"The End Times and the Islamic AntiChrist" by Gary DeMar

[orafi]

You are missing my point. It wasn't that they don't mention he's merciful. It's that when they deny Christ they say it's because God is all-powerful and doesn't need to beget. I'm not saying Muslims don't acknowledge those other attributes of God, just saying they deny Christ based on attributes of power and loftiness.

It's telling.

The Jews do the same thing. Not singling out the Muslims.

That doesn't necessarily preclude love.

And "they" don't deny Christ, Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam. He is mentioned a veritable number of times in the Quran.

They just don't believe in g-d begetting a son because there is no purpose for an entity doing so that can simply will anything -anywhere in space and time and beyond - into existence.

[wizardwatson]

That doesn't necessarily preclude love.

And "they" don't deny Christ, Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam. He is mentioned a veritable number of times in the Quran.

They just don't believe in g-d begetting a son because there is no purpose for an entity doing so that can simply will anything -anywhere in space and time and beyond - into existence.

When I say "deny Christ" it means denying who he says he was, his authority. That Islam tries to include Him in the way they do, as a silver medalist after Mohammed is really worse, in my opinion, than leaving him out entirely.

And this is a poor reason to doubt the words of a prophet. That "God doesn't need to do this or that because He could just 'will it'".

Why make Noah build an ark? Why not just materialize one?
Why make the Hebrews conquer the Holy Land? Why not just engulf the whole land in holy flames like Sodom?

Why make you or me, for that matter? Why not just make robots that obey perfectly?

All your reponses only reinforce my initial statement. It isn't just the fact that Islam denies Christ that makes me reject it, but the very poor reasons they give in their scripture for doing so, which you only reiterated.

[orafi]

When I say "deny Christ" it means denying who he says he was, his authority. That Islam tries to include Him in the way they do, as a silver medalist after Mohammed is really worse, in my opinion, than leaving him out entirely.

And this is a poor reason to doubt the words of a prophet. That "God doesn't need to do this or that because He could just 'will it'".

Why make Noah build an ark? Why not just materialize one?
Why make the Hebrews conquer the Holy Land? Why not just engulf the whole land in holy flames like Sodom?

Why make you or me, for that matter? Why not just make robots that obey perfectly?

All your reponses only reinforce my initial statement. It isn't just the fact that Islam denies Christ that makes me reject it, but the very poor reasons they give in their scripture for doing so, which you only reiterated.

You are equating a man's struggle in his devotion to g-d ( "building an ark" ) to g-d having offspring (for what? Succession)? What? How does that contradict anything?

The point is is that g-d is so powerful beyond our pitifully human comprehension that he has no need for partners. If he can will it it will be.

And everything in this universe follows his will. Except for man. We have free (of g-d's) will.





I see You are running under that bias that Jesus is a Divine Being.

The thing is is that what I believe about Jesus (he being a mortal, prophet, son of man, offspring of Virgin Mary ) and you (son of g-d through Virgin Mary) are completely at odds.

What you believe Jesus said (son of g-d) is different from what I believe Jesus said (only one g-d, g-d has no partners nor need of them, etc).


These are my beliefs.

I'm not going to try to change your beliefs there.

g-d bless

[TER]

Hi orafi. Out of curiosity, why is it that you out of piety you do not spell the name 'God' but at the same time use a lower case 'g'? I have never seen that before and was wondering if that is a common practice in your faith (which I presume is Islam).

[wizardwatson]

You are equating a man's struggle in his devotion to g-d ( "building an ark" ) to g-d having offspring (for what? Succession)? What? How does that contradict anything?

The point is is that g-d is so powerful beyond our pitifully human comprehension that he has no need for partners. If he can will it it will be.

And everything in this universe follows his will. Except for man. We have free (of g-d's) will.





I see You are running under that bias that Jesus is a Divine Being.

The thing is is that what I believe about Jesus (he being a mortal, prophet, son of man, offspring of Virgin Mary ) and you (son of g-d through Virgin Mary) are completely at odds.

What you believe Jesus said (son of g-d) is different from what I believe Jesus said (only one g-d, g-d has no partners nor need of them, etc).


These are my beliefs.

I'm not going to try to change your beliefs there.

g-d bless

I guess this means you want to end the convo. I'm getting bored anyway. Already had plenty of convos with believers telling me all the things God couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't do and ignoring all the plain things that he said.

Don't worry, little chance of you changing my beliefs.

[P3ter_Griffin]

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/free_...umal_quran.pdf

pg 43
Several Asbab and One Revelation
From the reports of the sahaba it appears that particular passages of the Qur'an were revealed in response to more than
one event, situation or question, or that the application of a particular passage of the Qur'an was for more than one
particular occasion, as pointed out above.

pg 45
Summary
The branch of 'ulum al-Qur’an concerned with the asbab al-nuzul is one of the most important areas of knowledge for the
proper understanding and explanation of the Qur'anic revelation. The message of the Qur'an is guidance for all times.
However its ayat were revealed at particular points of time in history and in particular circumstances.
One of the most crucial steps in meaningful interpretation is to distinguish between that part which is attached solely to
the historical event and that part, which, although attached to the historical event, also has wider implications. The
knowledge of asbab al-nuzul helps to distinguish between these two by:

Clarifying the events and circumstances, which are connected with the revelation of certain ayat.

Illustrating the application of such ayat by referring to situations, when the Companions of the Prophet
found them proper and applicable

Can I get a more scholarly interpretation of this?

As I understand these passages.. as it relates to followers: The Quran is a guide for all times... meaning that there is passages for times of peace and times of war. And that the scripture that often gets quoted to say that Islam commands Muslims to take over the world, kill infidels, etc, is a directive in how to operate warfare. And therefore the earlier peaceful passages are not abrogated because they are dealing with separate issues, and the later passages only commanded towards hostile foes.

I must say presenting a greater understanding to the public on where the differences lay between the by the Wahhabist and the not-Wahhabist.... if you'll excuse my ignorance... as it relates to scriptural interpretation seems really important at this point. I unfortunately see attacks on Islam at every board I frequent.... and it didn't always used to be so. It is quite easy to find passages on the internet which can be used to 'condemn' Islam but much harder to figure out what these passages mean to the majority who don't practice violently. And it shouldn't be expected!! Don't get me wrong, if you are practising a peaceful religion why should you have to answer for some fools who you don't share views with? But the hate is real and it has spread far.

If someone could volunteer to provide that to us.. here on RPF.. then it would allow me to start counteracting this hate I see on other boards.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I guess this means you want to end the convo. I'm getting bored anyway. Already had plenty of convos with believers telling me all the things God couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't do and ignoring all the plain things that he said.

Don't worry, little chance of you changing my beliefs.

Why do you look to drive a wedge? You must convert everyone you talk to and focus on what separates you instead of what unites you?

[wizardwatson]

Why do you look to drive a wedge? You must convert everyone you talk to and focus on what separates you instead of what unites you?

It is the Word that divides. The truth.

Is "focusing on what unites" a motto you push site-wide or simply when religion is the subject? Because in general, RPF'ers don't strike me as the type.

We are in the religion forum, where the topic under discussion is that Islamism is the spirit of the anti-christ. Orafi was taking issue with the fact that Islam is mischaracterized unfairly as being historically violent, etc. and on that account shouldn't be considered by Christians as "evil".

I actually agree with that, that Islam is mischaracterized hypocritically, as other religions were violent equally, including Judaism.

But "anti-christ" has a precise biblically meaning:

1 John 4 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Islam most definitely does not accept that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Now when the bible says "Jesus Christ", Christ wasn't Jesus' surname. Christ means Messiah, Moshiach, the Anointed One, King of Kings, the Lamb of God. So biblically, when you hear "spirits" speak of God, but deny Jesus is who he says he is, then you must "try the spirits".

So that's all I was really doing in this thread. Showing the real reason Islam is anti-christ, according to scripture, is because they deny Christ. They claim to be in the spirit of God, but since they deny Christ they must be investigated. And in investigating, I've found in their scripture, and reiterated by Orafi, that "God is too awesome to have a kid, his incomprehensibility prevents it." is their philosophical reason for denying Christ. This is a weak reason, and really a blasphemous reason as it speaks for God in assigning him a quality that he not only never assigned himself, but flat out contradicted with his own voice TWICE, once at Jesus' baptism and another time at His transfiguration, when he calls him his son quite plainly in front of multiple witnesses.

So I'm pointing out to others reading that in "trying the spirit" of Islam, I find the witnesses of Islam against Christ sorely outmatched by the witnesses of the Light of the World, and scripturally Islam fits the biblical definition of "spirit of the anti-christ" by it's own scripture and the words of its adherents.

Doesn't mean Christians go around cutting heads off. Christ forbids us, and instead commands we wait on him.

And also, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm just speaking the truth as I see it while discussing the topic at hand.

[P3ter_Griffin]

It is the Word that divides. The truth.

Is "focusing on what unites" a motto you push site-wide or simply when religion is the subject? Because in general, RPF'ers don't strike me as the type.

We are in the religion forum, where the topic under discussion is that Islamism is the spirit of the anti-christ. Orafi was taking issue with the fact that Islam is mischaracterized unfairly as being historically violent, etc. and on that account shouldn't be considered by Christians as "evil".

I actually agree with that, that Islam is mischaracterized hypocritically, as other religions were violent equally, including Judaism.

But "anti-christ" has a precise biblically meaning:



Islam most definitely does not accept that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Now when the bible says "Jesus Christ", Christ wasn't Jesus' surname. Christ means Messiah, Moshiach, the Anointed One, King of Kings, the Lamb of God. So biblically, when you hear "spirits" speak of God, but deny Jesus is who he says he is, then you must "try the spirits".

So that's all I was really doing in this thread. Showing the real reason Islam is anti-christ, according to scripture, is because they deny Christ. They claim to be in the spirit of God, but since they deny Christ they must be investigated. And in investigating, I've found in their scripture, and reiterated by Orafi, that "God is too awesome to have a kid, his incomprehensibility prevents it." is their philosophical reason for denying Christ. This is a weak reason, and really a blasphemous reason as it speaks for God in assigning him a quality that he not only never assigned himself, but flat out contradicted with his own voice TWICE, once at Jesus' baptism and another time at His transfiguration, when he calls him his son quite plainly in front of multiple witnesses.

So I'm pointing out to others reading that in "trying the spirit" of Islam, I find the witnesses of Islam against Christ sorely outmatched by the witnesses of the Light of the World, and scripturally Islam fits the biblical definition of "spirit of the anti-christ" by it's own scripture and the words of its adherents.

Doesn't mean Christians go around cutting heads off. Christ forbids us, and instead commands we wait on him.

And also, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm just speaking the truth as I see it while discussing the topic at hand.

I enjoyed the back and forth between you two it was your last comment that I found rude. I shouldn't interject myself though, there are plenty of ways for people to avoid rude comments if they wish and it is only a waste of my time.

[wizardwatson]

I enjoyed the back and forth between you two it was your last comment that I found rude. I shouldn't interject myself though, there are plenty of ways for people to avoid rude comments if they wish and it is only a waste of my time.

Well, he was wanting to end the conversation, which was fine. But before he did, he said I was assuming things, tried to summarize what mine and his beliefs were, incorrectly in my opinion, then claimed he wasn't trying to change my beliefs, then said God bless.

So you picking up on my rudeness was accurate. As I was somewhat offended that he spent time trying to save face going out instead of addressing the issue of putting God in a box, which was squarely where I was putting the argument. We did disagree about Jesus, but that was a given. We were talking about why God "couldn't have a son".

I feel like I probably seem more rude in text, but it has a lot to do with how long it takes to write things and not wasting time getting a point across.

[TER]

I enjoyed the back and forth between you two it was your last comment that I found rude. I shouldn't interject myself though, there are plenty of ways for people to avoid rude comments if they wish and it is only a waste of my time.

Hi P3ter!

I don't think wizardwatson was being rude in that post at all. In fact, you can sense how he is speaking true as he understands it and he is sincere in his convictions, trying very hard not to create malice. But speaking as true.

What exactly is the problem?

[P3ter_Griffin]

Hi P3ter!

Hey TER, hope you are well.

[TER]

You see, when the person experiences the presence of the Person of Jesus Christ, alive and with power, they will speak and confess the truth, even unto death on a cross. For this is how Christ has saved mankind Himself. This too was prophecized by the great Prophets of Old. Christ came and showed us the way and that when we follow the path of the cross, we find forgiveness, love, and the living presence of Christ around us and in us, surrounding us and giving peace and life. When we give from ourselves out of love for our neighbor, we become bearers of the Holy Spirit, that is, living temples of the divine presence of God. This is by the Holy Spirit and has been attained by God Himself, Who came down from Heaven because men could not reach it on their own, and healed what no man could heal before,- namely, death and the power of sin. In complete perfection, Christ performed His holy ministry.

Christ is Lord because He is the Savior of Mankind, Who became everything so that God might fill everything and restore it, - indeed, renew it.

Wizardwatson understands this, and this is not a rude position. It is a statement of belief, a confession (martyrion in Greek). He does this because in his life he has encountered Christ.

As foretold in the Holy Scriptures, as prophecized by the Prophets, as occurred in reality in a cave in Jerusalem, God has come to restore us from death into life, and from evil into good and eternal loving communion with Him, by the grace of the Holy Spirit of God. A Holy Trinity in self-giving love.

Self-giving is the very essence of 'love', a word, which is the also the closest word man in his limited mind can use to describe the unapproachable and divine essence of God. For 'God is love' as written by the Evangelist and Holy Apostle John.

Christ does indeed wish to convert your heart, and all men's hearts. The Spirit does beckon and makes Himself felt and heard. In the deep voice of the man's conscience and in the 'coincidences' which happen in the course of one's life, the awake man will sense the Spirit of God and the presence of the Jesus Christ and the love of the Father.

All we must do is allow Him. So simple! It's easy when our Father in Heaven loves us!

When we believe a little, God gives us more. When we suffer in His Name, even with the little we give, He graciously pours out His Holy Spirit, giving comfort, joy, peace, and life. This has been accomplished by the Son of the Virgin, Whose Father is in Heaven, the divine Logos and Savior of mankind Jesus Christ.

Wizardwatson already believes this. And so he should. The greatest men and women who walked this earth have believed it and are remembered even today, though most have been forgotten, as Saints who worship before the altar of God and pray for the world. Many who were born and raised with other doctrines and came to see the truth in Christ.

[wizardwatson]

You see, when the person experiences the presence of the Person of Jesus Christ, alive and with power, they will speak and confess the truth, even unto death on a cross. For this is how Christ has saved mankind Himself. This too was prophecized by the great Prophets of Old. Christ came and showed us the way and that when we follow the path of the cross, we find forgiveness, love, and the living presence of Christ around us and in us, surrounding us and giving peace and life. When we give from ourselves out of love for our neighbor, we become bearers of the Holy Spirit, that is, living temples of the divine presence of God. This is by the Holy Spirit and has been attained by God Himself, Who came down from Heaven because men could not reach it on their own, and healed what no man could heal before,- namely, death and the power of sin. In complete perfection, Christ performed His holy ministry.

Christ is Lord because He is the Savior of Mankind, Who became everything so that God might fill everything and restore it, - indeed, renew it.

Wizardwatson understands this, and this is not a rude position. It is a statement of belief, a confession (martyrion in Greek). He does this because in his life he has encountered Christ.

As foretold in the Holy Scriptures, as prophecized by the Prophets, as occurred in reality in a cave in Jerusalem, God has come to restore us from death into life, and from evil into good and eternal loving communion with Him, by the grace of the Holy Spirit of God. A Holy Trinity in self-giving love.

Self-giving is the very essence of 'love', a word, which is the also the closest word man in his limited mind can use to describe the unapproachable and divine essence of God. For 'God is love' as written by the Evangelist and Holy Apostle John.

Christ does indeed wish to convert your heart, and all men's hearts. The Spirit does beckon and makes Himself felt and heard. In the deep voice of the man's conscience and in the 'coincidences' which happen in the course of one's life, the awake man will sense the Spirit of God and the presence of the Jesus Christ and the love of the Father.

All we must do is allow Him. So simple! It's easy when our Father in Heaven loves us!

When we believe a little, God gives us more. When we suffer in His Name, even with the little we give, He graciously pours out His Holy Spirit, giving comfort, joy, peace, and life. This has been accomplished by the Son of the Virgin, Whose Father is in Heaven, the divine Logos and Savior of mankind Jesus Christ.

Wizardwatson already believes this. And so he should. The greatest men and women who walked this earth have believed it and are remembered even today, though most have been forgotten, as Saints who worship before the altar of God and pray for the world. Many who were born and raised with other doctrines and came to see the truth in Christ.

Awesome words, friend. But I was a wee bit rude-well, dismissive anyway, as I explained in the previous post. But love this post for reasons that go way beyond why you wrote it.

[TER]

But I was a wee bit rude-well, dismissive anyway, as I explained in the previous post.

I get that way too at times. Lord have mercy on us!

[orafi]

Hi orafi. Out of curiosity, why is it that you out of piety you do not spell the name 'God' but at the same time use a lower case 'g'? I have never seen that before and was wondering if that is a common practice in your faith (which I presume is Islam).

Peace, Bob

I mostly post from my phone as I am now so apologies for any bad formatting:

Anyways...

Good observation.
(Oh and Let's pretend your name is Bob if it isn't.)

In Arabic -as you know -you don't have capitalization BUT in English capitalization of course has meaning.

Way back when, the Romans used capitalization in a very different way versus how we are taught to do so nowadays in public school.


Capitalization does not add to but diminishes the status or capacity of the noun that it is being applied to.

See, capitalizing your name as BOB TER takes away any capacity you have as a man. It implies that you have zero sovereignty from any other man or woman. The Romans capitalized the names of their slaves in their entirety.

Capitalizing just the first letters of your name Bon Ter means you are giving up some but not all of your sovereignty to a society or a family (Ter society). You are obligated to receive and give back to that society; participate in it.

You can probably guess what meaning an all lower case name would have.

Capitalization, capital, off with ye head.

I vs i

I (No head) vs i (still have my head)

Capitas Minimus, capitas med., Capitas Maximus

So you may know why there is a hyphen but now you should understand why that word is entirely lower case in the style i use.

Look at how Legal Fictions like Corporations, Governments, Names of Officers, your Name on Gov Documents are capitalized vs how YOU capitalize Them.

@wizardwatson

I did not mean to assume.
BUT when i mention the word bias I do not say i'm free from it either. i should predicate my posts with:

Only g-d knows, we can only believe.


Anyway

I was only here originally to clarify on what I think are misconceptions on my faith not convince anyone of or against theirs. If you're steadfast in your faith, good on you.

[orafi]

That's OK.

What I'm saying is that you are operating, it seems, from "Bible is the word" and I am operating from "Quran is the word*". I was just pointing out one or two possible implications. I clarify that a bit in my last post.


*of course it's my duty to believe in the bible (Injeel) and torah as well. But that is A different convo.

[Jamesiv1]

In Arabic -as you know -you don't have capitalization BUT in English capitalization of course has meaning.

Way back when, the Romans used capitalization in a very different way versus how we are taught to do so nowadays in public school.

The Romans did not use capitalization at all - because small letters did not yet exist.

The latin alphabet (entirely majuscule) was fully formed within the Roman empire by the 2nd century BC. During the height of the Roman Empire there were two distinct styles - 1. capitalis monumentalis (all caps - pretty much identical to the font, Times New Roman) and 2. capitalis rustica - a narrower, more casual style.

Minuscules (small letters) developed from Irish half-uncial (see Book of Kells) about 600-700 AD, and weren't fully formed with ascenders, descenders and capitalization until the mid-800's AD with the Carolingian minuscule embraced by Charlemagne (actually, it was his education czar Alcuin of York).

Capitalis Monumentalis - Inscription from the Trajan Column, 113 AD


Capitalis Rustica


Irish Half-uncial, Book of Kells, late 700's AD


Caroliningian Minuscule - Book of Tours, 840 AD

[orafi]

http://thelawdictionary.org/capitis-diminutio/

[orafi]

The Romans did not use capitalization at all - because small letters did not yet exist.

The latin alphabet (entirely majuscule) was fully formed within the Roman empire by the 2nd century BC. During the height of the Roman Empire there were two distinct styles - 1. capitalis monumentalis (all caps - pretty much identical to the font, Times New Roman) and 2. capitalis rustica - a narrower, more casual style.

Minuscules (small letters) developed from Irish half-uncial (see Book of Kells) about 600-700 AD, and weren't fully formed with ascenders, descenders and capitalization until the mid-800's AD with the Carolingian minuscule embraced by Charlemagne (actually, it was his education czar Alcuin of York).

Capitalis Monumentalis - Inscription from the Trajan Column, 113 AD


Capitalis Rustica


Caroliningian Minuscule - Book of Tours, 840 AD

Actually youre right, thanks. I had it mixed up. But it still applies nowadays.

http://thelawdictionary.org/capitis-diminutio/

[Jamesiv1]

Actually youre right, thanks. I had it mixed up. But it still applies nowadays.

http://thelawdictionary.org/capitis-diminutio/

I don't know what you're referring to. Nothing you said in post #76 about capitalization is true - so what "still applies nowadays" ?

the link you posted talks about losing status and legal attributes when one's "civil condition" changes - within Roman law.

Are you saying this is not the case with Islamic law? Someone commits an egregious crime, is punished but does not lose any civil or legal status?

I guess I'm wondering with some amusement how you would make a connection between CAPITIS DIMINUTIO (the link you posted) and the capitalization of written letters, and go on to compose a pretty long-winded post about it

[TER]

I don't know what you're referring to. Nothing you said in post #76 about capitalization is true - so what "still applies nowadays" ?

the link you posted talks about losing status and legal attributes when one's "civil condition" changes - within Roman law.

Are you saying this is not the case with Islamic law? Someone commits an egregious crime, is punished but does not lose any civil or legal status?

I guess I'm wondering with some amusement how you would make a connection between CAPITIS DIMINUTIO (the link you posted) and the capitalization of written letters

And I'm still trying to figure out how using a lower case 'g' is somehow more respectful and pious in the modern English language than using a capitalized 'G' for the word God.

BTW, I am NOT accusing it of being disrespectful, because I don't believe that is orafi's intent, I just find it a bit confusing since it is usually the atheists and agnostics who use lower case 'g' for the word God.

[Jamesiv1]

And I'm still trying to figure out how using a lower case 'g' is somehow more respectful and pious in the modern English language than using a capitalized 'G' for the word God.

BTW, I am NOT accusing it of being disrespectful, because I don't believe that is orafi's intent, I just find it a bit confusing since it is usually the atheists and agnostics who use lower case 'g' for the word God.

yeah, that's weird lol

note to orafi: "put down the bong for a while"

does he write al--h instead of Allah?

[Muwahid]

I reject Islam because of these theological qualms, not because Mohammed might have been immoral or Islamists like to make war. As others have pointed out the Hebrews of old were warlike in their hay day as well.

It isn't so much that Islam says "God has no son" which should be enough for a Christian to reject its teachings, but the reasons it gives.

Such was Jesus, the son of Mary. That is the whole truth, which they still doubt. God forbid that He Himself should beget a son! When He decrees a thing He need only say: ‘Be,’ and it is.
—Qur’an 19:35

Similar verses say the same thing on the subject. The pillar of the gospel just can't be true because God is all-powerful. He's self-sufficient. He's omnipotent and knows all things. It's beneath Him to beget.

So the Muslim man rejects Christ because he worships the God of power and might. All this truth, love, and grace just sounds like the religion of a whiney weakling to him I suppose. But the Son is the Zohar of God's glory. He is grace and truth and the work He has done is a work of love, a work of the Father.

The work on the cross is certainly offensive to a mind that worships God as powerful more than loving.

Anyway, at least they believe in all the same characters and the end times. This will all be sorted out.

We believe God has numerous traits. Omnipotence is one, but omnibenevolence is another.

Out contention with Jesus being the - literal - son of God stems from the idea God could ever be anything but one. We typically would have had no problem with phrases like awlaadu Allah (children of God) but it become literally applied to Christ. The Bible refers to others of Gods children but is never taken literally, Christ however Christians made exceptions for and literally believe him to be apart of God.

Islam emphasizes that men are men, even the best of men, the friends of God are still men. The reason we don't like someone drawing Muhammad is because we don't want him to become overglorified, and have the original meaning of Islam overshadowed. We don't mention Muhammad when we're in trouble, we only call on one for help and that's God.

And tbh getting to your point on Islam glorying power over love, I find it to be a balance between perhaps the OT and NT, because we believe in tolerance, turning the other cheek, we believe in Gods mercy and forgiveness, but we also believe in defending ourselves, and fearing the punishment of God. It's a 360 view.

[TER]

The Bible refers to others of Gods children but is never taken literally, Christ however Christians made exceptions for and literally believe him to be apart of God.

Hi Muwahid. There are many instances in the Old Testament where the coming of God as the Messiah is alluded to. Jesus fulfilled scores of prophecies. Indeed, statistically speaking, the evidence is overwhelming.

We Christians believe Christ is one with God because of His sinless life, His many miracles, and most of all, because He said so. Had He called Himself just a Prophet, that is what we Christians would believe. Had He called Himself just a Teacher, that is what we would believe. But the confession that God took upon our nature in order to save our race has ALWAYS been the cry and confessions of the Christians. Why? Because that is the Gospel Christ came to preach to the world, and those who have ears will listen.

Had He not risen from the dead, history would have forgotten about Him long long ago. But because He did rise from the dead, (since death could not hold the very Life-Giving Word of God), because His disciples did see Him ascend into Heaven in glory as King and Judge, because He truly did keep His promise to send down the Holy Spirit of God, these disciples freely gave their lives confessing this fact. So too today, innumerable are the Christians who do the same, even while under intense persecution and discrimination, because it is the same Holy Spirit who strengthens them and sanctifies them.

What Islam emphasizes is what it emphasizes, but it does not supplant what God has revealed through the mystery of the Incarnation. For God willed that through the Incarnation, He might take upon Himself our nature, out of divine and immeasurable love, so that He might lift us up as sons and daughters by grace. This is the great paradox which has shaken the world, that God would die for us, so that we might live. This is the God Whom the Christians worship - the God of love and revelation.

Only in the Crucifixion, does our fallen nature find redemption. Only in the Resurrection, do we find life after death. Only in the Ascension, do we find salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

What the Christian emphasizes is what Christ has revealed, which He did so with Power and glory.

[RJB]

BTW, I am NOT accusing it of being disrespectful, because I don't believe that is orafi's intent, I just find it a bit confusing since it is usually the atheists and agnostics who use lower case 'g' for the word God.

I've seen an atheist capitalize the "H" in "Hell" and lower case the "g" in "god." That struck me as odd.