Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Burden of Proof Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 29 Next >>
Author Message
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 7:20am
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi

Originally posted by Ron Webb

 
It's simple: Jesus became a man in order to teach us how we should behave as men (and women).  God Himself (i.e., God the Father) behaves quite differently.
 
He was definitely not perfect. He was not a husband, a father or a grandfather nor a warrior.
 
He did not show any example of just a few of the characters that Muhammad showed during his lifetime.
 
Nur Ilahi,
 
In saying Jesus was not perfect, you have just made another unfounded assertions. In claiming that Mohammed is the benchmark Jesus should be judged by, you are not only being offensive you are ignoring the miracles of Jesus as proof that He is from God. What proof is there that Mohammed was from God?
 
Apollos


Edited by Apollos - 16 March 2009 at 12:47pm
IP IP Logged
Servetus
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2109
Quote Servetus Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 9:29am

Ron,

 

I wrote:  “A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus’ concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of “overcoming evil with good,” of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.”

You wrote:  “You're assuming that the "eye for an eye" thing cannot be considered good.  I happen to agree that it isn't good, but I'm not sure that Jesus would.  He didn't come to abolish the law, after all, so he must have considered it to be good.”

Actually, for purposes of this discussion, I am not assuming anything.  I accept both propositions as equal.  In the new, narrower synthesis I am seeking, I want neither the thesis (Moses) nor the antithesis (Jesus) to be negated or subsumed.  If possible, I want them to be reconciled.  As it reads, to my ear, in the Bible we have a thesis and an antithesis but no apparent synthesis.  At least, in my many years of Bible reading, I’ve never been able to find one.  At this point, that and only that is what I seek.

 

Shasta’sAunt,

 

Thanks for the input.  It is always welcome.

 

You wrote:  It really doesn't matter how many theories are produced regarding synthesis of the two quite different approaches taken between Moses and Jesus ..”

 

I am actually aiming at something in particular by responding to Apollos and by raising this apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus as a single case in point.  The reason I am asking primarily Christians to offer, or produce, a synthesis is to provoke thought and logical inquiry.  I hope, after a time, to provide something in the nature of a “proof,” which might, just might, appeal to both Christians and Muslims alike.  Before I proceed, I want to ensure that I have allowed sufficient time for those who would to write a synthesis and to consider the matter.

 

Serv



Edited by Servetus - 16 March 2009 at 10:16am
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 1:06pm
Originally posted by Servetus

Ron,

 

I wrote:  “A problem I see in practice, however, is that if one were to follow your synthesis to its logical end, the Mosaic law (thesis) of exact and equal retribution would be in any case enacted, whether the victim himself or the police sought justice, and the perpetrator of the crime would be finally minus an eye or tooth.  And thus, it seems, would be negated Jesus’ concept (antithesis), expressed elsewhere and throughout the New Testament, of “overcoming evil with good,” of giving a cloak in addition to a coat, and of pacifism in the face of aggression.”

You wrote:  “You're assuming that the "eye for an eye" thing cannot be considered good.  I happen to agree that it isn't good, but I'm not sure that Jesus would.  He didn't come to abolish the law, after all, so he must have considered it to be good.”

Actually, for purposes of this discussion, I am not assuming anything.  I accept both propositions as equal.  In the new, narrower synthesis I am seeking, I want neither the thesis (Moses) nor the antithesis (Jesus) to be negated or subsumed.  If possible, I want them to be reconciled.  As it reads, to my ear, in the Bible we have a thesis and an antithesis but no apparent synthesis.  At least, in my many years of Bible reading, I’ve never been able to find one.  At this point, that and only that is what I seek.

 

Shasta’sAunt,

 

Thanks for the input.  It is always welcome.

 

You wrote:  It really doesn't matter how many theories are produced regarding synthesis of the two quite different approaches taken between Moses and Jesus ..”

 

I am actually aiming at something in particular by responding to Apollos and by raising this apparent conflict between Moses and Jesus as a single case in point.  The reason I am asking primarily Christians to offer, or produce, a synthesis is to provoke thought and logical inquiry.  I hope, after a time, to provide something in the nature of a “proof,” which might, just might, appeal to both Christians and Muslims alike.  Before I proceed, I want to ensure that I have allowed sufficient time for those who would to write a synthesis and to consider the matter.

 

Serv

Servetus,

 

I think I provided a “synthesis” of these statements before you raised the question – or I do not understand what you mean. I will summarize my explanation again and please tell me if it addresses your post.

 

In the passage at hand Jesus refers to numerous written a verbal commandments the people knew of and then contrasted them with His admonitions/commandments. It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it. So we don’t find Him saying we can kill people now, or that we can commit adultery now, etc. He says we can’t even have the thoughts that lead to such things.

 

So when we come to the statement about “ an eye for an eye …”, we should expect Jesus to do just what He had with the preceding statements – amplify the old command not reverse it. Looking at the intent of the old commandment we can see this is what He did; He did not reverse it but amplified it.

 

I note that someone else wrote that Jesus’ credentials allow Him to reverse the old commandment if He had wanted to. I don’t think this is what He did but they are right that He could have if He wanted to. What do you have a problem with in this?

 

Apollos

IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 1:27pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

Perhaps it might be a better exercise to put forth a synthesis which resolves the conflict of Jesus/God the Prince of Peace and champion of love and anti-violence who turned the other cheek and judged no man, and the God of Abraham, Moses, and Noah who destroyed an entire generation in a flood and will in the future bring forth the Apocalypse and annhilation of mankind, then judge most harshly with no respite those who have apparently not believed in Jesus.
 
It's simple: Jesus became a man in order to teach us how we should behave as men (and women).  God Himself (i.e., God the Father) behaves quite differently.
 
I suppose that would be simple if you do not believe Jesus is God, Himself.
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 1:30pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Apollos

I have tried to address a specific topic in this post. I realize some tangents will arise but it seems that every post ends up with people wanting to attack the Bible being God’s Word. I and other Christians are trying not to show our frustration and offense in having the Scripture we believe in being condemned this way – but it is hard to do so when people deliberately change the topic back to this again and again. If Muslims do not accept the burden of proof in showing that Islam is true, please just say so and we will move on to another topic. If there is an answer from Muslims on the burden of proof, please present it.

I don't understand, Apollos.  It seems to me that anyone making magical claims ought to be prepared to prove them.  Why do you feel that Muslims have a burden of proof, but not Christians?

 
Ahhhhh Ron Webb, are you using logic on Apollos?
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
believer
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 08 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1397
Quote believer Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 1:57pm
First off the proof is with the Quran because the Quran confirms the Gospel.  We know without a doubt that Jesus is a faithful Jew by His deeds and words throughout the Gospel. 
 
Mohammad was originally a pagan and he adopts stories from the Bible with slight changes.  LOL!!  Of course the burden of proof is with him.
 
the different times and stages of the development of man between Moses and Jesus require different measures from GOD.
 
The Law of Moses is about this world and being right with GOD.  Jesus is about our after life and being right with GOD. 
 
One of the many problems with the Quran is that the Muslim becomes the judge as to who is a follower and submitter to God.  When GOD ordered the killing of a people it was one specific group for a specific time.  The following is a standing order and what is with the tax?
 
2:29
Fight/kill those who do not believe with God and nor the Day the Last/Resurrection Day, and do not forbid/prohibit what God and His messenger forbid/prohibited, and do not take/adopt a religion the correct/right religion from those who were given/brought The Book, until they give/hand over the fee paid by non-Moslems living in a Moslem society from a hand, and they are subservient/humiliated.
 
Is this a freudian slip?  Do not take the correct religion from those who were given the Book?
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 16 March 2009 at 3:18pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Apollos

I have tried to address a specific topic in this post. I realize some tangents will arise but it seems that every post ends up with people wanting to attack the Bible being God’s Word. I and other Christians are trying not to show our frustration and offense in having the Scripture we believe in being condemned this way – but it is hard to do so when people deliberately change the topic back to this again and again. If Muslims do not accept the burden of proof in showing that Islam is true, please just say so and we will move on to another topic. If there is an answer from Muslims on the burden of proof, please present it.

I don't understand, Apollos.  It seems to me that anyone making magical claims ought to be prepared to prove them.  Why do you feel that Muslims have a burden of proof, but not Christians?

Ron,
 
I think I was clear in opening post. The "magical" claim Christians make is that Jesus fulfilled prophecy and rose from the dead and this provides Him with credentials above any other person. There is historical evidence supporting this claim and none supporting an alternate theory. Refute the resurrection and I will concede that no one has met the burden of proof I am addressing here.
 
You apparently discount the resurrection of Jesus. If so, can you explain why - on a scientific, logical, philosophical or historical basis?
 
Apollos
 
IP IP Logged
Servetus
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2109
Quote Servetus Replybullet Posted: 17 March 2009 at 10:07am

Apollos,

 

You wrote:  “I think I provided a “synthesis” of these statements before you raised the question – or I do not understand what you mean.”

 

I think it is the latter.

 

You wrote:  “In the passage at hand Jesus refers to numerous written a verbal commandments the people knew of and then contrasted them with His admonitions/commandments.”

 

Agreed.

 

You wrote:  “It is clear to anyone reading these that He was either identifying the underlying principal of the previous commandment or He was creating a new commandment that took the old one to a new level. Either way, He was not reversing a commandment but amplifying it.”

 

Here, then, is a difference, and not one only of semantics.  I don’t think that negating the thesis amplifies it.   I think that negating the thesis creates the antithesis.  As I read it, Moses stated the thesis and Jesus stated the antithesis (see above).            

 

You wrote:  “So we don’t find Him saying we can kill people now, or that we can commit adultery now, etc. He says we can’t even have the thoughts that lead to such things.”

 

For purposes of brevity, I think it best if we continue to focus upon the single “eye for an eye” example.  But, to revisit your statement, we do, in fact, find Him reportedly and at least parenthetically (Mark 7:19) saying that we can not only think, for example, about pork chops, but that we can also grill and chomp a few of them if we so desire.

 

You wrote:  “So when we come to the statement about “ an eye for an eye …”, we should expect Jesus to do just what He had with the preceding statements – amplify the old command not reverse it.”

 

Again, I don’t see, or read, what he said as an amplification; I read it as a negation.

 

You wrote:  “Looking at the intent of the old commandment we can see this is what He did; He did not reverse it but amplified it.”

 

Sorry, who’s the “we” Smile?  I cannot so clearly see this and never, for that matter, have I been able to see it in my years of being nourished in the Christian tradition.

 

Please allow me to put it in practical, logical rather than theological, but still hypothetical terms.  Forget all else and accept, for now, that there are two primary laws, or statements of law, on the books, one by Moses and the other by Jesus:

(Moses)“If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”

(Jesus)“You have heard that it was said [by Moses], ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.  If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

I am the aggrieved party (plaintiff) standing before you, the sole judge, jury and, if necessary, executioner.  The defendant has, hours before, in a fit of fury and for no legitimate reason, punched me in the face and knocked out one of my teeth.  How do you judge the case and dispense justice according to both Moses and Jesus (using these and related verses) and what, in the end, becomes of the defendant?  What, if any, punishment is meted to the perpetrator of the crime?  Answering that might provide a workable synthesis.

 

Thank you.

 

Serv



Edited by Servetus - 17 March 2009 at 10:51am
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 29 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com