Deism

[Logicman]

Nobody on this forum talks about gay sex more than Logicman. He tries to cover it up with religious zealotry but he always comes back to it like a magnet.

Flush.

 

[RAMOSS]

I reserve that morass of iniquity for its supporters, such as yourself. And it's a great illustration I made in Post 296 that shows your double standard on the interpretation of scripture.

That is a claim you are failing to support. There is a difference between making a claim, and supporting a claim. You aren't even correctly identifying what my position and claims are, much less countering them.

 

[SheWolf]

The Jizya is a tax mandated by the Quran for non-Muslims. It disappeared in the 20th century due to the subjugation of Islamic nations by the west, but the Muslim Brotherhood has been agitating to bring it back on and off again for some time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Where are you actually learning about Islam? I know a lot of devout muslims. Many of my best friends are from Pakistan. I can tell you right now that the average Muslim has no interest in putting a special tax on non Muslims, nor do most Muslim countries engage in the practice.

 

[SheWolf]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1. Jesus existed in the beginning (John 1:1; Philip 2:6; Rev. 19:13; Micah 5:2).
2. He was with God (John 1:1).
3. He is God, the Son (John 1:1; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8, 10; I John 5:20).
4. He is God manifest in the flesh (John 20:28; I Tim. 3:16; Col. 2:9; Acts 20:28; Heb. 1:8).
5. He is God foretold (Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 45:6).
6. He is Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23).
7. He is the true God (I John 5:20 with Titus 2:13; Romans 9:5).
8. He is the great God (Titus 2:13).
9. He is God our Savior (II Peter 1:1).
10. He existed in the form of God before His incarnation and was equal with God the Father (Philippians 2:5-7)

17 more in the following link: https://righterreport.com/2013/03/21/the-deity-of-jesus-christ-in-scripture/



He obviously missed what I listed above, plus about a hundred other examples that teach about the deity of Jesus.

Jefferson was a great founding father, but he was a rank amateur as a Biblical theologian.

Apparently he wasn't a Christan since he didn't believe Jesus was God.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Where are you actually learning about Islam? I know a lot of devout muslims. Many of my best friends are from Pakistan. I can tell you right now that the average Muslim has no interest in putting a special tax on non Muslims, nor do most Muslim countries engage in the practice.

Did you miss the part where I said the practice died out the 20th century, my citation explaining what the jizya was, or both?

 

[SheWolf]

Did you miss the part where I said the practice died out the 20th century, my citation explaining what the jizya was, or both?

Then why are you bringing it up? I keep asking where you are learning about Islam for a reason. You initially brought it up as if it's a common and modern practice. What is also funny is that most of my friends from ME are not even familiar with its history, so it's kind of funny you bring it up.

Btw, I was reading about controversial taxes, and Europeans taxed and levied Jews for their religion. I am sure history is full of such examples. I am sure America has even done something similiar. I am not trying to be cynical and say none of it matters, but that it seems fair that such details have been forgotten by a lot of people.

 

[Daisy]

Apparently he wasn't a Christan since he didn't believe Jesus was God.

Not all Christians believe that doctrine to be a true Biblical teaching...

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Then why are you bringing it up? I keep asking where you are learning about Islam for a reason. You initially brought it up as if it's a common and modern practice. What is also funny is that most of my friends from ME are not even familiar with its history, so it's kind of funny you bring it up.

Btw, I was reading about controversial taxes, and Europeans taxed and levied Jews for their religion. I am sure history is full of such examples. I am sure America has even done something similiar. I am not trying to be cynical and say none of it matters, but that it seems fair that such details have been forgotten by a lot of people.

SheWolf, we were discussing whether or not a bunch of secularists from the 18th century would have liked the message of Islam. Whether or not a practice was still around 200 years after the founders lived is irrelevant to their thoughts on it. It is irrelevant beyond my capacity to put into words. Given that the jizya dates at least to the conquest of Mecca in 630, the jizya was over 1,100 years old in the founders' heyday. Why in God's name wouldn't they have taken the tax on non-Muslims as an essential tenet of Islam (which it was)? What possible reason would they have had to deny the inherent relation of a nigh-omnipresent doctrine of Islamic governing to the religion itself, whose holy book the Quran stipulates that this tax be paid by conquered peoples who will not convert?

As for the tax on Jews, that might have something to do with that whole division of church and state thing that was so popular among the founding fathers, huh? Limiting the power of the state to control its citizens, especially in a region of the world heavily populated by people that had fled from religious tyrrany, including Jews, even as early as the 1650's.

Regardless, taxing non-Muslims is written into the very religion itself, while similar laws are not demanded by the New Testament.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Then why are you bringing it up? I keep asking where you are learning about Islam for a reason. You initially brought it up as if it's a common and modern practice. What is also funny is that most of my friends from ME are not even familiar with its history, so it's kind of funny you bring it up.

Btw, I was reading about controversial taxes, and Europeans taxed and levied Jews for their religion. I am sure history is full of such examples. I am sure America has even done something similiar. I am not trying to be cynical and say none of it matters, but that it seems fair that such details have been forgotten by a lot of people.

Oh yeah, I forgot to answer your question about where I'm getting my information about Islam. I profess that my experience is somewhat limited in theology - most of my information conserning Islam is from the two courses of world history I took last year. While nowhere near exhaustive, I believe I have a fairly good base of knowledge on the history of the religion.

My knowledge of modern Islam is inherently biased, as most of what I know about that is from various apostates and a YouTube channel called The Quran Reloaded. The channel is run by a pair of militant atheists who also run The Bible Reloaded. As such, I did not draw on it for this discussion.

 

[Logicman]

Apparently he wasn't a Christan since he didn't believe Jesus was God.

Could very well be. According to John 8:24 ("I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins) he could be in trouble at end of the age.

 

[Logicman]

Not all Christians believe that doctrine to be a true Biblical teaching...

Unless you believe Jesus is divine, you're not a Christian (John 8:24).

 

[RAMOSS]

Unless you believe Jesus is divine, you're not a Christian (John 8:24).

The statement is 'if you don't believe I am who I said I am you will die in your sins'. A reoccurring theme in the GOJ is that Jesus is referred to 'the one sent'. Now,, if you make the axiom that there was a strong influence from Philo of Alexanders philosophy of Logos, a case can be made that Jesus, as 'logos', and the 'one that is sent' fits in with that, and Jesus is the 'wisdom of God' made flesh, rather than God himself. The JW's and a few other denominations take a similar approach, because 'who he says he is' is not distinctly and unequivocally God. It could be argued that they aren't christian, but then they get counted as Christian sometimes, and other times are not. It all depends on what part of the number game someone is playing.

 

[Daisy]

Unless you believe Jesus is divine, you're not a Christian (John 8:24).

I do believe he is divine...

 

[Daisy]

The statement is 'if you don't believe I am who I said I am you will die in your sins'. A reoccurring theme in the GOJ is that Jesus is referred to 'the one sent'. Now,, if you make the axiom that there was a strong influence from Philo of Alexanders philosophy of Logos, a case can be made that Jesus, as 'logos', and the 'one that is sent' fits in with that, and Jesus is the 'wisdom of God' made flesh, rather than God himself. The JW's and a few other denominations take a similar approach, because 'who he says he is' is not distinctly and unequivocally God. It could be argued that they aren't christian, but then they get counted as Christian sometimes, and other times are not. It all depends on what part of the number game someone is playing.

What matters to me is what God thinks...I could not care less what other humans think...and I believe what the bible says...Jesus is God's Son...

 

[RAMOSS]

What matters to me is what God thinks...I could not care less what other humans think...and I believe what the bible says...Jesus is God's Son...

People make all sorts of claims about what God thinks, including the people who wrote various books, some of which were declared to be scripture by man. There are many interpretations of the same writings. Were you aware the the term 'Son of God' was an idiom for someone who was a special connection to God, such as a very righteous man, or a prophet, or king?? King David was referred to as a 'son of God'.

 

[Logicman]

People make all sorts of claims about what God thinks, including the people who wrote various books, some of which were declared to be scripture by man. There are many interpretations of the same writings. Were you aware the the term 'Son of God' was an idiom for someone who was a special connection to God, such as a very righteous man, or a prophet, or king?? King David was referred to as a 'son of God'.

<sigh>

The SON OF GOD in Christianity is more than just a King David individual.

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context.

AND THIS IS CONFIRMED in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 26:

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy!

Jesus was clearly referring to Daniel 7:13 - "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven."
Jesus was, in effect, claiming to be the fulfillment of Daniel's "son of man" prophecy.

That's who the Son of Man / Son of God is in Christianity.

 

[RAMOSS]

<sigh>

The SON OF GOD in Christianity is more than just a King David individual.

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context.

AND THIS IS CONFIRMED in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 26:

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy!

Jesus was clearly referring to Daniel 7:13 - "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven."
Jesus was, in effect, claiming to be the fulfillment of Daniel's "son of man" prophecy.

That's who the Son of Man / Son of God is in Christianity.

That is quite the misinterpretion of the Book of Daniel. First of all 'Like the son of Man' you are totally ignoring the key modifying word 'like'. That means 'similar to' Second of all, it is just a dream...

As for the Gospel of Matthew, that is not relevant to the discussion what the author of the Book of Daniel meant. And, no, Son of Man is not the same as 'Son of God' in that context, or any context what so ever. That claim does not hold up to scrutineer of the passage.

 

[Daisy]

People make all sorts of claims about what God thinks, including the people who wrote various books, some of which were declared to be scripture by man. There are many interpretations of the same writings. Were you aware the the term 'Son of God' was an idiom for someone who was a special connection to God, such as a very righteous man, or a prophet, or king?? King David was referred to as a 'son of God'.

Yes, I realize that but Jesus is the only one referred to as "only-begotten" and “the firstborn of all creation”...

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, I realize that but Jesus is the only one referred to as "only-begotten" and “the firstborn of all creation”...

Let's look at the 'only begotten' phrase . The term that is being translated from the Greek into 'only begotten' is the word 'monogenes'. Now the question can arise is 'only begotten' a good translation of that phrase.. Let's look how it is used in other places in scriptures.

In Hebrews 11:17-19, in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, Issac is described as monogenes to Abraham. HOWEVER, Issac is not Abraham's only son. He is not the only begotten son of Abraham. That makes that translation of 'only begotten' suspect.

 

[Daisy]

Let's look at the 'only begotten' phrase . The term that is being translated from the Greek into 'only begotten' is the word 'monogenes'. Now the question can arise is 'only begotten' a good translation of that phrase.. Let's look how it is used in other places in scriptures.

In Hebrews 11:17-19, in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, Issac is described as monogenes to Abraham. HOWEVER, Issac is not Abraham's only son. He is not the only begotten son of Abraham. That makes that translation of 'only begotten' suspect.

“Only-begotten.” Some commentators object to the translation of the Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ by the English “only-begotten.” They point out that the latter portion of the word (ge·nesʹ) does not come from gen·naʹo (beget) but from geʹnos (kind), hence the term refers to ‘the only one of a class or kind.’ Thus many translations speak of Jesus as the “only Son” (RS; AT; JB) rather than the “only-begotten son” of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) However, while the individual components do not include the verbal sense of being born, the usage of the term definitely does embrace the idea of descent or birth, for the Greek word geʹnos means “family stock; kinsfolk; offspring; race.” It is translated “race” in 1 Peter 2:9. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome renders mo·no·ge·nesʹ as unigenitus, meaning “only-begotten” or “only.” This relationship of the term to birth or descent is recognized by numerous lexicographers.

Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (1885, p. 471) gives the definition of mo·no·ge·nesʹ as: “only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.” The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament by W. Hickie (1956, p. 123) also gives: “only begotten.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, states: “The μονο- [mo·no-] does not denote the source but the nature of derivation. Hence μονογενής [mo·no·ge·nesʹ] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to the only child of one’s parents, primarily in relation to them. . . . But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of ‘unique,’ ‘unparalleled,’ ‘incomparable,’ though one should not confuse the refs. to class or species and to manner.”—Translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1969, Vol. IV, p. 738.

As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” this latter work (pp. 739-741) says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9; [John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.”

In view of these statements and in view of the plain evidence of the Scriptures themselves, there is no reason for objecting to translations showing that Jesus is not merely God’s unique or incomparable Son but also his “only-begotten Son,” hence descended from God in the sense of being produced by God. This is confirmed by apostolic references to this Son as “the firstborn of all creation” and as “the One born [form of gen·naʹo] from God” (Col 1:15; 1Jo 5:18), while Jesus himself states that he is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Re 3:14.

Jesus is God’s “firstborn” (Col 1:15) as God’s first creation, called “the Word” in his prehuman existence. (Joh 1:1) The word “beginning” in John 1:1 cannot refer to the “beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. (Ps 90:2) It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the Word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. The term “beginning” is used in various other texts similarly to describe the start of some period or career or course, such as the “beginning” of the Christian career of those to whom John wrote his first letter (1Jo 2:7; 3:11), the “beginning” of Satan’s rebellious course (1Jo 3:8), or the “beginning” of Judas’ deflection from righteousness. (Joh 6:64; see JUDAS No. 4 [Became Corrupt].) Jesus is the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16) in that he is the only one of God’s sons, spirit or human, created solely by God, for all others were created through, or “by means of,” that firstborn Son.—Col 1:16, 17;

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004182

 

[Logicman]

That is quite the misinterpretion of the Book of Daniel.

Nope. You're still confused.

 

[SheWolf]

SheWolf, we were discussing whether or not a bunch of secularists from the 18th century would have liked the message of Islam.

Actually, I am debating you because I said that you seemed confused about Islam. You challenged me on that, and you make a blank statement about Muslims.

Islam also demands a tax on non-Muslims, and states that no government is legitimate unless it submits to Allah. Those two tenets alone render it incompatible with the secular design of our government...

What you said is wrong IMO. Muslims can and do believe in freedom of religion. The people I know, do not support a tax on non-Muslims. I don't believe that Islam is not compatible with American values, and you have said nothing valid that even argues that point.

Whether or not a practice was still around 200 years after the founders lived is irrelevant to their thoughts on it. It is irrelevant beyond my capacity to put into words.

:lol: I am not asking you to decide it's relevant. I am asking you why you decided to bring it up and mention in a way as if it's a practice all Muslims are following today.

Given that the jizya dates at least to the conquest of Mecca in 630, the jizya was over 1,100 years old in the founders' heyday. Why in God's name wouldn't they have taken the tax on non-Muslims as an essential tenet of Islam (which it was)? What possible reason would they have had to deny the inherent relation of a nigh-omnipresent doctrine of Islamic governing to the religion itself, whose holy book the Quran stipulates that this tax be paid by conquered peoples who will not convert?

I highly doubt you have actually studied the entire Quran, so, again, I ask, where are you getting this information from? Don't you think it is kind of funny that you're telling Muslims what they believe, and myself and my friends don't think people should be taxed for not converting?

Do know what today is for Muslims? Do you know what Muslims are doing today?

As for the tax on Jews, that might have something to do with that whole division of church and state thing that was so popular among the founding fathers, huh? Limiting the power of the state to control its citizens, especially in a region of the world heavily populated by people that had fled from religious tyrrany, including Jews, even as early as the 1650's.

Regardless, taxing non-Muslims is written into the very religion itself, while similar laws are not demanded by the New Testament.

Nothing prevents a Muslim person from supporting freedom of religion and speech, or even a secular government. Muslims have historically created secular governments.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Actually, I am debating you because I said that you seemed confused about Islam. You challenged me on that, and you make a blank statement about Muslims.



What you said is wrong IMO. Muslims can and do believe in freedom of religion. The people I know, do not support a tax on non-Muslims. I don't believe that Islam is not compatible with American values, and you have said nothing valid that even argues that point.



:lol: I am not asking you to decide it's relevant. I am asking you why you decided to bring it up and mention in a way as if it's a practice all Muslims are following today.



I highly doubt you have actually studied the entire Quran, so, again, I ask, where are you getting this information from? Don't you think it is kind of funny that you're telling Muslims what they believe, and myself and my friends don't think people should be taxed for not converting?

Do know what today is for Muslims? Do you know what Muslims are doing today?



Nothing prevents a Muslim person from supporting freedom of religion and speech, or even a secular government. Muslims have historically created secular governments.

Shewolf, I have already given you a citation of what the jizya is. I have explained why it was relevant to what the founding fathers would have thought of Islam (the original purpose of this discussion, you might recall), and I have already admitted that it is not a modern institution.

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

[SheWolf]

Shewolf, I have already given you a citation of what the jizya is. I have explained why it was relevant to what the founding fathers would have thought of Islam (the original purpose of this discussion, you might recall), and I have already admitted that it is not a modern institution.

What are you trying to accomplish here?

There are five pillars of Islam, none of those include taxing non Muslims or oppose freedom of religion. I never tried to argue the founding fathers would have tried to set up some kind Islamic state. I said some of them may have been more inspired by certain aspects of Islam given some of the core beliefs of Deism.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

There are five pillars of Islam, none of those include taxing non Muslims or oppose freedom of religion. I never tried to argue the founding fathers would have tried to set up some kind Islamic state. I said some of them may have been more inspired by certain aspects of Islam given some of the core beliefs of Deism.

I don't think any of the founders would have agreed with the compulsion to visit Mecca at some point in their lives, the necessity of praying in the general direction of Mecca five times a day, or not eating or drinking during the day for an entire month, all of which was designed by Mohammed to ensure obedience to his caliphate God. The religion's very name means submission to God, and the orthodoxy of the religion is arguably even more restrictive and centralized than Catholocism, a religion that was rightfully banned from Georgia until those goddamn revolutionaries the founders ruined everything with the constitution sucked off the Pope **** it. I hate the Catholic church. There, I said it.

Even boiled down to its simplest, most universal tenets, Islam is unappealing to anyone who already has a monotheistic religion. No denomination of Christianity is more rigidly tied to a geographic seat of power than Islam is, not even Catholocism - the Catholics have moved their seat of power out of Rome before. Only Catholocism is as rigidly tied to a mortal ruler as Islam, which has been in a state of war with itself over who is the mortal successor to Mohammed's position of leadership for over a millennium. And when you look at the wider system of religious law that comes with Islam, the rigid legal system directly codified in the Quran as it was with Judaism, it only gets more oppressive.

The five pillars you boiled the religion down to cut away whatever philosophical ideas about Jesus that may have appealed to Jefferson and Jefferson alone, and left only the central tenets of a theocratic bureacracy. That your moderate Muslim friends don't pay too much attention to the downright oppressive legal codes of their own religion is a blessing for them and their families, and I wish that all of the Muslims in the world were so independent from the oppressive moral and legal codes in their holy book.