F_H: You are either totally ignorant, a fool, or you are practicing the deceitful moslem taqiyya which is called what it is in Christianity - lying. You/moslems may believe that Jesus is the son of Mary but do you see him as a descendant of King David of Israel? do you see Him as the very Son of God?
Heh! I agree with you that the trinity is false.
Older versions of the Bible? - a nonsensical term as there is only one version of the Christian Bible and the book of Barnabas is not included.
islamic pagan theology has NEVER been, NEVER will be nor can it be identical with pre-trinity or post trinity or no trinity Christianity. As well you do not believe nor worship who I termed 'The Father' you worship allah or hudna the moon god of mecca (err have a look at the islamic flag and what do you see - that's right a crescent moon - well done lad!)This hudna was/is the pagan or false god of a once obscure arabian tribe.
To finish pagan islam has nothing at all in common with Christianity although you moslems in your craving for acceptance will continue to believe the lie that it has- you are so insecure. regards, numbat

Goodthief,

You asked:
“You're not seriously trying to say that a belief in the divinity of Jesus is NOT at the core of Xianity”

What I am saying is that Jesus (pbuh) spiritual teachings is the core of Christianity not who he is. The character and divinity of Jesus has always been a debatable topic among Christians.
tacter the divinity of Jesus has always been a debatable philosophy among different sects of Christianity. What units all Christians is Jesus (pbuh) loving, tolerant and human teachings not what Jesus is.

Numbat,

“Jesus son of Mary but do you see him as a descendant of King David of Israel? do you see Him as the very Son of God?”
The position above is a conflict between the definition of the saviour in the OT and the NT and got nothing to with Islam. There is no place is Islamic theology for the concept of a saviour (neither the human prophet king as the OT, nor the spiritual Son of God as per the NT).

Btw, the point you raised is interesting because the OT describes the saviour as a desendant of King David and a human prophet king. For Jesus to match these descriptions you have to give up the virgin birth (since Mary was an Imron and not a descendant of King David). So do you see Jesus as per the NT or the OT?
PS: Allah is the name of God in the Arabic bible as well. Ask the disgruntled Arab Christian on this forum: coachy boy.

Coach,

I was wondering what is Coach reading that approves fornication, drunkenness, paedophilia, incest, etc..and it just dawned on me: the story of Lot in the bible.
PS: why is there 50,000 polygamy cases in one state alone in the US (South Dakota) where your christian brothers claim they can marry up to 12 women? Isn't it one bible as Numbat claims?

Salam/ Peace,

“Hilali should have been dismissed from his position a long time ago…” is a decision solely for the faithfuls of Islam to make.

The truth is that Halili is expounding the Islamic scriptures in everyday language. Halili has been true to the words of his prophet and the Imans that make up the council know that. So if the decision were made that Halili has to go (and go now), it implies that the Imans are admitting that Islam and secular democracy are mutually exclusive.

Further, it begs the question, “Can Muslims ever live in a secular democratic society where one has the right to choose one’s religion?” The answer is an emphatic NO, because Muslims are obligated to put to death anyone who leaves Islam. Therefore, it means that if Halili is not suitable for secular Australia, so are faithful Muslims not suitable. If Halili has to go, so must they.

Unless the Australian Muslims appoint Ibn Warraq as the chief mufti of Australia, it is difficult to see how Muslims are ever going to integrate into a modern, secular and democratic Australia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXGz7QVq4sA
http://www.secularislam.org/blog/SI_Blog.php

Fellow Human, There are many people in the West who are the kind of Xian you mean: they admire Jesus very much, the way he lived, and what he said - esp the Sermon on the Mount (esp the Beatitudes - "Blessed are the peacemakers etc"). But, they don't believe Jesus is divine, and many of them don't believe in God at all. And not many of them go to church. Yet, they call themselves Xians. These are not who I mean by "Xians".

Generally speaking, people who attend a Xian church (who do it from choice, I mean) believe in the divinity of Jesus, and believe that this fact is critical. If we didn't believe it, we would be a sect of Judaism. We believe Jesus claimed to be divine, that he demonstrated miraculous power, was resurrected etc. Our belief is reinforced by our ongoing personal experience of Jesus. I'm not asking you to accept that we're right - ie that Jesus is the Son of God - but just accept that this is, generally speaking, what we believe.

At 9.47 last night, you mentioned that Muslims must repent and clear the debt of sin before being admitted to heaven. Xians typically believe that we individuals are not competent to clear this debt: it is just too great. So, the pound of flesh is taken from Jesus who stands in our place at the moment of judgement. He can take it, we say, because he is the Son of God (and, of course, because he is ludicrously loving).

This leads me to a question: how to you, as a Muslim, clear the debt? I ask because I don't know.

Someone has to ask, goodthief, so it might as well be me.

What's with this "Xian" stuff?

I assume it has the same connotation as Xmas has to Christmas, but surely that makes it slightly off-colour? I thought at first it was your version of Kieran's "teddy", but it seems that it is just a verbal tic.

Just thought I'd let you know that I find it just a little too twee.

Philip Tang asks:

>>Further, it begs the question, “Can Muslims ever live in a secular democratic society where one has the right to choose one’s religion?”<<

A: Turkey

And as for you, coach, I notice that you have studiously ignored my previous post, where I pointed out to you that "truth" in the context of religion is a choice, not an absolute.

Of course, it is entirely up to you whether you choose to respond or pretend that you are deaf.

But it has to undermine your own position, if you respond only to the straw men of your own manufacture, and avoid taking on a straightforward challenge to your claim that there can be only one "true religion".

I notice also, coach, that you make a big issue over the existence, constitution and rules of engagement of hell/heaven/paradise/purgatory.

Tell us please, what are these? Do they exist, in the sense that we exist? Or are they perhaps metaphysical constructs, that we can imagine and change at will? Or perhaps they are simply metaphors, illustrating the benefits of a good life and the pitfalls of a bad one?

Answers on a postcard please.

Or feel free to ignore this also, if it disturbs you.

Part 2
Basically, I had the real experiences and didn’t like the darkness, not even any hell fire to light up the place, and so it was not attractive enough to me and I for one cannot make out how on earth anyone could have a life after death in such darkness, unless they happen to have a power strike or so on that it was so dark. Then again, perhaps they had a blackout deliberately to make it unattractive for me to stay over that side and so convinced me to better stay on the brighter side of life. So whatever any religion portrays in the after life, was all black to me and if the afterlife in continuation of my normal life then I better make now the best of it while I can.
How on earth “Jesus proves it”, when you can only imagine him, is also beyond me.

QUOTE
Mr Gerrit,

Resuscitation by medical interventions is not “resurrection” – a re-constitution of the dead with a new eternal physical body.
END QUOTE
Posted by coach, Saturday, 28 April 2007 11:13:52 AM

Well that would be true about resusitation if it wasn't for that I was told (afterwards) that I was lying there as a corps, no medical aid was provided as it was held I was dead, albeit an ambulance was called, but then before it (finally) arrived they discovered I had suddenly stood up got a taxi and went to a doctor, as such I was gone.
As such no medical intervention occurred! It certainly wasn’t a medical intervention but more that I, so to say, must have tossed a coin and got the living part on it. the workers since then used to joke that I had arisen from the dead.
I was happy enough to stick to the body I had been using for so long!

Pericles,
my wife and I have precisely the same understanding about religion and restaurants.
A trade off, she takes me to exclusive restaurants and I take her to McDonalds. And Churches versus walking along the creek!