Just because he doesn't talk much about hell doesn't mean he also doesn't talk much about who he believed he was. He is crystal clear, particularly when looking at historical context, as to who he believed he was. The Bible isn't one book with one author. It's a collection of letters, poetry, prophecy, accounts by many different authors. You can't read Psalms the same way you read the Gospels with any intellectual honesty, because they're written with entirely different purposes in entirely different styles. The first chapters of Genesis are poetry...the book of Luke is written by one claiming to be a historian sharing facts. That's like reading Shakespeare and a history text with the same approach. To do that is to miss what you're reading.
I'm not Christian. There are a lot of flaws in stereotypical American Christianity. But Max seems like a guy who gets it...the nature of faith, our relation with world, and other aspects that aren't imo religion specific. I'm not saying his way is the right or only way, but it encompasses a level of thought not normally discussed or appreciated. It seizes a spirit that I think all people wonder given the time to think on their own. In short, I wish that brand of Christianity is seen on TV, but it's essence isn't the likely type that seeks that kind of power or notoriety... The paradox in religion is that you'll "find yourself" and your place in the world if you connect with others beyond just an encounter of strangers. For all the talk of independent non-denominationals finding their own God or being spiritual without religion, I think sequestering yourself in self meditation and discovery is like diving into a bottomless ocean with self awareness right on your fingertips. The challenge is to cherish rituals and the community without being collectivist or becoming dogmatic....To recognize that you're a part of something greater (even greater than the church or organization responsible) without throwing away the greatest gift in your possession. It takes a lot of faith to open yourself up to that much vulnerability. I have nothing but deep admiration for those who can take that plunge.
In the case of the Qura'an, there was no translation and to this day, a translation is not considered Qura'an. Qura'an has to be in Arabic, and in the Arabic that was prevalent at the time. No one could tamper because the Qura'an was not written by one person. It was written by a bunch of people, all of whom were disowned, all of whom had to suffer. They had to check their writings against each other. Their names and families, to this day, are known. The number is known. THe corrections are known. Everything is known. Point being, I said almost 100%. I know for a fact that once the Prophet recited the end of the Qura'an, it was finalized immediately and one of the copies is available today. There were no Muslim people to verify its authenticity, so non-Muslims verified it as a book that dated to that time. No leader after that was able to change the Qura'an ever. EVER. You will find ZERO differences in any Qura'an on the planet today. You can tell me that the 12 people who wrote as the Prophet dictated made a mistake, but the Prophet learned how to read and confirmed its accuracy afterwards. So now it becomes that the Prophet may have changed it. In which case, how could he come up with such a text if he couldn't write and was the opposite of eloquent. Off the top of his head? I don't think so. The Bible and the Qura'an are different in this sense. Translations, alterations, and the time between when the words were spoken and actions were carried out, to me, make a difference. As a very simplistic example, imagine you go to court with minutes of a meeting as a piece of evidence. If it was writing during the meeting, it is considered more accurate than if it was written weeks later. It's a larger leap of faith for the Bible IMO. For me, I am completely satisfied that the Prophet (PBUH) was incapable of coming up with this text, and I'm satisfied that it is accurate as it has been verified and re-verified.
DaDa, I ask that you either show proof of this or admit that this is your speculative opinion. The Prophet did NOTHING notable pre-Islam. So please show me why you think he had warlord tendencies.
If you read my posts my argument is that all religion is political. I quoted the Nicene council as a point in history where the Bible was consolidated and edited, as there were several sectors of Christianity floating around at that time. Many books were edited out because they didn't completely agree with the now cannonized text. Women's roles were lessoned in the church, and the gnostic texts for the most part removed. All because of POLITICS.... Someone said it earlier...the very fact that it is called Christianity or Islam, or Hindu, or anything is political. Religion is Politics..... Ehsan, You really don't want me to tell you what I think about the Islamic faith, or any faith for that matter, it gets me in trouble. Suffice it to say that I think believing in Mohammed as anything more than a man is the same as believing in Aliens at area 51, or Tom Cruise and scientology. I find any and all religion and faiths to be mythological, and just an extension of earlier Bablyonian, Summarian etc...etc..etc... faiths. I believe in God, just not the messed up mumbo jumbo that man has created (and called religion) to try to explain the unexplainable. Religion is simply about politics and power, and the honest reality is that all this killing, chest pounding, money raising, and screaming "I am more right than you" for the last umpteen centuries to me is silly. DD
And Christians treat the Bible very differently than Muslims treat the Koran. I told a Muslim friend that I would stomp on my copy of my translation of the Bible. I would jump up and down on it. Because it's not the book that's important to me. He was appalled. It's a difference in value. The Church existed for 300 years before the Council at Nicea met to pull together a few books and letters circulated into one larger book. Jesus himself never read any of Paul's letters. Having said that...and I don't want to start a holy war here...but Islam presumes one revelation to one man from God while alone. The Gospels are a collection of accounts all with varying eyewitness testimony, just as eyewitness testimony varies on every account through the lens of each viewers. Luke writes as one compiling what has been told him. I have to tell you I find that rawness to be compelling. If you're editing the Gospels in the 3rd Century, the first thing you do is remove the fact that the first eyewitnesses were women...particularly from the Jewish tradition where women weren't allowed to be witnesses for anything. And yet...there it is.
The two sides of Muhammed A very informative link......about the history of the man who started Islam. DD
Your sources are funny. In one post you cite from one with a spinning skull talking about the farce of Christianity...in the next you cite from Renew America's site?? That's awesome!
I just think it's ironic, Da Da that the article you quoted ends like this: "We are fighting for the survival of civilization, Christianity, and democracy. As Christian armies stopped the jihadist hoards at Tours and Vienna, and saved Christian Europe from extinction, this is America's fight to preserve Christian civilization and democracy in this world. It is also a fight to save the whole world from bitter bondage to cruel Muslim dictators and terrorists. Victory is well within our power, but our patience will be sorely tested. God grant us the courage and patience to steadfastly bear the burden that providence has placed upon us."
Yeah, but that was not the point that I was making it was the plurality of Muhammed. No such thing as UN - warranted....all V-Span love is warrented. DD
The article is relevant in it's truth about the man Muhammed, I can not support what conclusions they reach because of the truths in the article. DD
All articles are biased to someone, that doesn't mean there is not truth in them. People just choose to ignore the views of their opponents and that is how misunderstandings happen, an event can look completely different to two people on different sides of an argument. DD
