christianity must affirm it and Islam must deny it.

Jesus must have been divine, otherwise He could not have endured the atoning work of the cross. And if He could not have endured it, it would not have happened. And if it did not happen, there would be no atonement and no salvation. Without salvation through Christ on the cross, there is no Christianity.

Yet the Muslims deny the Trinity. Jesus cannot be divine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox?qsrc=2888
So we can argue what a paradox is? Looks to me like "paradox" is a different way to say "contradiction." But, of course, that's just the English language. If you want to be misleading again, by all means... By the way, do you have anything to support that these contradictions only seem like contradictions?

Unlike other times, I am defining a word differently from the common use to make a distinction not normally found in the English lexicon. So I define it specifically. I failed to do that the first time (I come from circles who commonly use the words as I defined, so it's just second-nature to me).

Give me a concrete contradiction, and I will attempt to answer it.

Let me jump into my own life now. After 12 years, starting at birth, of being strict Roman Catholic, I came to realize that to accept something on faith just seemed silly. I thought I was a smart person so I assumed it would be okay. So I asked for proof. Proof of god, proof of anything religious. There was none. As a result my religious experience ended then. I'm not anti god. Not at all. I would be thrilled if something so great and powerful was watching over everything. But that isn't the case, it would seem.

And how old are you now, may I ask?

Accepting something just on faith? Yes, that's silly. Having faith is not.

Now, back to the conversation. I have seen things from a clouded, faith based view point. Now I see things from a logical perspective. Logically, one cannot argue with faith.

We are talking past each other again. You want to understand why this supposed contradiction is so much worse than the other supposed contradictions. Assume the Episcopalian church to be right. Assume their faith is true. Why would a Muslim priest be a problem? Assume Islam to be right. Assume their faith is true. Why would a Christian priest (or imam?) be a problem?

That's what I mean when I say to assume for the sake of inquiry or of argument that faith is true or valid of whatever word it was I used.

Right. So... where are those reasons you talked about? And the evidence to support them?

Okay, I'm finished.

We've done nothing but argue definitions and the nature of argument. Give me a concrete contradiction with a concrete context. Then I can talk about reasons.

In the situation of this Episcopalian priest, she is holding two competing view points. They are not being held in tension, nor can they be squished with semantics of double-think. She either doesn't understand what Christianity and Islam hold as orthodox doctrine or she's rejecting central tenants of one or the other.

I gave one other central contradictions above.

Also, you would do well to realize that no one admits they believe a contradiction. Those in the Episcopalian church are not sitting around saying "Well this is all bullshit, but we'll believe it any way." No one in their right mind does that. No one believes something they know to be false. They may explain the falsity away. They may trick themselves into thinking they believe the falsity, even though they don't. The Episcopal church and its leadership aren't saying "Well all this is contradiction, so you can stay." They don't think there is any contradiction. If they thought there was, they would be attempting to amend it or leaving. But since they aren't doing either, they must not think there is any contradiction.

And could you please from now on break apart the posts you're responding to? It makes things much easier to read and to understand what you're responding to exactly. Thank you

I'm pretty sure that would rule out being a muslim though.

Why? Plenty of Muslims recognize Muhammad as being a fallible human being, while still seeing him as a prophet. Plenty of them also see the Koran in the same way that many Christians see the Bible - as useful for spiritual guidance but not infallible.

I'm also pretty sure this isn't about the holy books. (Well it might be in the case of Islam, but not with the Episcopal church).

There is a passage in the Bible that is often interpreted to mean that no further scripture can be written. If one does not see that passage as true, there is nothing inherently contradictory about seeing someone who came after Christ as a prophet.

That said, I'm fairly certain that the Episcopal church does hold to that interpretation and thus would see this woman's beliefs as outside of their structure. It isn't surprising to me that she was defrocked.

From a personal point of view, though, if I felt that she gave good spiritual guidance, it wouldn't stop me from seeking her out.

Yet the Muslims deny the Trinity. Jesus cannot be divine.

I don't see denial of Christ's divinity as absolutely central to Islam. It is certainly the orthodox belief, but it is not something that one must accept to find truth in the Koran.

Disclaimer: I am not Muslim, nor have I studied Islam to the same extent that I have Christianity.

In the situation of this Episcopalian priest, she is holding two competing view points. They are not being held in tension, nor can they be squished with semantics of double-think. She either doesn't understand what Christianity and Islam hold as orthodox doctrine or she's rejecting central tenants of one or the other.

Or, perhaps, she sees different tenets as central than you do. Maybe the idea of whether or not it is "orthodox" doesn't really matter when defining one's beliefs.

I don't see denial of Christ's divinity as absolutely central to Islam. It is certainly the orthodox belief, but it is not something that one must accept to find truth in the Koran.

Disclaimer: I am not Muslim, nor have I studied Islam to the same extent that I have Christianity.

That God is one is one of the five pillars of Islam. They understand a unitarian God. Perhaps they can fit something to work, but I'll admit to not having enough knowledge to say how or how not.

Or, perhaps, she sees different tenets as central than you do.

Then she's following a heterodox Christianity.

Not that I'm the definition of orthodoxy; the Word of God is the definition of orthodoxy.

Why?

I think they take an oath about it. And that's the basis of their religion.

This is all a bit like trying to be a free-market communist.

I really don't understand why we're talking past each other so much. Maybe it's because I'm speaking more metaphorically than factually?

When I say 'attack' and 'assault' I do not mean that you are coming at it with an axe or a sword or whatever. I mean that you are declaring it false. You are attacking the idea. That's all I mean.



Which church? The Church? We're to fractured to talk about as a whole in regards to institutionalized doctrine or process.

Roman Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? Episcopalians/Anglicans (the denomination in the article)? Presbyterians/Reformed? Who are you asking about?



If we were looking at that week by itself, then, yes, we could say that. Were we looking at your entire life, and saw that you only did that thing one other time in your life, we would probably not call it frequent.



You have yet to produce a contradiction held by an orthodox branch of Christianity that is so central to the doctrine of the Church as the divinity of Jesus. Christianity must affirm it and Islam must deny it.

Jesus must have been divine, otherwise He could not have endured the atoning work of the cross. And if He could not have endured it, it would not have happened. And if it did not happen, there would be no atonement and no salvation. Without salvation through Christ on the cross, there is no Christianity.

Yet the Muslims deny the Trinity. Jesus cannot be divine.



Unlike other times, I am defining a word differently from the common use to make a distinction not normally found in the English lexicon. So I define it specifically. I failed to do that the first time (I come from circles who commonly use the words as I defined, so it's just second-nature to me).

Give me a concrete contradiction, and I will attempt to answer it.



And how old are you now, may I ask?

Accepting something just on faith? Yes, that's silly. Having faith is not.



We are talking past each other again. You want to understand why this supposed contradiction is so much worse than the other supposed contradictions. Assume the Episcopalian church to be right. Assume their faith is true. Why would a Muslim priest be a problem? Assume Islam to be right. Assume their faith is true. Why would a Christian priest (or imam?) be a problem?

That's what I mean when I say to assume for the sake of inquiry or of argument that faith is true or valid of whatever word it was I used.



Okay, I'm finished.

We've done nothing but argue definitions and the nature of argument. Give me a concrete contradiction with a concrete context. Then I can talk about reasons.

In the situation of this Episcopalian priest, she is holding two competing view points. They are not being held in tension, nor can they be squished with semantics of double-think. She either doesn't understand what Christianity and Islam hold as orthodox doctrine or she's rejecting central tenants of one or the other.

I gave one other central contradictions above.

Also, you would do well to realize that no one admits they believe a contradiction. Those in the Episcopalian church are not sitting around saying "Well this is all bullshit, but we'll believe it any way." No one in their right mind does that. No one believes something they know to be false. They may explain the falsity away. They may trick themselves into thinking they believe the falsity, even though they don't. The Episcopal church and its leadership aren't saying "Well all this is contradiction, so you can stay." They don't think there is any contradiction. If they thought there was, they would be attempting to amend it or leaving. But since they aren't doing either, they must not think there is any contradiction.

And could you please from now on break apart the posts you're responding to? It makes things much easier to read and to understand what you're responding to exactly. Thank you


Oh. Thanks for clarifying. Because I thought that you thought I was coming after christianity with a knife.
Since when is questioning attack? And how many times do I have to ask before you stop accusing me of doing something I'm not?


I figured since you said "the church" I would go along with that. I don't care which. Just give me some lines from some church. And then show me they haven't been crossed. Repeatedly.


If you really want to argue semantics, fine. "Frequently" is used when something is done a large amount of times, regardless of time span.


How about this contradiction? There is one god. There is also the holy trinity. The holy trinity is three seperate things that are each god-like. Thus, three gods. But it's also said, that, though they are seperate, they are one. That's a pretty bizarre mix, don't you think?
Clearly your example is correct. If one group thinks something is devine and one doesn't then they are not the same. However, when one thing like, say, science proves something and a group disputes it, claiming the science is a lie or a "divine plan" is that any different? Why is one accepted and the other is not?


You may not ask as it's not relevent.
Accepting something on faith requires having faith. Having faith means that you're accepting something. Cicular, yes. Accurate, yes. Logical, no.


I do want to understand.
And if that it's so horrible to be more than one thing, then clearly compassion isn't a big concern. But I always thought acceptance was something preached? Maybe I was wrong.


If you're finished then why is there another paragraph?


I gave you examples. Now go ahead.
Of course no one would openly admit to believing a falacy. But that doesn't stop them from trying to (as an expression) "force a square peg through a round hole." So I ask again why it is wrong for me to question them for not wanting to force a triangular or pentagonal peg trough said hole?

I'll tell you what; you stop argueing semantics and avoiding answering things (you know, just start getting to the point) and I'll go out of my way to format posts.

I mean, of course, people are free to label themselves any way they want. But it shouldn't be a surprise if the respective communities they want to double dip with don't see it that way.

I think there was a case of a C of E vicar a few years back who decided he'd also be a Hindu. He got the shove too.

That God is one is one of the five pillars of Islam. They understand a unitarian God. Perhaps they can fit something to work, but I'll admit to not having enough knowledge to say how or how not.

Even in Christianity, God is both 1 and 3 - at the same time. Hence the reason that Christianity is still considered to be monotheist. There have been many arguments as to exactly how that works, from the idea that they are 3 different entities to the the idea that they are really just different faces worn by the same entity and any number of "in-between" viewpoints. Different interpretations of a single word (roughly translated as "of one substance") were a big part of the original East-West schism in the Catholic Church.

When it comes right down to it, I don't think any particular view of the Trinity is necessary to Christianity. It's one of those theological details that people get lost arguing about, but having the "right" answer isn't really necessary to the religion. Most Christians probably give very little thought to how the Trinity works.

Then she's following a heterodox Christianity.

When you really dig down into it, most Christians are.

Not that I'm the definition of orthodoxy; the Word of God is the definition of orthodoxy.

And everyone views the Word of God differently.* Any individual can get their own guidance from God, and that guidance is always filtered through their own fallible interpretation. Thus, if you claim a specific position to be the definition of orthodoxy, it is you making that claim and defining orthodoxy.

*And, quite often, views what to include as the Word of God differently. Let's not forget that the official canon of scripture is not standardized throughout Christianity. And even that which is seen as official was decided through a political, human process.

I think they take an oath about it. And that's the basis of their religion.

This is all a bit like trying to be a free-market communist.

What is this oath and what does it say?

Oh. Thanks for clarifying. Because I thought that you thought I was coming after christianity with a knife.
Since when is questioning attack? And how many times do I have to ask before you stop accusing me of doing something I'm not?

...
I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm using words according to my convention and the convention of the circles I live in to describe our conversation. If I said "I think atheism is false" I would say that I am attacking atheism. That's all.

I figured since you said "the church" I would go along with that. I don't care which. Just give me some lines from some church. And then show me they haven't been crossed. Repeatedly.

It's not that easy.

Let's just look at the Presbyterians for a second, k? Which time period are we talking about? Are we going all the way back to John Calvin in Geneva or are we taking about the Presbyterians in the US now? Are we talking about the conservatives or the liberals? Are we talking about the Orthodox Presbyterians, the Reformed Presbyterians or the Evangelical Presbyterians? Or are we actually talking about the Church of Scotland? If we're talking about the PCUSA, which faction of leadership are we talking about? Who was moderator at the time? Who was Clerk at the time? Was this in relation to the amendments to the Westminster Confession or no?

There are too many questions to just say "give me a line."

Let's say homosexuality: there's a woman in Pittsburgh who performed a wedding ceremony between two women. She was called to the court of the church. The church forbids (currently) the marriage of two people of the same sex. She escaped punishment because she said that because the church defines marriage as one man and one woman, what she performed could not have been a marriage ceremony.

Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

If you really want to argue semantics, fine. "Frequently" is used when something is done a large amount of times, regardless of time span.

I must disagree, but assuming that definition, then yes, fine.

How about this contradiction? There is one god. There is also the holy trinity. The holy trinity is three separate things that are each god-like. Thus, three gods. But it's also said, that, though they are separate, they are one.

The idea of the Trinity is that there are Three Persons in One God. Not three Gods in one God and not three Persons in one Person. The last two make no sense and are contradictions. The first doesn't make much more sense, but it isn't a contradiction. This is where faith comes in, which you don't like.

Clearly your example is correct. If one group thinks something is divine and one doesn't then they are not the same. However, when one thing like, say, science proves something and a group disputes it, claiming the science is a lie or a "divine plan" is that any different? Why is one accepted and the other is not?

Well usually it's science that is accepted and the competing idea not. Sometimes what is heralded as science really isn't and some groups understand that and so don't feel the need to change their beliefs to fit what isn't science.

You may not ask as it's not relevant.

I merely wanted to know how long you've continued in this path of "logic is my guide." 12 is rather young to begin making such decisions. Not unheard of, not bad, but unusual, at least in my experience.

Accepting something on faith requires having faith. Having faith means that you're accepting something. Cicular, yes. Accurate, yes. Logical, no.

Poor diction on my part. I accept the existence of God. It is not baseless, I have very concrete reasons. They are necessary for believing a deity. They could even be said to be sufficient for believing in a deity. Are they convincing? Possibly. But there are times when things don't make sense, but are a conclusion I've come to, as in the Trinity above. I know it must be, it isn't a contradiction (so far as I can see) so I accept in faith that it is true, though I don't understand it.

I do want to understand.
And if that it's so horrible to be more than one thing, then clearly compassion isn't a big concern.

What? Where does this come from and what does it have to do with anything that's been discussed? If you want to open another topic, fine, but please make that clear.

I gave you examples. Now go ahead.
Of course no one would openly admit to believing a falacy. But that doesn't stop them from trying to (as an expression) "force a square peg through a round hole." So I ask again why it is wrong for me to question them for not wanting to force a triangular or pentagonal peg trough said hole?

I never said it was wrong for you to do so.

I'll tell you what; you stop argueing semantics

We have to argue semantics so that we have a clear understanding of each other. Most arguments are semantic arguments.

and avoiding answering things (you know, just start getting to the point) and I'll go out of my way to format posts.

I made my point. There are no contradictions. If there were, I wouldn't believe there to not be. If you want to try to prove a contradiction to me, go ahead. We can discuss that. But you will get nowhere with anyone (unless that person already agrees with you) by saying "Oh, the contradictions!" when I can't see them.

So show them to me. I am not on your side in this matter. You have to bring me over to your side.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/02/muslim.minister.defrocked/index.html



I'm excited for the potential shitstorm this thread may cause. I only hope it doesn't degenerate to the point of being locked.

Can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim? Can someone adhere to two religions that contain several contradictions? If a regular person can be both Christan and Muslim, can a Minister or other ordained member of one of the religions adhere to both? What are your thoughts?
I don't think you can be both at once. Choose one or the other, or neither, as the case may be.

I'm excited for the potential shitstorm this thread may cause. I only hope it doesn't degenerate to the point of being locked.

Can someone be both a Christian and a Muslim? Can someone adhere to two religions that contain several contradictions? If a regular person can be both Christan and Muslim, can a Minister or other ordained member of one of the religions adhere to both? What are your thoughts?

She seems to have rushed into this all rather quickly. After being a Christian minister for 30 years, she takes a vow to a very different faith a mere ten days after being seriously introduced to it? Sounds to me like she's not even fully aware of what being Muslim means.

10 days is not enough time to decide to convert. Unless god(s) told you to.

I don't think you can be both at once. Choose one or the other, or neither, as the case may be.

Why must someone else define your religion?

Why must someone else define your religion?

Well, if you want to be a minister in a specific religion, you must adhere to the tenets of that religion. It's kind of important.

Well, if you want to be a minister in a specific religion, you must adhere to the tenets of that religion. It's kind of important.

Please explain how the tenets of either Christianity or Islam make it impossible to be both.

Why must someone else define your religion?

You don't have to accept those definitions...unless you are explicitly claiming to be representative of the thought/hierarchy of that religion (i.e. being a minister). I don't understand the difficulty people are having with this concept. It isn't that she CANNOT be, in her mind, an Episcopal and a Muslim. She's more than welcome to. But, in the eyes of the Episcopalian Church, and likely most Muslim interpretations, she cannot.

If she gains fellow adherents to this Episcopislam or Islamopalianism or whatever, it would be an offshoot sect. Within the context of the standard Episcopalian religious framework, though, she cannot be both.

Well, if you want to be a minister in a specific religion, you must adhere to the tenets of that religion. It's kind of important.

This is true (although she could certainly continue to be a more generic Christian minister if she so chooses). But I seen no reason that she cannot personally be both Christian and Muslim.

Please explain how the tenets of either Christianity or Islam make it impossible to be both.

Well, I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the tenets of the Episcopalian religion make it quite impossible to be both.

...
I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm using words according to my convention and the convention of the circles I live in to describe our conversation. If I said "I think atheism is false" I would say that I am attacking atheism. That's all.

Sounds like it. By the way, my initial statement was really just a question. So, yeah, according to how you use words, I was not attacking. Unless you'd like to change that suddenly.



It's not that easy.

Let's just look at the Presbyterians for a second, k? Which time period are we talking about? Are we going all the way back to John Calvin in Geneva or are we taking about the Presbyterians in the US now? Are we talking about the conservatives or the liberals? Are we talking about the Orthodox Presbyterians, the Reformed Presbyterians or the Evangelical Presbyterians? Or are we actually talking about the Church of Scotland? If we're talking about the PCUSA, which faction of leadership are we talking about? Who was moderator at the time? Who was Clerk at the time? Was this in relation to the amendments to the Westminster Confession or no?

There are too many questions to just say "give me a line."

Let's say homosexuality: there's a woman in Pittsburgh who performed a wedding ceremony between two women. She was called to the court of the church. The church forbids (currently) the marriage of two people of the same sex. She escaped punishment because she said that because the church defines marriage as one man and one woman, what she performed could not have been a marriage ceremony.

Is that the kind of thing you're looking for?

It's not? Well, judging by your response... Originally there were certain things accepted and not accepted. Over time these things changed, thus the original lines were crossed. And as they changed again the lines were crossed again. Thank you for confirming that there is no set form of Christianity.


I must disagree, but assuming that definition, then yes, fine.

Disagree all you want. You know, the assumed form of communication started in this conversation (as that's what I began with) was present day English. That, however, seems to be something you can't stick to. Since the terms I've been using are commonly accepted, then perhaps you should let me know when you say something you don't mean.


The idea of the Trinity is that there are Three Persons in One God. Not three Gods in one God and not three Persons in one Person. The last two make no sense and are contradictions. The first doesn't make much more sense, but it isn't a contradiction. This is where faith comes in, which you don't like.

So if I were to say that a fish is a mammal is a reptile and refuse to show evidence, it wouldn't be a contradiction, given wha we know about each? Yes, faith would have to come in. Because it's not something that could logically be accepted.


Well usually it's science that is accepted and the competing idea not. Sometimes what is heralded as science really isn't and some groups understand that and so don't feel the need to change their beliefs to fit what isn't science.

...I have no comment there. Really, if they can't accept proven fact then there's no hope for them.


I merely wanted to know how long you've continued in this path of "logic is my guide." 12 is rather young to begin making such decisions. Not unheard of, not bad, but unusual, at least in my experience.

If my age isn't a problem, why bring it up? Clearly I can formulate my own ideas of things.


Poor diction on my part. I accept the existence of God. It is not baseless, I have very concrete reasons. They are necessary for believing a deity. They could even be said to be sufficient for believing in a deity. Are they convincing? Possibly. But there are times when things don't make sense, but are a conclusion I've come to, as in the Trinity above. I know it must be, it isn't a contradiction (so far as I can see) so I accept in faith that it is true, though I don't understand it.

I think you need to accept that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. If you're going to claim you have reasons for something the reasons cannot be faith, as faith is not a valid reason. But, if you can provide evidence, I'd love to hear it.


What? Where does this come from and what does it have to do with anything that's been discussed? If you want to open another topic, fine, but please make that clear.

I'd first like to say that this is where I got cut off for some reason, which is why I edited my post.

Now, here's the relevence; If Christianity is meant to accept people and be compassionate, how can this group claim such a thing as some one finding reason to believe two things a bad thing? Don't say they aren't saying that. If they didn't think it was wrong then they never would have removed that girl.


I never said it was wrong for you to do so.

If that's what you think then why did you begin an arguement?


We have to argue semantics so that we have a clear understanding of each other. Most arguments are semantic arguments.

Maybe in your experience. Most people I talk with have a common understanding of the English language to some extent. If you refuse to properly use words without telling me then I have no choice but to argue your semantics. Really, though, if you are unsure of the meaning of something then please look it up, as it can save time for both of us.


I made my point. There are no contradictions. If there were, I wouldn't believe there to not be. If you want to try to prove a contradiction to me, go ahead. We can discuss that. But you will get nowhere with anyone (unless that person already agrees with you) by saying "Oh, the contradictions!" when I can't see them.

So show them to me. I am not on your side in this matter. You have to bring me over to your side.

What is your point? There are of course contradictions. You may not realize this, but you brought up a few yourself. Clearly you don't though, since, even after it's been proven time and time again, you out right refuse to see them.

I did. I don't care that you aren't. Why should I?

You do realize that all I did was ask a question? If you felt the need to question my question then I should like to think I'm not the one trying to convice here.

Please explain how the tenets of either Christianity or Islam make it impossible to be both.

I'm no expert; it seems like the key difference is that Christianity considers Christ divine as the Son of God and (in some branches of Christianity) a part of God or an incarnation God, whereas the Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet.

But I suppose as long as she doesn't hold Jesus Christ as "equal with God" or "partner with God", and holds Allah as without peer or equal, it doesn't have to be a deal breaker.

I think its kind of interesting; reminds me of the Dune universe where the various religions sort of merged over time.

I'm no expert; it seems like the key difference is that Christianity considers Christ divine as the Son of God and (in some branches of Christianity) a part of God or an incarnation God, whereas the Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet.

But I suppose as long as she doesn't hold Jesus Christ as "equal with God" or "partner with God", and holds Allah as without peer or equal, it doesn't have to be a deal breaker.

I think its kind of interesting; reminds me of the Dune universe where the various religions sort of merged over time.

Why can't she simply view Jesus as the physical incarnation of Allah on Earth?

If I may continue with the menu metaphor:

Are you saying that Islam is a salad and Christianity a salad but one has ranch dressing and the other Italian?

I'm saying that Islam is beef and Christianity is pork. And both are topped with cheese, but even those cheeses are different.

Is that poor metaphor?
im saying that they are both lasagne but they use slightly different recipes.

the basis for judaism, christianity and islam is to understand the will of god and to follow it. because of the different cultures involved the actual "will of god" to be followed varies some. as you are saying to the screen "but they are so different!" well so is greek orthodox and pentacostal christianity.

Why can't she simply view Jesus as the physical incarnation of Allah on Earth?
she could as an eclectic christian of her own making. that is NOT the stance of the episcopal church so it disqualifies her from an official position with them. (and its also not the stance of any sect of islam but she wasnt trying to be a ......whatever the equivalent position might be in islam)

Why can't she simply view Jesus as the physical incarnation of Allah on Earth?

She can, but since that's not the official stance of the Episcopal Church, she'd have a hard time being a religious authority and representative of said Church.

she could as an eclectic christian of her own making. that is NOT the stance of the episcopal church so it disqualifies her from an official position with them. (and its also not the stance of any sect of islam but she wasnt trying to be a ......whatever the equivalent position might be in islam)

How so? Allah is simply the Arabic name for God. While there is a problem reconciling the Trinitarian model with the orthodox Islamic model of God, we are still discussing the same god. The same one that told Abraham to kill his son. The same that created Adam and Eve.

How so? Allah is simply the Arabic name for God. While there is a problem reconciling the Trinitarian model with the orthodox Islamic model of God, we are still discussing the same god. The same one that told Abraham to kill his son. The same that created Adam and Eve.
the islamic verion of god is not a trinity. the episcopal god is.

its not any harder than rationalizing any of the dozens of things you have to deal with as a christian but the various churchs have made a decision on just which rationalizations are correct. it is incumbent on their clergy to believe and to follow those decisions.

Why can't she simply view Jesus as the physical incarnation of Allah on Earth?

There are some groups in Islam that consider to assign any human likeness or form to Allah is doctrinally incorrect, but I don't know if this lady is part of one of those.

She can view anything as anything she wants; you had asked what tenets of either religion make it impossible to be both.

If one is explicit that Jesus is not divine or an incarnation of God, and the other is explicit that Jesus is, it makes it impossible to be fully in harmony with both.

Similary, a Sura in the Quran says "No Religion but Islam can bring one to Heaven", whereas the Christians might disagree. So, being both at the same time, you'd have to modify or reject at least some of the tenets of one or the other.

I think people often do that anyway, even when in only one religion, though.

the islamic verion of god is not a trinity. the episcopal god is.

its not any harder than rationalizing any of the dozens of things you have to deal with as a christian but the various churchs have made a decision on just which rationalizations are correct. it is incumbent on their clergy to believe and to follow those decisions.

Can't she just say that the Trinity is a true depiction of Allah, and that while the Islamic model of god does not explicitly describe a trinity, it doesn't rule it out either?

There are some groups in Islam that consider to assign any human likeness or form to Allah is doctrinally incorrect, but I don't know if this lady is part of one of those.

She can view anything as anything she wants; you had asked what tenets of either religion make it impossible to be both.

If one is explicit that Jesus is not divine or an incarnation of God, and the other is explicit that Jesus is, it makes it impossible to be fully in harmony with both.

Similary, a Sura in the Quran says "No Religion but Islam can bring one to Heaven", whereas the Christians might disagree. So, being both at the same time, you'd have to modify or reject at least some of the tenets of one or the other.

I think people often do that anyway, even when in only one religion, though.

Does Islam explicitly say that Jesus is not god?

Can't she just say that the Trinity is a true depiction of Allah, and that while the Islamic model of god does not explicitly describe a trinity, it doesn't rule it out either?

Islam has ruled out that Jesus is part of a trinity with God. As a religion, they reject the premise specifically.

Does Islam explicitly say that Jesus is not god?

People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).

So, the Christian idea of Jesus as God, and the Episcopalian idea of God as a trinity including Jesus, is a belief contrary to Muslim belief.

But I suppose a person can be in a group while disagreeing with some doctrines of it. Whether the group acknowledges them is a different question, though.

Does Islam explicitly say that Jesus is not god?

Yes. It also rules out the crucifixion and resurrection. The two really aren't compatible.

Similary, a Sura in the Quran says "No Religion but Islam can bring one to Heaven", whereas the Christians might disagree. So, being both at the same time, you'd have to modify or reject at least some of the tenets of one or the other.



John 14:6 also precludes this - "I am the way, the truth and the life. None can enter Heaven but through me." If you're a Muslim, makes it kinda difficult to enter Heaven.

Please explain how the tenets of either Christianity or Islam make it impossible to be both.

I'd suppose that Christians claiming Jesus to be the final prophet and Muslims claiming that Muhammed was the final prophet would be an issue of some contention. Also, Allah is indivisible unlike the Episcopalian concept of God.

Did she use to wear a burqa to preach at the Episcopal?

http://www.lucasblog.com/archives/400px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

You don't have to accept those definitions...unless you are explicitly claiming to be representative of the thought/hierarchy of that religion (i.e. being a minister). I don't understand the difficulty people are having with this concept. It isn't that she CANNOT be, in her mind, an Episcopal and a Muslim. She's more than welcome to. But, in the eyes of the Episcopalian Church, and likely most Muslim interpretations, she cannot.

If she gains fellow adherents to this Episcopislam or Islamopalianism or whatever, it would be an offshoot sect. Within the context of the standard Episcopalian religious framework, though, she cannot be both.

Yeah.

---

Also .. I've always considered Judaism, Christianity and Islam as believing in the same God (but maybe I consider any belief that believes in a God as believing in that same God because I believe in that God hmm).

They are all three Abrahamic religions with a similar 'style'. Similar and different stories, laws and doctrines. But I consider them much more closely related to one another than either of them to say Hinduism for example. But I'm not familiar with Hinduism .. maybe if I were I'd see more of a connection. *ponders*

Yeah.

---

Also .. I've always considered Judaism, Christianity and Islam as believing in the same God (but maybe I consider any belief that believes in a God as believing in that same God because I believe in that God hmm).

They are all three Abrahamic religions with a similar 'style'. Similar and different stories, laws and doctrines. But I consider them much more closely related to one another than either of them to say Hinduism for example. But I'm not familiar with Hinduism .. maybe if I were I'd see more of a connection. *ponders*

To be fair, Judaism and Islam are much more similar to each other than either is to Christianity. I've always wondered if this has to do with the environment from which they arose. Christianity has a MUCH larger emphasis on a person's connection with God, Islam, as I understand it, does, too, but not nearly as much (except in Sufism and other smaller sects). Judaism definitely places a minimum emphasis on the metaphysics of the religion.

This is a fairly important difference. We were actually discussing this a bit in one of my classes. In the vein of the metaphysics versus the corporeal divide between Christianity and its Muslim and Jewish siblings is this concept of Grace. From my understanding, the idea of Grace is a generally universal aspect of Christianity, isn't it? I don't know of an equivalent in Islam and it is certainly foreign to Jewish thought.

Aside from being Abrahamic, there are considerable differences between the three major monotheistic religions. Say, Christianity is cold breakfast cereal, then Judaism and Islam are oatmeal. They share some fundamental ingredients, and are even eaten around the same time of day, generally, but how they're eaten, how they taste, how they're prepared, etc. are entirely different.

Dammit, now I want some oatmeal. :(

Of course you can't be Muslim and Christian at the same time. The teachings are far too different. It's not like being a Shinto and Buddhist.

Of course you can't be Muslim and Christian at the same time. The teachings are far too different. It's not like being a Shinto and Buddhist.
or a confucian and a taoist!

Does Islam explicitly say that Jesus is not god?

Muhammad certainly said so in the Koran. So it really boils down to two questions:
1) Was Muhammad infallible in his writings?
2) Is this belief absolutely necessary to Islam?

If the answer to either question is yes, then the belief that Jesus was divine would be incompatible with Islam. But if someone believes that the answer to these questions is no, then there would be no incompatibility there.

And then, of course, there's also the question of whether or not one must believe Jesus was divine to be a Christian. It was not a universal belief among early Christian sects and I doubt it's universal even today. Of course, I do think one would have to believe that to be an Episcopal minister, as it is central to their belief system.

Even in Christianity, God is both 1 and 3 - at the same time. Hence the reason that Christianity is still considered to be monotheist. There have been many arguments as to exactly how that works, from the idea that they are 3 different entities to the the idea that they are really just different faces worn by the same entity and any number of "in-between" viewpoints. Different interpretations of a single word (roughly translated as "of one substance") were a big part of the original East-West schism in the Catholic Church.

My understanding of the East-West schism was that it was mostly political and that the doctrinal differences came after.

When it comes right down to it, I don't think any particular view of the Trinity is necessary to Christianity. It's one of those theological details that people get lost arguing about, but having the "right" answer isn't really necessary to the religion. Most Christians probably give very little thought to how the Trinity works.

I must disagree. I think it's very necessary.

And, no, most people in the pews don't think about it. But, most people in the pews aren't interested in more than a happy saying about why they're saved, an angry curse against their neighbors, and a statement about how mysterious God is. And depending on their denomination, they may rely more or less on a bath and getting some nibblies.

When you really dig down into it, most Christians are.

Well, ish. I would say a lot of Christians are heterodox out of ignorance and apathy. There are actually very few, I think, who are heterodox because they reject the orthodox views.

And everyone views the Word of God differently.* Any individual can get their own guidance from God, and that guidance is always filtered through their own fallible interpretation. Thus, if you claim a specific position to be the definition of orthodoxy, it is you making that claim and defining orthodoxy.

I think you and I have different understandings of orthodoxy. I think I'm actually using two different senses of the word myself. There is orthodoxy as in "This is what is true and correct." And there is orthodoxy as in "This is what is proclaimed to be true and correct." Using the latter, the Trinity is orthodox, because it is; I have no say in it.

Using the former, I'm still not defining orthodoxy, so much as I'm saying that given the Scriptural evidence, this is true and this is not. I guess that could be called defining orthodoxy, but I'm not assuming any authority to actually say this is orthodox or not. What I am saying is "Here is God's Word, which is Truth, and it says this." So the authority rests in God and the Scriptures, not in me.

*And, quite often, views what to include as the Word of God differently. Let's not forget that the official canon of scripture is not standardized throughout Christianity. And even that which is seen as official was decided through a political, human process.

Yes, yes.

Is there a God? Does He care? If the answer to those two questions is yes, which I think it is, then does God care enough to make Himself known to us? Is He able? If the answer to those two questions is yes, as I think it is, then I'm willing to say that God can override human error and malice and make Himself known to anyone He wants to.

Sounds like it. By the way, my initial statement was really just a question. So, yeah, according to how you use words, I was not attacking. Unless you'd like to change that suddenly.

It's not? Well, judging by your response... Originally there were certain things accepted and not accepted. Over time these things changed, thus the original lines were crossed. And as they changed again the lines were crossed again. Thank you for confirming that there is no set form of Christianity.

Disagree all you want. You know, the assumed form of communication started in this conversation (as that's what I began with) was present day English. That, however, seems to be something you can't stick to. Since the terms I've been using are commonly accepted, then perhaps you should let me know when you say something you don't mean.

So if I were to say that a fish is a mammal is a reptile and refuse to show evidence, it wouldn't be a contradiction, given wha we know about each? Yes, faith would have to come in. Because it's not something that could logically be accepted.

...I have no comment there. Really, if they can't accept proven fact then there's no hope for them.

If my age isn't a problem, why bring it up? Clearly I can formulate my own ideas of things.

I think you need to accept that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. If you're going to claim you have reasons for something the reasons cannot be faith, as faith is not a valid reason. But, if you can provide evidence, I'd love to hear it.

I'd first like to say that this is where I got cut off for some reason, which is why I edited my post.

Now, here's the relevence; If Christianity is meant to accept people and be compassionate, how can this group claim such a thing as some one finding reason to believe two things a bad thing? Don't say they aren't saying that. If they didn't think it was wrong then they never would have removed that girl.

If that's what you think then why did you begin an arguement?

Maybe in your experience. Most people I talk with have a common understanding of the English language to some extent. If you refuse to properly use words without telling me then I have no choice but to argue your semantics. Really, though, if you are unsure of the meaning of something then please look it up, as it can save time for both of us.

What is your point? There are of course contradictions. You may not realize this, but you brought up a few yourself. Clearly you don't though, since, even after it's been proven time and time again, you out right refuse to see them.

I did. I don't care that you aren't. Why should I?

You do realize that all I did was ask a question? If you felt the need to question my question then I should like to think I'm not the one trying to convice here.

Okay, so I think we're so wrapped up in each other's arguments that we're getting lost and speaking past each other too much to understand each other.

Everything you type I read one way, and then you respond in a way that let's me know that you definitely didn't understand me and I definitely didn't understand you.

For example, "crossing a line" is not at all what I thought you meant. I would call what you were talking about "moving the line" which is why arguing semantics is so important. Because standard English doesn't exist.

As for your age, I asked only so that I could understand your arguments better, and maybe have less confusion about what you mean by some of the things you say. Sorry to have offended.

May I ask that we have a 'truce' of sorts and start over? What contradictions are you asking about?

im saying that they are both lasagne but they use slightly different recipes.

the basis for judaism, christianity and islam is to understand the will of god and to follow it. because of the different cultures involved the actual "will of god" to be followed varies some. as you are saying to the screen "but they are so different!" well so is greek orthodox and pentacostal christianity.

Well, I actually don't consider Greek Orthodoxy to be Christianity. I would say it's apostate with too many pagan influences. The Pentecostals are getting to that point in some ways, too.

I understand your metaphor better now. I still think that the core idea of the two are different. Christianity says "We are lost and here's a Savior to save us by grace through faith." Islam says "Work and submit and be rewarded."

"Coming from an example of wanting to be Christ-like and coming from the perspective of wanting to follow the best example -- the example of our prophet Mohammed -- it all makes sense then," Benjamin Shabazz said.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal then others.'

I couldn't see the congregation wanting to hear sermons from someone in ninja gear.

I looked her up. She's a fascinating woman. Here are some cool quotes from an article about her:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html

Redding, who will begin teaching the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University this fall, has a different analogy: "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both."

Redding doesn't feel she has to resolve all the contradictions. People within one religion can't even agree on all the details, she said. "So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?

...

Redding believes telling her story can help ease religious tensions, and she hopes it can be a step toward her dream of creating an institute to study Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"I think this thing that's happened to me can be a sign of hope," she said.

...

Redding is 55 and single, with deep brown eyes, dreadlocks and a voice that becomes easily impassioned when talking about faith. She's also a classically trained singer, and has sung at jazz nights at St. Mark's.

...

She experienced racism in schools, was sexually abused and, by the time she was a young adult, was struggling with alcohol addiction; she's been in recovery for 20 years.

Despite those difficulties, she graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. She felt called to the priesthood and was ordained in 1984.

As much as she loves her church, she has always challenged it. She calls Christianity the "world religion of privilege." She has never believed in original sin. And for years she struggled with the nature of Jesus' divinity.

...

She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

...

Being Muslim has given her insights into Christianity, she said. For instance, because Islam regards Jesus as human, not divine, it reinforces for her that "we can be like Jesus. There are no excuses."

Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark's faith-formation committee with Redding, said he's trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith.

He believes Redding is being called. She is, "by her very presence, a bridge person," Thorpe said. "And we desperately need those bridge persons."

...

Okay, so I think we're so wrapped up in each other's arguments that we're getting lost and speaking past each other too much to understand each other.

Everything you type I read one way, and then you respond in a way that let's me know that you definitely didn't understand me and I definitely didn't understand you.

For example, "crossing a line" is not at all what I thought you meant. I would call what you were talking about "moving the line" which is why arguing semantics is so important. Because standard English doesn't exist.

As for your age, I asked only so that I could understand your arguments better, and maybe have less confusion about what you mean by some of the things you say. Sorry to have offended.

May I ask that we have a 'truce' of sorts and start over? What contradictions are you asking about?

It doesn't exist? I'm fairly certain it does. Maybe if instead assuming I'm saying things that I'm now and instead stick with what I say this would be easier. It's like if I ask about ducks, you think I mean geese, you tell me something about geese. I then have to go back and insist I meant ducks. I'm just trying to be simple how I speak. If I'm not careful I can get pretty confusing.


Age has nothing to do with understanding. But I see what you're sayin. It WOULD be easier to say "You're just a silly kid... You'll grow out of it," wouldn't it? Even so that's not the case, but I see no reason to give you any personal information. I mean no offense by that. You're a stranger to me.


No, you may not. I'm done with this. I'm certain now you can't answer me, and to continue is but a waste of time. Not to mention things could get "heated".


EDIT: As a side note, I'd like to say I don't dislike you. For the most part, on my end, anyways, I had a fairly good time. Maybe we could have a discussion again some time.