Friday, May 4, 2018

A Religious Discussion - Christian & Muslim




Gary McCoy - What did the young man who heroically stopped the shooter at the Waffle House do after being released from the hospital?

Answer: He went to church.

Liberal heads exploding in 3...2....1....

Muhammad Rasheed - ???

I don't get it.

Gary McCoy - A man of faith. Not a secularist as many liberals identify themselves. Leftists often dismiss religion and demean followers of Christ as unenlightened people. This Brave young man was being praised by some simply because of his color. Yet those same people made no mention that he is a believer.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's another one of those slippery slopes that's more bipartisan than you think.

Remember it was the church that led the fight against anti-Black systemic racism during the fight against slavery, against jim crow segregation, and to win the 1964 Civil Rights Act signing. But it was the white conservatives that fought against them and the white liberals that usurped their movement, preventing the Black community from the economic inclusion and political enfranchisement they sought and replacing it with the 'integrationist tokenism' we have today that leaves Blacks powerless in the face of the same ole societal abuses of the past.

Bret Rasch Sr - @Muhammad... This guy is a hero. He saved human lives at his expense. Why turn this into racism? He is a human being just like everyone. The only difference is that he is a good human. Try leaving the race card alone once and a while

Muhammad Rasheed - Bret, the killer he stopped initiated the incident in the fire of racism. He was clothed in the race card when he showed up at the restaurant. I didn't do it, I'm just pointing it out.

Bob Englehart - Of my liberal friends and family, most are church-going and hardly any smoke weed.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... those white "conservatives" you mentioned were "Democrats". And they were "conservative" only in that they wanted to "conserve" their black labor force.

Muhammad Rasheed - The white conservative figure has switched parties over the years, but has remained unwavering in his fight against Black political empowerment and economic inclusion.

Gary McCoy - Ah, the old "southern strategy" that liberals try to convince themselves was real in order to assuage the guilt for decades of racism. You yourself don't have to buy into it. Bondage chosen is much worse than bondage inflicted.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's real, documented in history. Gaslighting doesn't work on me, Gary. Your will isn't strong enough.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Democrats used to be split into two groups: the anti-Civil Rights Democrats in the South (who famously called themselves "Dixiecrats" during one campaign) and the Northern Democrats. The very real "southern strategy" you mentioned began under Nixon, but was frustrated by the southern state's nigh-continuous desire to get notorious racist bulldog George Wallace to become POTUS. When Wallace declined to throw his hat into that ring for the first time during the 1080 campaign, it enabled Reagan to successfully court the Southern Democrats, who all converted to GOP-ism en masse, which was the point when the white conservative figure -- who has always fought against Black economic empowerment and political enfranchisement -- became Republican.

Mitchell Berger - And if he had gone to a mosque, might there not be McCoy brain bits scattered about the room? Wouldn't he still be a person of faith?

Gerry Harris - FYI. The guy that drove the van in Toronto and killed all of those people was a Muslim. I suspect he'd been in a Mosque.

Mitchell Berger - And it's reported that he asked the police officer who caught him to "kill me." Sounds like he's crazy, but he's not entitled to that status because he's Muslim?

Gary McCoy - @Mitchell... It's a fair bet that I'm the only one other than Muhammad on this thread who's dated a Muslim for four years. I learned a lot about the Indian culture, ate a good amount of goat curry, watched a ton of Bollywood films, and came to embrace nusrat fateh ali khan as one of my favorite artists. She was so open in accepting other faiths that she insisted on attending mass at my Catholic church with me, and even received ashes (unbeknownst to the Vatican), on Ash Wednesday.

My comment had more to do with the anti-Christian sentiment exhibited by the left. Most recently by the likes of Joy Behar. Sure, she apologized. But only after Christians raised holy hell. Pun intended.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: "Mitchell, it's a fair bet that I'm the only one other than Muhammad on this thread who's dated a Muslim for four years."

1.) I've never dated a Muslimah. My first & only woman is my wife and she's a Christian (nondenominational).

2.) Considering God forbade Muslim women from dating non-Muslim men, how do you know she was actually Muslim?

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... I'm assuming that you're referencing the Quran when you say that "God forbade Muslim women from dating non-Muslim men". But wherever it comes from, can you provide me the link to where I can read exactly what "God forbade". Did God also forbid Muslims from throwing gays from rooftops?

Yes, she is Muslim. Whether she practiced the faith completely, that's not for me to judge. She is from Goa. But to suggest that she may have been punking me for the 14 years I knew her, just because we dated, is a tad presumptuous. Is it forbidden by God for a Muslim to receive Ash Wednesday ashes on their forehead?

She chose not to live under the thumb of her parents, who did not agree with what she was doing. They didn't want her to assimilate, even though they moved her from Goa to the states at the age of 9, against her will. But she was as good and as spiritual a person as you could find.

My point was in reference to Mitchell's insinuation that I hold some sort of anti-Muslim bias, judging from my initial post.

PS. No offense meant by my assumption that you may have dated Muslim women.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: “I'm assuming that you're referencing the Quran when you say that ‘God forbade Muslim women from dating non-Muslim men.’”



Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: “Did God also forbid Muslims from throwing gays from rooftops?”

No, those are local community laws in action. Other than referring to the homosexual intercourse act as “an abomination,” God doesn’t tell the believers to punish them at all actually. To me that implies God will judge them and it isn’t our place to do so. Thus the over-the-top killings committed against the people are cruel and unIslamic.

Gary wrote: “Yes, she is Muslim. Whether she practiced the faith completely, that's not for me to judge.

One of my religion-debating regulars is fascinated with the specialized material that Christian proselytizers use when ministering to the “Cultural Muslim.” This is the person that identifies as a Muslim only because it’s an ethnic tradition of his/her people and not because of a sincere and active practice in the belief system. This debate partner very stubbornly insists I’m the target audience for this stuff, despite me telling him it’s only for ‘Muslim’ who are on the fence, and grew up in doubt that the religion was for them. I am not that guy. From your descriptions of how the lady from Goa behaved, it doesn’t sound like she was really into Islam all that much.

Gary wrote: “But to suggest that she may have been punking me for the 14 years I knew her, just because we dated, is a tad presumptuous.”

God said that unbelievers only beckon the believer to the fire, and this would be especially so for a woman within a patriarchy. God said he would not accept the faith of a Muslim who transgressed and converted to another religion, and the command not to marry unbeliever men was to protect her soul from hell, not to make her pine away over a lost love or whatever. Her parents did the right thing, but it’s important to study the Word so that you will know the why behind what you instruct your kids.

Gary wrote: “Is it forbidden by God for a Muslim to receive Ash Wednesday ashes on their forehead?”

Considering the whole point of the Lent ritual is the ultimate recognition of the belief in the crucifixion of the Christ Jesus—which God definitively says did NOT happen in the Qur’an—it is clear that a Muslim engaged in rituals designed to acknowledge the uniquely Christian belief would indeed be in the wrong.

Gary wrote: “My point was in reference to Mitchell's insinuation that I hold some sort of anti-Muslim bias, judging from my initial post.”

I know. I saw it.

Gary wrote: “PS. No offense meant by my assumption that you may have dated Muslim women.”

It was a reasonable assumption on your part considering you didn’t know that about me. Careful, or we might actually stumble into some kind of friendship.

Gary McCoy - Well admittedly I did allure her to the fire. More specifically, my barbecue veggie kabobs.

Gary McCoy - [ARTICLE] The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary's article wrote: "They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences."

The problem with Johnston's and Shafer's spin of the data is that the concept of 'race' was developed specifically for economic reasons. Black's were disenfranchised politically since as far back as Reconstruction so that whites would be able to maintain an economic class divide between the two groups. So when whites vote (or voter suppress) by their economic preferences, they are absolutely voting by their racial preferences as well simultaneously.

I also find it interesting that their book "The End of Southern Exceptionalism," far from proving that 'the southern strategy' wasn't real, merely says that the point of it involved more factors than race alone from the common wisdom. That makes the title of the article you posted quite misleading, which is why you were so eager to throw it down here as some kind of "Ah HA!" card. Try harder, Gary.

Gary McCoy - @M. Rasheed wrote: "Considering the whole point of the Lent ritual is the ultimate recognition of the belief in the crucifixion of the Christ Jesus—which God definitively says did NOT happen in the Qur’an..."

I'm glad you included the "in the Qur'an" part. Because in the book written about the Man who was crucified, God clearly says it DID happen, and that Man- God's own Son, rose from the dead. But I would understand why your book wouldn't mention that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, in the Qur'an, it's the One God Himself definitively stating that the final prophet-messenger of the Hebrew nation was not divine and was not crucified.

In the NT, whose narrative are we reading who made the claims of your unique doctrine? Was it "God the father" who confirms your 'divine sonship/crucifixion' belief or some random evangelical writer who stepped far beyond the bounds set by the scripture that lay before him and you lot decided to believe it?

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... Well, I guess that I choose to believe that the Bible (which doesn't even mention your namesake at all), is the inspired word of God - written by the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, just as you choose to believe that the Qur'an was written by the hand of God himself. Knowing His greatness, it must have been one honkin' quill pen He used.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: "(which doesn't even mention your namesake at all)"

The Christ said that he couldn't stay because it was the comforter coming after him that would finish the message for the people. Combined with God's prophecy from Deut. 18, the Christian was patiently waiting for the arrival of "that prophet" for centuries -- until they met the prophet of Islam and started having their epic debates with his followers. The mysteriously they changed their mind about how they interpreted Deut. 18 and what the Christ meant by "the comforter."

Gary wrote: "Knowing His greatness, it must have been one honkin' quill pen He used."

lol The usual process was for God to instruct the angel, then the angel to deliver the message to the human prophet, then the human prophet to preach the message to the people, and then for the people to use some form of archival tradition to carry the message. For example, the children of Israel carried it as an oral song for millennia until they finally wrote it down about half a century before the Christ showed up. The Arabs carried the message as both memorized verses they could recite on cue, as well as a written tradition. Some people opted not to archive the books of their prophets at all, and we only know about them from brief references mentioned in the scriptures we hold dear.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... Since you believe things regarding your holy book quite differently than I do regarding mine, it might be best to just respect each other's beliefs (much like my Muslim ex-girlfriend and I did with each other), and not do things like, take issue with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Muhammad Rasheed - I do respect your beliefs, Gary. You asked me a direct question regarding Ash Wednesday, and since the Qur'anic references l pulled from to answer happened to be the One God's message to the Christian about that subject, it was not my place to withhold the Truth when it was asked of me.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... I respect your religion as well. Even though what you think is the truth is, in fact incorrect, as my belief, begun over 2000 years ago with the resurrection of Christ himself, has shown.

Muhammad Rasheed - Islam's strength is that it holds the revealed message as spoken by Abraham's God as its scripture--the message from the Lord to humankind in God's 'Voice' as preached by the prophet.

There's very little in the bible that matches this, and most of your book is composed of after-the-fact evangelicals telling us what the prophets said and did as filtered through the long weight of cultural memory. Equivalent works within the body of Islamic literature are known as 'hadith' and are kept carefully separate from the revealed Word of God represented by the Qur'an.

This is the core reason behind why we believe in our books differently.

Gary McCoy - What you say about Islam is merely what you believe. You have no proof of any of it. Of course, that's what any faith is. A "belief". Now, many accounts in the Bible are backed through some historical records from the time. But really, what interest would it serve for a religion that began 600 years after the birth of Christ, and separates itself from Christianity, to say ANYTHING at all, that corroborates that on which its main competitor is founded? That's be like Vito's Pizza shop opening a few years after the already successful Sgt. Pepperoni's, and saying, "Hey, everyone-- start eating at OUR place instead! Even though Sgt. Pepperoni's has much better pie than we do!"

Think about it. It's marketing 101.

Muhammad Rasheed - Gary wrote: “Even though what you think is the truth is, in fact incorrect, as my belief, begun over 2000 years ago with the resurrection of Christ himself, has shown.”

Here you’re committing the logical fallacy known as “The Appeal to Antiquity,” in which you believe your [fill-in-the-blank] is correct just because it is older than whatever your opponent is arguing. FYI, logical fallacies are not how you gain points in an argument. An old untruth is still an untruth it turns out. What do you have that would be stronger than a two-thousand year old repetition of an untruth to back your claims? The One God of Abraham, within the final message of revealed scripture, point blank says that He saved the messenger from being crucified, and thus there was no resurrection event. Since we are both relying on the strength of insubstantial ‘faith’ over this matter, whose word are you believing in that trumps that of the Supreme Creator of reality Himself? Who specifically told you that Jesus had been crucified?

Gary wrote: “What you say about Islam is merely what you believe.”

Naturally there’s a big part of religious discussion that involves belief alone. I certainly have faith that the One God of Abraham whom I worship is exactly who He claims to be. I have faith that the message revealed to humankind is true, and that the prophet-messengers that received and preached it for their mission were truly anointed by the Lord thy God to do so. I have faith in the reality of the unseen spirit, and in the inevitability of the Day of Judgment.

Gary wrote: “You have no proof of any of it.”

But not every aspect of religion, particularly Abrahamic Religion, is confined to matters of faith alone. The history of sacred scriptural literature—the archival record of how humans have physically recorded the revealed message of God—is very much a part of the real world and can be tracked. Its data can be compiled, measured and analyzed, so that the big picture mosaic of the enduring scripture of the ages preached from Adam the patriarch to Muhammad the unlettered Arab prophet (May the Peace of the One God be upon them all!) can be studied by all those who believe and earnestly seek Truth. Such study also reveals a universal principle… that Truth stands out clear from error. So when the history of the message of the One God demonstrates an awe-inspiring consistency in which the One God has continuously demanded that His followers worship Him and Him alone, it stands out as odd indeed when all of a sudden a group of after-the-fact writer-evangelicals from two millennia ago make the claim that, oh, God actually wants you to worship one of the prophet-messengers from the line of Isaac as an equal aspect of the divine entity. God is not the author of confusion, and in fact, part of the beauty of the message is in its consistency throughout the ages. When the final message of the One God proclaims to be the uncompromising monotheism of Abraham the true in faith—who gave neither sons nor partners to the One God—the ring of a return to the consistent Truth was clear as a bell.

Far from only having “merely what I believe” in what I hold, I also have the record of scripture itself and the tools of logic & reason to use with my skills of scriptural analysis. These are not inconsiderable.

Gary wrote: “Think about it. It's marketing 101.”

The prophet-messengers didn’t compete against each other, since they all preached the same message and performed in the same job function: to instruct the people in scripture and wisdom. Often their job involved correcting the people after they had strayed for a generation or so. In this they would confirm and fulfill that which the people did that was right, and forbid them continue the error. Hence why there are many portions of the Qur'an in which the One God speaks directly to the Jews and the Christians.

Gary McCoy - @Muhammad... We're not getting any closer to a Kumbaya moment when you rant breathlessly to proselytize for your particular faith. As eloquent as you are. The bottom line is you have nothing of proof to substantiate what you say, and that includes your "tools of logic and reason". In fact, the latter are more of an admission on your part that it still comes down to what you simply believe. No proven facts at all.

And I never used the fact that Christianity is older than Islam as something to validate its truthfulness over your faith. It was merely said in the context of my explaining why your faith obviously would deny the fact of Jesus Christ's Resurrection.

You say, "whose word are you believing in that trumps that of the Supreme Creator of reality Himself? Who specifically told you that Jesus had been crucified?"

For just one answer:
Peter does something similar with Psalm 16:8 and the foretold resurrection of the Nazarene: Therefore, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne, he saw beforehand and spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in Ha'des nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses.
(Acts 2:30-32 NWT)


Now, who specifically told you that Muhammad was God's prophet, other than this angel that no one saw. Oh, but people wrote about it! I see, just as people wrote about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I guess I'll go on believing the Truth that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and you can keep on believing that God hired rent-an-angel to pen your holy book. But please stop wasting my time and yours with the folly of trying to convert me.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I wasn't proselytizing, I was just answering your questions and explaining the position my religion actually takes regarding certain statements I've made. I used the thread as a teaching moment, specifically since I thought your Ash Wednesday question was inherently fun as an opportunity to show off my comparative religion skill and worthy of addressing. Please understand that this wasn't intended as an attack against you and your faith; I was only explaining in more detail what the Qur'an's position is and how it regards the previous scripture in the series of the One God's revelation. I'm already familiar with the Christianity practitioner's "false prophet" talk regarding Islam's founder, so there's no new info for me there, especially since you've revealed you don't know enough about Islam overall to have a strong argument about it anyway.

Okay, so when I asked you who specifically told you that Jesus had been crucified, you quoted Acts 2, which was arguably written by "Luke." According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 7), Luke never included himself in the group that claimed to be eyewitnesses to the central Christian doctrinal event, (so he's writing from hearsay) versus the fact that God is the Ultimate Eye Witness in any and every event. You're putting the word of this figure against the Word of Abraham's God who revealed in the Qur'an that He did indeed aid the Christ when the latter called out for help against his enemies. Do you think it is reasonable that I accept the word of this "Luke" over that of the omniscient One God who created us all and will Judge us on the Last Day?

In answer to your own question, it is the One God of Abraham, Lord of all the worlds, who confirms again and again throughout His final revelation that Muhammad ibn Abdullah of Mecca was His prophet-messenger. God, of course, is the Source and the Ultimate Authority, so when comparing the strength of our two holy books within a matter of faith, I think we can both agree that an endorsement from God Himself trumps that of a "Luke." I make this point only as a philosophical argument and not as an attempt to convert you, so you may relax.


See Also:  A Religious Discussion - Atheist & Muslim

No comments:

Post a Comment