Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?
- Thread starter RJM
- Start date
Nowhere has he been disrespectful towards Islam. It is untrue, and in these internet times it can endanger the personal safety of a member to make allegations that can be taken up wrongly by extremists.
Posts on these forums should be couched in respectful language and try maintain a reasonably level of courtesy and refrain from inflammatory language and personal attacks. Impuning another's belief is against the ethic of IO.
Last edited:
What do you mean?
..because I don't think that Arians believed in the Nicene trinity and that Jesus is God?
You speak as if I am concocting my own personal opinions "as a Muslim", which is against undoubtable evidence?
I'll have to remind you again that there are many non-trinitarian creeds in Christianity.
What do all these declared heresies by Nicene Christians have in common, do you think?
Perhaps the answer is that they all thought something "wrong" about Jesus
Well ,well, well.
Firstly the Romans persecute Jews and Christians, and then the Nicene Christians turn around
and persecute "their own".
Charming!
What is the problem that Nicene Christians believe as they do? It is their own affair. Why should someone join IO in order continuously to attack the beliefs of others here?What do you mean?
..because I don't think that Arians believed in the Nicene trinity and that Jesus is God?
You speak as if I am concocting my own personal opinions "as a Muslim", which is against undoubtable evidence?
I'll have to remind you again that there are many non-trinitarian creeds in Christianity.
What do all these declared heresies by Nicene Christians have in common, do you think?
Perhaps the answer is that they all thought something "wrong" about Jesus
Well ,well, well.
Firts the Romas persecute Jews and Christians, and then the Nicene Christians turn around and persecute "their own"
Charming!
Are you serious?
It means that they believe that Muslims are heretics. That is the truth.
If you don't want Muslims on the forum, just say so.
What is the matter with people?
Why were all the early Christians who didn't believe that Jesus was God persecuted?
Shouldn't Nicene Christians be happy that people believe in God?
Why kill people because they don't believe Jesus is God?
The devil is in the detail, it seems.
Why were all the early Christians who didn't believe that Jesus was God persecuted?
Shouldn't Nicene Christians be happy that people believe in God?
Why kill people because they don't believe Jesus is God?
The devil is in the detail, it seems.
Please stop attacking Christians across the open boards of these interfaith forums, and turning people away who wish to engage in sensible interfaith debate.
I'm not attacking anybody. You seem to not want to discuss the subject .. it's up to you of course.
I'm certainly not turning people away. Thomas and I were just having a conversation, and on this
occasion, you decided to persecute me.
I have not sworn, or made personal remarks .. and am quite ameniable
No, I mean you disregard the scholarship and the evidence.
Not 'as a Muslim', no.
I know that, but that doesn't make your opinions right.
The only person has a problem with what others believe around here is you.
It's not Christians killing other Christians in 2021.
Not again, on yet another thread
Always the victim card
Knock it off Muhammad
No .. that is not true. I have produced scores and scores of posts quoting wiki.
You make me out to be some sort of ignoramus.
Quite right. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
Jesus is God, or Jesus is not God .. you tell me.
I DO know, that over this very issue, there has been a considerable amount of violence over the ages.
Perhaps you can tell me what is the problem here..
Do we not all worship God?
Some Christians and Atheists on another forum tell me that Christians believe in a "different God" to Muslims.
As you say, it is only my opinion, but I strongly disagree
You in a bad mood or something?
I expect you are glad that @SufiPhilosophy is absent atm.
It wouldn't do for him to get involved again.
He'd probably tell me not to waste my time with you all
If that's what you want, just say so. I'd rather go now than be banned. Easy!
Perhaps you'd like me to dredge up some old threads like him, showing how
Islam has been "attacked". I don't care. It is you that want to talk about your own "stuff"
and pretend everything is hunky-dory.
Same reason that early Christians who did believe that Jesus was God were persecuted.
Are we not?
Christians here, in my experience, are happy enough to let history lie. It's not Christians persecuting Christians here. Nor is anyone questioning the foundations of Islam, the development of Moslem doctrine, or the violent disputes within and around Islam, with the constancy that you question the origins of Christianity.
Your need to keep bringing up a 1700-year-old 'done and dusted' dispute is somewhat perplexing.
You want us to read history the same way you do ... I'm sorry, I find it blinkered, I can't oblige you.
Of course it's done and dusted.
You are "King moderator" and I resigned.
I know you won't retract your original statement that Arians believed in the trinity and that Jesus is God.
You may sweep me under the carpet if it makes you feel good.
..not perplexing at all. You simply want to believe what you believe DESPITE evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
Best ...
Here is Isaac Newton's list of why he was an Arian. [ non-trinitarian ]
- The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
- The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
- Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
- When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
- The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
- The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
- The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
- There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
- It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
- It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
- The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
- The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.
Why do I like to talk about my spiritual beliefs?
Because i like learning things!
Because i like learning things!
Yeah ... but wiki is at least third-hand, and it's 'short-hand' can be misapplied. Best to go to the sources that wiki works from if one can.
I don't think that, but you tend to generalise the information, and many of your assertions are based on what seems common sense or logical to you ... balance that against your admissions that you don't really know the philosophies that inform Arius, Origen, Athanasius and the like, nor are you aware of the development of doctrine much before the fourth century ... it's not that you're an ignoramus, it's just that there's gaps in your knowledge.
Well you're the one making the fuss!
Arianism? Really? Honestly, I think you exaggerate.
So: can God have a Son, or not? Never mind what Newton believed.
They say: 'The All-merciful has taken unto himself a son.' You have indeed advanced something hideous! The heavens are well nigh rent of it and the earth split asunder, and the mountains well nigh fall down crashing for that they have attributed to the All-merciful a son; and it behoves not the All-merciful to take a son