Board Thread:Board Room/@comment-6191837-20130227200639/@comment-6209322-20130312193219

@Fan - 1.) As I said, in your original post, you made an assertion, stating it as a "fact", without offering anything other than said assertion.  As I disagree with the statement that Muslims worship the same God as Christians, and as I have presented evidence to that effect (which you addressed, and I will respond to them shortly), we clearly disagree on something, so dismissing my side of as "unknowledgable" without explaination or at least an article explaining why I was not right was not good form.  If you disagreed with what I said, even if it is an "indisputable fact", you should have offered more than a one worded assertion coupled to a hint that as you thought I didn't know what I was talking about.  While it is quite possible I was just talking to talk (though actually, I have had this discussion before, so I have put some thought into this), the burden was on you to better show my why you thought I was totally wrong

2.)Who am I to judge... what?  I am a human being, instilled with reason and the ability to think critically.  I have the cabability to sift through facts and ideas and weigh them against others, to come to a rational conclusion about any issue I have taken the time to analyize.  I am a human being, and I have a right to judge what I please (well, as long as one is using "judge" to mean "to weigh things and come to one's own conclusion about them" and not in the sense of "passing binding legal judgement upon another entity or entities"... actually, judge is a poor word to use here, perhaps "discern" or "judge-between" would be better).

3.)I know Yahoo is not considered "reliable", but I had hoped (haha, that's not going to happen now) to avoid writing out too much... and honestly, even wiki is not too accurate either, because it can be edited at any time of any background for any purpose... My plan was to,  If needed, go about procuring more reliable sources for each item on that list, but my intent at the time of using the Yahoo Answer was to show a series of contentions that, in fact, demonstrated that there was some disagreement about the nature of Allah being the same as God, therefore one could not simply assert that "God is the same as Allah" without recognizing that it is not an indistputable point when entering this debate... otherwise, this would not be a debate, for that is the very crux of contention. It was only meant to be used as an indication that, should you wish to contine conversing on this subject, you would needed to prove more convincingly your position, not being able to rely simply on an appeal to majority thinking or to the undisputed factuality of your stance.

a.)I do not see exactly what you are trying to say here... While I personally do not believe that Baptism is requiered for salvation, and that those who say it is add unnecessary works to the salvation process, the point still stands that at some point, all Christians rely, to some extent, on the removal of their sins by their faith in the sacrificial death of the God-Man Jesus Christ on the cross.  Here is the wiki on Jesus in Islam, seeing as how that has been aproved for citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam#Theology In it, and I quote: "Islam regards all prophets, including Jesus, to be mortal and without any share in divinity."

If Jesus is not divine, then He cannot lead a sinless life. If He cannot lead a perfect life, then He cannot be the perfect sacrifice in our stead that pays for our sins. If He cannot pay for our sins, then something or someone else must. Christians believe that Jesus is Divine, whereas Muslims regard Him at the same level as other prophtets. The Redemption System in Islam, involves a weighing of your sins; as long as the good outweighs the bad, you get into Heaven.

This means that a Muslim cannot trust in Jesus to save him, and is thus left to his own devices to try and do more good than bad. A Christian, however, must trust in Christ to pay for their sins, else they are not going to heavan.

b.) The Jews do believe in a divine Messiah, though.  And they go accept the existance of the Holy Spirit (first mentioned in Genesis as "hovering over the face of the waters.")... Thus they allow for at least a Biune God, and many allow for and expect a Triune one.  The Muslims do not... in fact, the Quaran states that "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet."

Actually, the difference between Judism and Christian is that Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet, while Christians believe he has come, and will come again... but both allow for a God in multiple parts.

c.) So, you admit the Muslims do not allow for the Trinity?  While it is correct that Jews believe Christ was Blasphemy, they are not against the concept of a Divine Messiah... in fact, it is a core tenent of their belief.  So I subbmit that there is a difference between Islam saying that God is not Triune and Judism saying that Jesus was not the Messiah because the Messiah has not come yet.

d.) "But God demonstrates His love towards us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8

God loves sinners, and that's why He sent Christ (and why Christ, who is God, was willing to go). Even if Christians believe God is always angry, the Bible states otherwise. Here's another (since scripture always confirms scripture)... John 3:16 "For God so loved the World that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

And I recognize that "Allah" translates to "God" in Arabic, so we need to be careful that equivocation of terms does not become a problem... After all, "God" is a generic term in English too...


 * Hades, God of the Underworld and Zeus, God of Lightning


 * The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the God he serves


 * Michael Jordan is a Basketball God and Legend


 * Lucifer is considered God by Satanists


 * Google is the God of Search Engines

and so on...

In fact, many Christians and Jews prefer to use "Jehovah" to distingush between the vague term "God" and the specific One they serve. Others use "G-D" for the same purpose (and also as a form of reverance for His Name). Just because "Allah" translates to "God", it does not follow that they are interchangeable; It is possible that they are so, but it does not follow logically. The translation of one two the other, in other words, is not causational to their being the same entity.

In fact, that is the whole contention... so, since we disagree on whether "Allah" and "Jehovah" are actually interchangeable or not, please know, for the purpose of this discussion, that when I write "Allah", I mean "The God I think the Muslims Worship", and when I say "God", I mean "Jehovah, the God that I think the Christians and Jews Worship."

Also, please don't try and tack on the reputation of Fox News and the "Big Bad Media" to my arguments... because that seems like an underhanded attempt to discredit my opinion by saying that "Because Fox News and Mainstream Media reports and proports it, it must be false." While I hate to say it, that approach is an ad hominim, in that you try to connect me someone or something that you feel is easy to discredit or has been discredited, thus I am discredited. You are not actually rebuttling what I've said, you are not actually making a point of your own, you are just saying "Fox News says that too... and they do bad things." This is almost like the reductio hitlerium and the reductio nazium. Anticdotally, I hereby dub this falacy " reductio ad foxium."

In actuallity, I agree that many of the things the Media does are wrong and unethical... but even if I thought they were the greatest things since sliced bread, bringing them up is irrelevant because my argument does not stand or fall on them. You can discredit them completely and the words and ideas I have shared on the issue will be no less of an argument.

As far as the "Othering Tactic", I am unfamiliar... but from the looks of the link you posted, it seems to be a form of a lie that pits "us agaisnt them"... similar to the Indians in Colonial and Early America, the other Natives in Colonial Brittan, the Jews in Nazi German, the Blacks during Slavery and the Civil Rights movement, and now (presumably) the Arabs after the 9/11 Attacks. Basically, I understand it to be a tactic that needlessly divides us and senselessly pits "us" against "them" by debasing the humanity and worth of the "other" in question. Going under this assumed understanding of the "Othering Tactic", I say:

I find this act abominable, evil, counter-productive, and sinister. It has been used to terrific (in the sense of "terrifying") effect in weakening a society before a devestating societal shift (i.e. Nazi take-over in Germany). I agree whole-heartedly that trying to debase another individual's or group's humanity is wrong on so many levels (and that's why I oppose abortion, AND it's legalization... but that's a WHOLE different subject). I also agree that this tactic, this polarization and demonization, is being used heavily by many aspects of our society... Republican/Democrat, Black/White, Christian/Aethies, Christian/Muslim, County/Urban, Nationalistic/Global, Enployer/Labor, Rich/Poor, and so on and so on and so on. We all fit into these little factions that are diametrically opposed to other, opposite factions. Peopel would have us believe there is no middle ground on issues, and that the other side is totally wrong and evil. Troublingly, this trend was also very present just before the U.S. Civil War... Northerners saw the People of the South as Backwards, Brutal Country Hicks who wanted to extend Slavery... Southerners viewed the Notherners as Heartless Merchants, Pastey Mechanics, and Rich Business Fat-Cats, whose minds full of Wheels and Machines and making money - and of violating state's rights by forcing their ideas of "progress" on the South.

Now, there was an element of truth in each side's view, but there was no Civil War before then because both sides were willing to talk, to learn about eachother, to believe the best in eachother. But as the scuffles over the years piled up, the divisions were enphasized and strengthened. Both sides began to suspect a the other of orchestrating a secret plot to destroy them, of being plain evil instead of misunderstood. I fear this trend is repeating itself in American History...

But all of that said (that long, long rabbit trail), I contend that I am not using the "Othering tactic" at all. I am not trying to dehumanize Muslims, nor do I view them as "the enemy". In fact, I go over to my Lebanese, Muslim friend's house all the time to play CoD MW3, and we aren't at eachother's throats (except when I knife him... he doesn't like that :p). My point is, I am trying to clarify a point of religion, one that has significant consequenses, not attack Muslims and dehumanize them or in any way make them the "bad guys". I guess my point is that there can be differences without major mortal conflict and hatred. I am not spouting hatred, and I am not looking for an excuse to hate Muslims or treat them any differently... What I am looking to do is explain a point of religion that I believe is very important.

e.) Like I said, I copy/pasted an editorial from an admittedly sup-par source... I did not edit it or in any way change it (except for, I think, one place where I clearly marked "MY EDIT*_______*." The purpose of using the text was to show that there was room for debate and to justify that there were reasons that backed up the concept. Point "e" is silly, because it attacks Muhammad not Allah, and so I drop it whole heartedly and apologize for the original authors' carelessness. God and Allah are both proported to be capable of Miracles, so this is not really a difference between them... that said, I do have a problem with people thinking the Bible is just a story book, not literal history... because that undermines the authority of the Bible... but again, this is off the subject, so I refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org if you're interested in additional information on that subject.

f.) Ah, the old "If God is love, then why do bad things happen?  Why does He let people go to Hell?"...and the answer, at least academically, is that the God of Love is also a God of Justice.  God cast Lucifer and 1/3 of the Angels from Heaven because of their rebellion.  They are destined for Hellfires because they tried to be like God.  Well, was not one of the temptations of the Serpant in the Garden of Eden that the Fruit "Would make one wise...so that you will be like God."?  Eve was tempted to think that God was holding out on her, and that she could and should become God herself.  Thus, Humanity (for Adam ate also) and The Fallen Angels were guilty of the same crime... rebellion against God and attempting to userp His place.

In fact, I think that Satan's plan all along was to trap God between His Merciful Love and His Perfect Justice... God could not place punish the Angels and waive punishment for the Humans, for that would be unjust. Yet to destroy Humanity would be unloving. Perhaps Satan thought that he could force God to go against His Nature one way or the other, thus forcing God to be untrue to Himself, thus removing God's Right to Be God. But God, being God, knew a way out (and many argue had known it from the Beginning, for God knows the End from the Beginning). God established that the seed of the serpant would bruise the heel of the seed of the Woman, but that the seed of the Woman would bruise the head of the Serpant. This is considered by Christians to be a prophecy about the Messiah Jesus (and even some Jews accept this as applying to the Messiah to come, though not all do).

God set up a redemption plan where His Son would descend, live perfectly sinless yet human life, and die as a perfect sacrifice to atone for all sins. But if God left it there, then it still wouldn't be just because people who continued willingly rebelling would be treated the same as those who repented... there would still be the issue of letting Humanity go scott-free all-together and the Fallen Angels being doomed... so God made is a personal choice. All sins were paid for if you accepted the gift, but if you rejected it, you would be forced to bear them yourself. That is why people go to hell... because they reject the gift of forgiveness and are thus left with the burden of paying for their sins... and Romans says that "The Wages of Sin are Death, but the Gift of God is Eternal Life." God does not send anyone to hell - we send ourselves there when we reject Him and the gift of forgiveness He extends. It isn't hard to accept Jesus' sacrifice as replacement to our sins in the sense that yoiu have to complete some great task: it is a gift, freely given. What can be challenging is getting the pride out of the way to accept it.

You state in your rebuttle that the Jews do not accept Hell as a reality... I disagree with that contention. http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm There are many views on the after life, ONE being the possibility that all are accepted into heaven. But the OLD TESTAMENT is full of passages where the wicked are destroyed, and that tends to indicate that they are punished severely.

Now, the obvious question/objection (at least in my mind) is: "What about the Demons? They are still treated differently because they don't get a forgiveness plan...right?"

Well, I think they might have been, but because of their pride they can never, ever accept it... Now, I realize that this is not necessarily "traditional orthodox dogma", and there are pleanty of Christians who think differently... but personally it believe that it makes too much sense not ot have happened and that it's not happening creates too many difficult question and issues.

g.) Well again, this was an article snatched from the Internet, and is not my own work; I can probably find some additional, less mainstream and well known differences, but I am starting to get a typer's cramp in my hands, and I imagine that what I have already written will be more than enough to talk about... but if you really want, I'll try to find something.

And again, please do not try to pin other's reputations on me in order to discredit what I say or think... these are my words, not the words of Bill O'Riley or Pat Robinson; my thoughts, not theirs... and even if my writing was cut and copy from their websites and speeches, it still wouldn't be right to dismiss them because of the source, because, as the saying goes; "even a broken clock is right twice a day." Just saying the clock is broken doesn't prove that it is wrong... you still have to address the points brought up.

(*breath*) Whew, that was alot of typing... I really haven't done anything like this in a long, long time...