Evidence for God from Science

by RickD » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:58 pm

Neo wrote:
How credible do you find an ex-christian's views on Christianity?

What's an ex-Christian? For that matter, I'd like to know what makes someone a Christian in your mind Neo.

A Christian: one who trusts Christ for salvation.
So, without getting into the whole assurance issue again, there's no such thing as an ex-Christian, so your question is irrelevant.

I have never met an ex-christian who didn't have something wrong with his understanding of the scriptures. I am not saying that an ex-muslim can't teach islam. He can, only saying, its HIGHLY IMPROBABLE you find someone with unbiased views.

I disagree. An ex-Muslim who trusts Christ for salvation, probably did his homework. He knows about Islam. He lived it before trusting Christ

These are all self congratulatory opinions, every group of believers have this kind of "specialty" attributed to them by themselves. Muslims say the same things too. I know plenty of guys who says there are no such things as ex-muslims. So this aint gonna cut it...it is meaningless in the argument. Whether you personally think that a ex-christian exists or not is irrelevant, people have left the christian faith and in the world they are called apostates, some turned muslim and wrote books too. If I happened to be a non-christian, would your answer satify me? Never. It is a biased opinion and I can easily say that you will ofcourse say so...so what?

If I'm going to learn about Islam, I would use every means I can. Including ex-Muslims. Of course I would also go to the source. But that's not what we're arguing here. Nobody is saying we should only go to ex-Muslims, and avoid the Koran and Muslims. But you said not to go to those who converted.

Again, if I want to know about Islam, including ex-Muslims in my study just means I'm trying to cover all my bases.

The problem is I only know a handful of people who actually read the source, their best sources are these books, period. I am only advocating against this practice. You can read many books on Islam but that does not mean you are proper familiar with it. The same way you can read many books about Christianity too without ever experiencing it, and pray tell me do you think you would know much of it in reality?

Nobody is saying we should only go to ex-Muslims, and avoid the Koran and Muslims. But you said not to go to those who converted.

I never said so nor I meant it even if you have misread me, I said, go, listen but don't let it be your primary source for LEARNING a religion. Once you read the source these other sources become trivial, only useful occasionally.

Again, if I want to know about Islam, including ex-Muslims in my study just means I'm trying to cover all my bases.

You are covering your bases with a biased view. Its not your view.

And again how many Christians comparatively, you know who have actually read the koran and the hadith? There are not many...simply because most people just don't care about authentic source reading and research, it takes time and its toll.

My only issue with all of this is in the OP :

If you don't know much about Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, these books are a good place to start learning.

These books are a good place to start learning about how a christian and an ex-muslim, sees islam. You will learn only this here.

You wanna learn Islam? get yourself a copy of koran, get a couple of respected commentaries, get the hadith...and study.

Neo wrote:
I never said so nor I meant it even if you have misread me, I said, go, listen but don't let it be your primary source for LEARNING a religion. Once you read the source these other sources become trivial, only useful occasionally.

No Neo, I didn't misread you you very clearly wrote:

If you really want to understand and learn about islam, then read it at their source, not from someone who converted.

Now that you've clarified what you wrote, I have no issue with what you meant to say.

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I never said so nor I meant it even if you have misread me, I said, go, listen but don't let it be your primary source for LEARNING a religion. Once you read the source these other sources become trivial, only useful occasionally.

No Neo, I didn't misread you you very clearly wrote:

If you really want to understand and learn about islam, then read it at their source, not from someone who converted.

Now that you've clarified what you wrote, I have no issue with what you meant to say.

Thank you too.

Nabeel Qureshi is an Ahmadi Muslim. I didn't know anything about them until I and other Christians debated two of them on another site. The debate lasted about two years. Mainstream Islam considers them heretics because their founder claimed he was a prophet -- there was to be no prophet after Muhammad. Unlike mainstream Muslims, they believe Jesus was crucified, but only "swooned" on the cross, leaving people to believe He died, but He was later revived in the tomb; then He travelled to India where He lived to be about 120 years old and died in Kashmir where he was buried.

The founder of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam is Mirza Ahmad. This is what I discovered when researching Mirza:

"Mirza Ahmad used to say that if Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is dead, Christ must also be dead. In one of his books Invitation to Ahmadiyyat, Mirzas son, Bashir-ud-din, wrote:

"It is impossible for us to think that Jesus the Messiah, is alive in Heaven while Muhammad, our Holy Prophet, lies buried in the earth. We cannot think so. ... If it is true that Jesus is alive in Heaven, we cannot feel more dead. We cannot tolerate the thought that our Master is dead and buried, while Jesus is alive and in Heaven. We feel humiliated before Christians."

Mirza Ahmad saw Christianity as a threat to Islam. His instruction to his followers was:

"Prove to Christians that Christ in reality is forever dead. Through the victory to be gained by this argument you will be able to wipe the Christian religion off the face of the earth ... Do not entangle with other ideas to talk about with Christians. Just concentrate upon the arguments regarding the death of Jesus Christ, and by the use of powerful arguments put the Christians to silence. The day you will imprint this fact on the minds of Christians, you will know that the Christian religion has made its exit from the world."

The Ahmadis claim to be peaceful Muslims. In fact, they are persecuted and killed by Sunnis, especially in Pakistan.

It is very hard to call Ahmedi's muslims...because Islam preached, infact muhammad preached that a muslim is one who:

"Believes that there is only one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his last prophet."

This is what makes a Muslim by proper definition, not alone that Muhammad is the prophet but especially that he is the last prophet, and the Ahmedi's are thus not Muslims as Islam preached. They came very late...in some respect they are to Muslims as J.W's are to Christians.

I do agree that they are peaceful group and are persecuted most often. If my memory serves me correct they also deny the virgin birth of christ, which ironically the muslims don't.

neo-x wrote:It is very hard to call Ahmedi's muslims...because Islam preached, infact muhammad preached that a muslim is one who:

"Believes that there is only one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his last prophet."

A person becomes a Muslim when they recite the shahada, which is: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the prophet of God."

neo-x wrote:
This is what makes a Muslim by proper definition, not alone that Muhammad is the prophet but especially that he is the last prophet, and the Ahmedi's are thus not Muslims as Islam preached. They came very late...in some respect they are to Muslims as J.W's are to Christians.

I do agree that they are peaceful group and are persecuted most often. If my memory serves me correct they also deny the virgin birth of christ, which ironically the muslims don't.

The Ahmadis recite the shahada. They also do the five pillars of the Muslim faith. They believe in the six articles of faith.

I have never heard that the Ahmadis deny the virgin birth of Jesus.

If you dig down just a little you will find that Muhammad being the last prophet is a must belief for Muslims. There's no way around it. That is why Ahmedis are not considered Muslims.

neo-x wrote:If you dig down just a little you will find that Muhammad being the last prophet is a must belief for Muslims. There's no way around it. That is why Ahmedis are not considered Muslims.

On the discussion board I mentioned that I had a conversation with two Ahmadis, a Sunni Muslim listened and asked questions of the Ahmadis and came to the conclusion that Ahmadis are Muslims and he vowed not to call an Ahmadi a non-Muslim ever again.

We Christians are in the same boat. What right do we have to say who is a Christian who is not?

Christian2 wrote:

neo-x wrote:If you dig down just a little you will find that Muhammad being the last prophet is a must belief for Muslims. There's no way around it. That is why Ahmedis are not considered Muslims.

On the discussion board I mentioned that I had a conversation with two Ahmadis, a Sunni Muslim listened and asked questions of the Ahmadis and came to the conclusion that Ahmadis are Muslims and he vowed not to call an Ahmadi a non-Muslim ever again.

We Christians are in the same boat. What right do we have to say who is a Christian who is not?

I believe we have no right as we don't know a persons heart like God does, we are not called to judge, we are called to love through action.

Christian2 wrote:

neo-x wrote:If you dig down just a little you will find that Muhammad being the last prophet is a must belief for Muslims. There's no way around it. That is why Ahmedis are not considered Muslims.

On the discussion board I mentioned that I had a conversation with two Ahmadis, a Sunni Muslim listened and asked questions of the Ahmadis and came to the conclusion that Ahmadis are Muslims and he vowed not to call an Ahmadi a non-Muslim ever again.

We Christians are in the same boat. What right do we have to say who is a Christian who is not?

Chesterton put it best "Standing in the church doesn't make you a christian, anymore than standing in your garage makes you car."

I think there are two subtle distinctions here which are being glossed over and are serious mistakes.

1. We can absolutely tell whether someone is a christian or not. We are given instructions after instruction in the N.T to know between believer and non-believer. The epistles are filled with this, John's epistles clearly talk about the world and church being two different entities. Because there is a difference, we are of God, the world is not and is in darkness. Therefore to those who believe in his son, then God gave them to the right to be called his children. I think this is plain and simple.

2. We can not absolutely tell whether someone is saved or not. That is something which is between God and man. And we should refrain from that.

3. If someone trusts Jesus Christ to be his Lord and savior, yes he is a christian. Now J.w's call themselves Christians, but they are not Christians by definition because they DO NOT ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST TO BE LORD.

We are told over and over in the scriptures, in the N.T that anyone who has faith in Christ is safe and is therefore a christian. We can therefore easily see that those who don't trust Christ as their lord and savior, are thus not Christians pro per.

In the same vein, a Muslim is a person who believes "Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his LAST prophet". That is the sole reason why Koran says that Muhammad was the FIRST Muslim, because he himself believed both these things. If prophecy didn't end with Muhammad then Islam as preached by Muhammad is wrong...Ahmedis are thus a cult, they differ with a fundamental of Islamic faith. In the same way those who deny the trinity are also cults, one cannot call them Christians.

You make an interesting distinction Neo and as usual you have me rethinking what I said previously. I never had a separation between being saved and being a Christian, I thought the two just went hand in hand. But I see what your saying, that we can see who is and isn't a follower of Christ but we cannot know the complex nature of salvation like God knows. So I guess we can judge without condemning.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:You make an interesting distinction Neo and as usual you have me rethinking what I said previously. I never had a separation between being saved and being a Christian, I thought the two just went hand in hand. But I see what your saying, that we can see who is and isn't a follower of Christ but we cannot know the complex nature of salvation like God knows. So I guess we can judge without condemning.

Daniel,

There is no distinction between being a believer/Christian, and being saved. It's pretty simple.

John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Rick, within the context of what we are talking about, my problem with OSAS, is that while I 90% agree with them...I really can't get my head across the idea that someone who doesn't want to be with God is then being subjected to heaven. But that is one definitive conclusion of OSAS to me. I think apostates exists, people who knew God and then turned away from him because they couldn't walk with him. If I turn away from faith right now, does that mean I never trusted Christ? No. I did, I just don't want to be with him anymore. Now whether I am saved or not, I am not a christian unless I accept Christ as lord and savior.

So guys salvation is not an issue here, the issue is what is a christian? My contention is that it is one who believes Christ is lord (within the trinity) and savior. It is not someone WHO ONCE BELIEVED CHRIST WAS LORD AND SAVIOUR. Now a person may trust christ and then turn away, if we go by the osas camp, he is saved, but that does not mean he is a christian if he de-converted.

I know muslims who believe in christ, perhaps not as lord but surely as savior and I can't call them christians.

In other words, I am not making a case of people losing salvation and that is a point which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I am saying I am not questioning anyone's salvation, let it be between God and man, if he ever believed in Christ, good for him, but even if that someone is still saved or not, unless he holds Christ in the present as his lord and savior he can't be called a christian.

Neo wrote:
Now whether I am saved or not, I am not a christian unless I accept Christ as lord and savior.

You really believe this Neo? One can be saved through trusting Christ, but not be a Christian?

You do realize the bible doesn't say one is saved "by accepting Christ as lord and savior" right?

And for that matter, where does the bible say one is a Christian if one " accepts Christ as lord and savior"?

Rick, are you saying, a christian is someone who can believe in Christ as man, but not God? If you reject Christ's divinity, you are not a christian.

Saving is not an issue here, if you have faith in christ, that he is the son of God, born of the holyspirit, sent by the father, crucified, burried, ressurected..that christ is God and he died for you, yes then one is christian. But if you reject the divinity of Christ then you are not a christian.

If you don't believe that a faith in christ requires a faith in his divinity, then the rest of the N.T is simply a joke rick.