Truth Obscured

[bbyrd009]

Not only do we seek truth, but truth is actively obscured to us.

(I think the natural human reaction, the way it plays out
in real time is to gripe or accuse, or do more obscuring to obscure
the fact that we obscured)

So how do you, as a body, unobscure
what is obviously being actively obscured from you
(the truth about hair; is there any out there?
my tongue's in my throat
is it really that moat?
This demon-seed thing
was it really a fling?
Your splintering eye
or call you out in a crowd?
It's really too loud, so
etcetc.

Oh ya! and this...Moslem thing, really;
nothing rhymes with Muslim.

[Dordrecht]

Uh?

[AreYouReady?]

Not only do we seek truth, but truth is actively obscured to us.

(I think the natural human reaction, the way it plays out
in real time is to gripe or accuse, or do more obscuring to obscure
the fact that we obscured)

So how do you, as a body, unobscure
what is obviously being actively obscured from you
(the truth about hair; is there any out there?
my tongue's in my throat
is it really that moat?
This demon-seed thing
was it really a fling?
Your splintering eye
or call you out in a crowd?
It's really too loud, so
etcetc.

Oh ya! and this...Moslem thing, really;
nothing rhymes with Muslim.


Strangely...I think I understand what you are trying to say.
To answer you though, would take too much time and no one cares anyway.

[bbyrd009]

Strangely...I think I understand what you are trying to say.
To answer you though, would take too much time and no one cares anyway.

HA! You would provide my proof, then?
So do I first need to prove that strangely
is the only way to understand?

I had thought "Let us pause in our seeking
to illuminate that which obscures our seeking"
might be more readily accepted.

[bbyrd009]

Uh?

An equally polite accusal; we have a chance.
What hides the truth in plain sight?

[KeptByTheWord]

Facing truth and doing something about it, is much harder than ignoring truth and going on with your life as usual. Ignorance is bliss, as they say....

[Timmy]

Obscured to you, maybe. :heeheehee

[bbyrd009]

Please note I got
"more obscuring, griping, and accusing,"
all in just one night!

[bbyrd009]

Facing truth and doing something about it, is much harder than ignoring truth and going on with your life as usual. Ignorance is bliss, as they say....

Ah, but I am suggesting that we momentarily leave off facing truth,
that is obscured to us as a body, anyway,
and face the obscuring.

More obscuring! Or wait, maybe that's griping...but ok,
"Facing obscuring and doing something about it
is much easier than ignoring obscuring while trying to face truth"
might be our 1st postulate.

[bbyrd009]

Obscured to you, maybe. :heeheehee

An excellent accusation. Our 1st postulate. Agreed.
"We proceed from 'I am not obscured, but if you
disagree with me, you are obscured.'"
(I discount "no one cares" as the first because, imo,
humans are not qualified to use words like
"no one, everyone, always, never...")

[bbyrd009]

Ok, we have a Doubter, AYR can be
the Christian...

So we'll wait on a Witness;
a Muslim or an Atheist (Timmy doesn't count,
he's a Heretic)(and not to compare the two; I mean someone
open minded, or different minded)

Unless I'm mistaken, WII will get sucked in;
I'll actually be playing the Atheist
(unless we can suck the Dew in here)
from the position of "Physics..." of course.

I take it as a given that we'll have plenty of
Apostolics, to watch from the sidelines
and point out any perceived errors...

Who else is needed for a quorum here, hmm...

[Timmy]

Ok, we have a Doubter, AYR can be
the Christian...

So we'll wait on a Witness;
a Muslim or an Atheist (Timmy doesn't count,
he's a Heretic)(and not to compare the two; I mean someone
open minded, or different minded)

Unless I'm mistaken, WII will get sucked in;
I'll actually be playing the Atheist
(unless we can suck the Dew in here)
from the position of "Physics..." of course.

I take it as a given that we'll have plenty of
Apostolics, to watch from the sidelines
and point out any perceived errors...

Who else is needed for a quorum here, hmm...

A role-playing game? Cool! Am I the "doubter"? Can I bet the "Christian", instead? ;)

[bbyrd009]

A role-playing game? Cool! Am I the "doubter"? Can I bet the "Christian", instead? ;)

Hmm, I prefer "thought experiment..."
You are the Heretic, Dordt is the Doubter
(see post 2)
and you are already betting the Christian : )

[Timmy]

Hmm, I prefer "thought experiment..."
You are the Heretic, Dordt is the Doubter
(see post 2)
and you are already betting the Christian : )

Why do I always hafta be the heretic? :ranting

[Timmy]

("Bet" the Christian! LOL!)

[Dordrecht]

i doubt a lot of things around here anyways.
One thing I don't doubt is what Christ has done on the Cross.
Now.....you want me to act like I doubt that?
I doubt I can do that.

[bbyrd009]

Why do I always hafta be the heretic? :rantingFor the reason you just supplied, lol; self-evident : )

[bbyrd009]

i doubt a lot of things around here anyways.
One thing I don't doubt is what Christ has done on the Cross.
Now.....you want me to act like I doubt that?
I doubt I can do that.

That is not in doubt, and won't be an issue here.
Of coure, these are just roles, and should
not be assumed to be a descriptive.

[Dordrecht]

You want me to deny Christ just for a play?
I'm not sure the Holy Spirit agrees with that?

[scotty]

I wanna play, who can I be ?

[Dordrecht]

You be the deny person and I report you to the other forum! (Maw Maw)

[scotty]

You be the deny person and I report you to the other forum! (Maw Maw)

:heeheehee

[bbyrd009]

You want me to deny Christ just for a play?
I'm not sure the Holy Spirit agrees with that?

Um, I am not interested in playing; and there will not be any denying of Christ here; we seek Christ, and so this is an exercise in seeking in the opposite direction.

[bbyrd009]

I wanna play, who can I be ?

Again, no playing here, but when the proper mental mode is re-established--see post 1; as complete a disconnect from your norm thought process as possible will be sought--it should be quite amusing at times; you might be the Witness? (lol, or maybe the Ninja...)

[bbyrd009]

You be the deny person and I report you to the other forum! (Maw Maw)

Yes, I will play the Atheist, and attempt simultaneously the Null.
Funny you should mention another forum; I had forgotten that one, but we will be connecting to another recent thread started on another forum, eventually (I don't think you guys are ready yet, to consider the imaginary rest mass of tachyons? Ha, no that's at least a couple days away)--but we have plenty of beardless long-hairs in jeans here already, imo.

[Dordrecht]

you are backing out of it now?

[bbyrd009]

you are backing out of it now?

?
"Yes, I will play the Atheist, and attempt simultaneously the Null.
Funny you should mention another forum; I had forgotten that one, but we will be connecting..."

[bbyrd009]

Just getting the quorum, maybe we'll start in the am or so?
Or maybe not--it might take a day or so to instill the proper lack of attempted understanding; I'm seeing that same major mental jerking around is going to be req'd first, prolly.

[Dordrecht]

ok

[bbyrd009]

ok

Oh, my bad--Yes, I am playing, and no, I am not playing.

[bbyrd009]

But you highlight a basic dilemma; we'll get back to that.

[Timmy]

:blink

[bbyrd009]

Awesome--you're already in the correct mode
to examine obscurity!

Or, are you playing?

[Timmy]

Awesome--you're already in the correct mode
to examine obscurity!

Or, are you playing?

:toofunny

[scotty]

ok, no playing


I would like to participate with an open mind and closed wit.

[bbyrd009]

ok, no playing


I would like to participate with an open mind and closed wit.
Ok, well I got off the VPN, and then realized I forgot my pc
So now im on some i-thingy that won't work forme, either
(ah, truffles $40 for 3 oz, my bad)
Anyway, I have a good suggestion to talk amongst yourselves
That might help get you in the correct mode-
(physicists have now verified Timmys postulate
And are now confirming things even THEY cant
Believe-we will end up at, hopefully, a fuller grasp
Of "no one knows," (but of course, the Shadow knows)--

I suggest that, truth being obscured, I will now, for the moment at least,
Read exactly the opposite of whatever one posts--
"I know that is white" becomes
"I don't know that is black" etc--
And so posts should be framed thusly.

And a quick overview of Bell's theorem tonight
Might come in handy, tho surely thats a day or so away.

"i know i can return to post some...nonsense, ya, by tonite."

Wow, brutal..

Might come in handy

[bbyrd009]

Ok, since that will be lost, consider this-
The very elect will be deceived (if that were possible)
Because they "know" something that they actually don't know-
We are going to first "un-know" as much as possible of what we know.
I would like to participate with an open mind and closed wit.[/QUOTE]

Hmm; I hope that it will shortly become apparent that "open mind"
Is a functional oxymoron; for me included, and we might be better
Served to reverse those. There are exercises, even online, for this,
Maybe T can guide, as I can't post anymore like this!

[bbyrd009]

ha chicken; as the Heretic, this should be right up your alley--
but since I can't think of a way, other than Tao, which would take a month,
and this started as religion, let's flip to non-religion for a sec, repped by physics here,
and just jump in to what Bell's theorem proved, that Einstein (et al) proved like 80 years ago, but could not accept--although after the clock thing I'm not really sure why.

We know that synchronized atomic clocks, one here on earth and one in the space shuttle, are out-of-synch when the shuttle returns by several seconds due to the relatively large diff in speeds incurred by the shuttle in flight; and by extension if the shuttle accelerated to lightspeed, its clock would stop, although it would still be keeping perfect, atomic time, from its pov. If you don't buy this, see below.

Bell's T is just stats, anyway, and are useless without explanation, and even then is hard to absorb. The functional part of it here, for us, is that it proves the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) "thought experiment," which will follow,

But since this will get mildly deep quick, we may as well establish that physics is real first. Don't worry, we'll get to all this obscurity, satanic or otherwise, eventually. Now physics might be expressed as carrying the atheist torch, at least in a sense; Einstein was not atheist, and when you think physics, you think Einstein (as he is a type), but physics is the study of the material plane, which to an atheist is all there is. Or at least, that's all they keep trying to study...

Now if you just don't accept that the clock on the shuttle loses several seconds,
even after 80+ years of verification, that it's all a hoax, I'll need to refer you to the Young Double Slit experiment--which you may remember from middle school, the very worst time to introduce a subject like this, when you have just discovered the opposite sex, and are incapable of really learning anything--which you can do on your kitchen table with a flashlight, a piece of cardboard, and a piece of paper, and when you discover that you can't answer

"assuming that a single photon goes through one of the two slits, how does it know whether or not the other slit is open?"

then you can come back; meanwhile refer to
the position of the Catholic church v. Copernicus, Galileo, et al
which phrase I now have as an Fkey. (the "answer" is "Somehow it does." An interference pattern always forms when we open both slits, and never forms when we open one slit.)

vvvEPRvvv

[AreYouReady?]

Ahh...byrd...it's no one cares what *I* have to say about it.

Not that no one cares what *you* have to say about it.

[AreYouReady?]

How can I participate in this exercise when I don't even understand what it is about? I thought I did at first...but felt like I got a lecture from byrd over my answer. :D

So... :didimiss

[bbyrd009]

Suppose we have what physicists call a two-particle system of zero spin. This means there spins cancel each other; they are phase-locked, or spin-locked--if one is spinning up, the other is spinning down, if the up one has some left spin, the down one will have an equal amt of right spin. No matter how the particlesa are oriented, their spins are always equal and opposite.

Now suppose yuo separate the two particles in some way that does not affect their spin, like electrically. ( I can build and sell you a phase-locked particle separator for...$9.95, no, $19.95, still a huge barg, just holla : ) One particle goes off in one direction, and the other one goes off in the other; at 9X% the speed of light.

Incidentally, you are never, ever, ever, going to get to see a blown-up image of an atom; no matter how strong microscopes get. Every atom that makes up the chair you are sitting on does not exist, in the way you would normally define "exist." There is no dot to see, and as soon as you start looking for one, you turn into a physicist, doing satan's work, sort of, which ends up being chasing God, the very thing he's trying so hard to get away from, which inspiration was the reason for post 1 here. But is certainly not orig to me. Physicists have seen that there is no dot to see.

Anyway, so these two spin locked sub-atomic particles (let's say they're electrons) are now .ox light years apart; we have one trapped in a bubble, and the other one is well past the sun now--I was just wasting time to give it a head-start.

Ok, we can orient the spin of electrons (electron-spin orientation device, $9.95 when you buy the phase-locked particle separator...) with a Stern-Gerlach device, which is not what I will sell you, as it splits beams of electrons either up or down, or left or right, depending on how you have it oriented, and all you really need to do is orient the spin of a single electron, but anyway, you prolly already see where this is going--

If we spin the electron that we have up, the other one, the one past Pluto by now, will be down; if we spin ours left, that one will be spinning right. Etc.
Oh, and when that particle is a zillion light-years away, and we spin ours up, that one will be spinning down...simultaneously, in other words, immediately, no matter where it is. Ya, Einstein didn't buy it either, but there it is. Einstein's theories led him to the inescapable conclusion that this was true, Dr. Bell proved it, and a bunch of them still aren't buying it--but, since we are on our own thought experiment, we are going to assume that it is prolly true if only for the purpose of illuminating how we think, as Bell's T proved something else, below.

You possibly gather intuitively a reflection of God, here, but maybe not. In all my interviews of physicists, I have yet to have one admit that this might even possibly be why a bunch of them still aren't buying it, even the ones that admitted to some belief in a Supreme Being in the carefully selected qualifying questions I would have asked them,
had I actually bothered to interview any.

But the point is, they've seen it and some don't believe it, these guys that know that they know that clocks at light speed stop, at least from the earth-bound pov, even though they are running perfectly. This thing, the phased pair electron thing, is what Bell's Theorem (hereafter BT) proved, using the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics, which are always correct, at least from our pov. But another reality was revealed in Bell's theory, which has been reformulated, repromulgated, etc, to death...vvvmorevvv

[bbyrd009]

How can I participate in this exercise when I don't even understand what it is about? I thought I did at first...but felt like I got a lecture from byrd over my answer. :D

So... :didimiss

I'll have to go look...

[AreYouReady?]

Time stoppers at the speed of light?

[AreYouReady?]

I'll have to go look...

Ha! You just proved to me that you are getting old and forgetful too. :D

[bbyrd009]

Strangely...I think I understand what you are trying to say.
To answer you though, would take too much time and no one cares anyway.

ah, you provided a great verification! Of exactly what I am not sure, but we are going to see you are exactly right (from your pov) and that I effectively have relatively no idea of what I'm talking about anyway (from your pov), and what you missed so far is only that you, and I, are missing almost everything that applies to our physical world; we've just covered the micro-verse, up there, but Bell's theorem extends to our world, very directly, in a way we will cover next.

We hope to lose our pov, at least a little, sans Tao, as Christians are so panty-bunched there.

[bbyrd009]

Time stoppers at the speed of light?

Um, ya, it def stoppers, from your pov, and the only reason we can verify this is because we can send a clock up on the shuttle, and it returns with a record, stated in "current time." It also gets shorter and shorter along its axis of momentum, the closer it gets to c (the speed of light), until it disappears, from your pov, but we can't see a record of that, it is just true. Anything going by you at the speed of light that is not massless--which btw, is impossible, at least for us--is invisible to you.

It should come as no surprise that you are surrounded by invisible stuff; you can't see air (until you fog it, or something)--but you are also surrounded by things with "no mass," going at the speed of light, that you can't see, along with the things that you can see (at c), namely photons.

Now, physicists natch have a def of "things with no mass" that differs from someone who believes in Spirit, which I'll leave you to sleep on.

You've made me reveal where we are going here, kinda, so prolly that is your role here. It quite helped, as I honestly had no idea. May have saved us a day. From our pov.

Wanna buy an electron re-configurator? Cheap, good price for you.
Instantaneous universal communications, think about it, you could be the first...

[bbyrd009]

Ha! You just proved to me that you are getting old and forgetful too. :D

Ha, that, and that was 18 hours ago, and if I described my day, you
would turn into a physicist, prolly.

Ok, BT uncovered something else...
vvvv

[bbyrd009]

please see edits at #46, and we'll get to that other thing in the am, ty.

[AreYouReady?]

Um, ya, it def stoppers, from your pov, and the only reason we can verify this is because we can send a clock up on the shuttle, and it returns with a record, stated in "current time." It also gets shorter and shorter along its axis of momentum, the closer it gets to c (the speed of light), until it disappears, from your pov, but we can't see a record of that, it is just true. Anything going by you at the speed of light that is not massless--which btw, is impossible, at least for us--is invisible to you.

It should come as no surprise that you are surrounded by invisible stuff; you can't see air (until you fog it, or something)--but you are also surrounded by things with "no mass," going at the speed of light, that you can't see, along with the things that you can see (at c), namely photons.

Now, physicists natch have a def of "things with no mass" that differs from someone who believes in Spirit, which I'll leave you to sleep on.

You've made me reveal where we are going here, kinda, so prolly that is your role here. It quite helped, as I honestly had no idea. May have saved us a day. From our pov.

Wanna buy an electron re-configurator? Cheap, good price for you.
Instantaneous universal communications, think about it, you could be the first...

So...consider when our body dies, we cannot see our spirit (no mass) but somehow (in our pov) who we were physically is gone, but we really still do exist although others cannot see us? Did our spirit leave at the speed of light? Is there time or did time stop? Would this be why with God, one day for Him is as a thousand years for us?

I think I will pass on that electron re-configurator for now. Not ready to do any experiments that I may not be able to return from. :heeheehee

[AreYouReady?]

Now, physicists natch have a def of "things with no mass" that differs from someone who believes in Spirit, which I'll leave you to sleep on.

You've made me reveal where we are going here, kinda, so prolly that is your role here. It quite helped, as I honestly had no idea. May have saved us a day. From our pov.


Well...glad to have helped...but I'm in the same boat as you...honestly have no idea how...:D

[bbyrd009]

So...consider when our body dies, we cannot see our spirit (no mass) but somehow (in our pov) who we were physically is gone, but we really still do exist although others cannot see us? Did our spirit leave at the speed of light? Is there time or did time stop? Would this be why with God, one day for Him is as a thousand years for us?
Hmm...the physicists won't tell me; they won't even let me ask! (but I did catch one going "Om..." when he thought I wasn't looking...)

I think I will pass on that electron re-configurator for now. Not ready to do any experiments that I may not be able to return from. :heeheehee

Ah, ya, experiments; we'll go with that. Good, actually, because I built five of them tod...never mind.

[AreYouReady?]

Hmm...the physicists won't tell me; they won't even let me ask! (but I did catch one going "Om..." when he thought I wasn't looking...)

Ha. They don't know...that's why they won't tell ya.

[bbyrd009]

Ha. They don't know...that's why they won't tell ya.

Ha, they know, just like you do; they just can't say that, and still be physicists with a job. We'll find a way to parallel this with your Pastor (apparently, hmm), who is also surely a great, accomplished guy, prolly, with similar conflicts of interest.

[bbyrd009]

And, all the physics stuff is regurgitated from
The Dancing Wu Li Masters, Zukav

[AreYouReady?]

Don't have a "pastor" in regards to the ordinary congregational church setting.

My spiritual head is my husband and we belong to the General Assembly of the Firstborn.

[bbyrd009]

Don't have a "pastor" in regards to the ordinary congregational church setting.

My spiritual head is my husband and we belong to the General Assembly of the Firstborn.

Ah, well, I woke back up to say that certainly not all Pastors have this conflict of interest, at least the unaffiliated ones. With an affiliated Pastor, it is undeniably, unavoidably built in, whether manifest or not; but this is no secret.

[bbyrd009]

Ah, well, I woke back up to say that certainly not all Pastors have this conflict of interest, at least the unaffiliated ones. With an affiliated Pastor, it is undeniably, unavoidably built in, whether manifest or not; but this is no secret.

Ok, dang, we'll get to the end of Bell's theorem here in a sec, but I guess this should be clarified, by request. Since it's clear to me, if you notice I did this part wrong, feel free:

It is really tough to become a Pastor; you have just graduated, you're in debt, prolly, you love God, and your offers are, say, $40k + parsonage in a 1500-2500 member church, with perks (the Affiliated church), or please we really need a Pastor, we have 250 members now, our church has gotten too big for us because the Spirit is moving here, + a nice single-wide trailer and we promise to feed you good (unaffiliated).

Now, I've never been a Pastor, and I just made all that up.
What would you do?
The one little catch is, you have to abide by
the "Affiliated" church's doctrine? A doctrine you currently agree
with anyway? For most guys, it's a no brainer. You can retire to that little
Spirit-filled church...

And then you get a revelation about something, say.
The only prob is, it's five years later, and your loans
are maybe only half paid off because, well, just because;
you got a wife, had daughters, bought cars, etc., and this
revelation of yours is clear as the day, man, you just know.
Only thing is, it goes against your Affiliated Doctrine.

Now, your choices are deny the Holy Spirit,
or leave that church. The answer would appear self-evident,
but that is just not really fair, when you read into that
vastly abbreviated story the relationships, yours and your fam's,
the habits you have all settled into, etc.

So you try to, sorry, guys, stay on a fence.
You don't want to be on a fence, prolly,
but there you are.

[Timmy]

Wow! Talk about deep waters! :lol

[bbyrd009]

Wow! Talk about deep waters! :lol

Well, I guess I was using uncommon terms or something?
And yikes, this seems like "shallow water" to me.
I guess I presented the situation close enough?
Except prolly you really owe triple that amount now, lol...
So we can move on?

[AreYouReady?]

Well, I guess I was using uncommon terms or something?
And yikes, this seems like "shallow water" to me.
I guess I presented the situation close enough?
Except prolly you really owe triple that amount now, lol...
So we can move on?

One comment before you do move on...a person can still drown in 2 inches of water. All that is required is for your nose to be submerged.

[scotty]

Yes, please move on. Not real sure where we are going but the further we go the better I am seeing where we have been.

[Timmy]

Well, I guess I was using uncommon terms or something?
And yikes, this seems like "shallow water" to me.
I guess I presented the situation close enough?
Except prolly you really owe triple that amount now, lol...
So we can move on?

If you're connecting physics with spirituality, that's deep. Just sayin'. ;)

[Timmy]

(Is this really an Islamic issue, btw?)

[bbyrd009]

Yes, please move on. Not real sure where we are going but the further we go the better I am seeing where we have been.

Oh, ya--good point. you shouldn't try to "understand" here as you go along,
what we are trying to look at is obscured. You have to look sideways, squint your mind as it were, and you only get little peeks before it disappears. You can only see in the rearview; a reflection of how you learn.

Oh, btw, the paired electron thing is true for photons also, except they call it "polarized." Paired photons (as common as dirt, btw, same with any other subatomic particles) will always have the same polarization, and when you split them and flip one, the other one will flip too, immediately, no matter where in the universe it is. Faster than speed of light communications could reach it.

So, if you see any formerly paired photons (your eye can detect a single photon) in your immediate vicinity that appear to spontaneously re-polarize during this thread, please mention it. (if you see one while on another thread, it's prolly just an ad, tho)

ok, the hidden sublimeness of Bell's statistical theory next.
it's statistics, so you know it's riveting already : )

[bbyrd009]

If you're connecting physics with spirituality, that's deep. Just sayin'. ;)

ha, it's funny, I never planned on that; wouldn't have occurred
to me--but then you start reading Einstein, who seemed to be strictly
avoiding doing that, yet his conclusions still all end up sounding more
metaphysical than physical...

and then you pick that up from the commentaries, really.
I've been...accused of this on other sites, lol-
-but I'm just parroting (although for like a year
or so I wondered if I was alone, lol)

[AreYouReady?]

Yes, please move on. Not real sure where we are going but the further we go the better I am seeing where we have been.

I'm still not sure where we have been. :lol :huh

[bbyrd009]

(Is this really an Islamic issue, btw?)

Actually no, much more a Christian issue, including @ Islam;
we'll get back to that.

(my first answer was, "So, you have not read the Qur'an yet,"
although I'm not sure why--the Qur'an is more focused
in this area,maybe?)

[Timmy]

Actually no, much more a Christian issue, encompassing Islam;
we'll get back to that.

(my first answer was, "So, you have not read the Qur'an yet,"
although I'm not sure why--the Qur'an is more focused
in this area,maybe?)

Just wondering why it's in "Islamic Issues and News".

[Timmy]

I'm still not sure where we have been. :lol :huh

We've been obscuring truth, apparently. :lol

[bbyrd009]

I'm still not sure where we have been. :lol :huh

we have been thinking of atoms as physical things
you could take a picture of,
and spinning electrons as irrelevant.

You have been knowing that both clocks kept the same time until
like yesterday, didn't you?

if you make me go find the link and it verifies it,
you will be barred from reporting any spontaneously
re-polarizing photons in your immediate vicinity
(and you know what that means...)

vvv Bell's whatever vvv in a minute (right)

[scotty]

man, 20 years ago I would have totally understood everything your saying.

[bbyrd009]

Just wondering why it's in "Islamic Issues and News".

Because the Christian truth of other religions, Islam
is obscured, for one-

-and I had just read another
"Radical Islamic axe-murderers are determined to buy
and eat your children" post before this post 1;

and I had just finished the daily game,
(blood enabled, of course)-I think it was
Zombie Islam Killer...Killers, I think,
and I won.

[Timmy]

Because the Christian truth of other religions, Islam
is obscured, for one-

-and I had just read another
"Radical Islamic axe-murderers are determined to buy
and eat your children" post before this post 1;

and I had just finished the daily game,
(blood enabled, of course)-I think it was
Zombie Islam Killer...Killers, I think,
and I won.

OK.

[bbyrd009]

man, 20 years ago I would have totally understood everything your saying.

Again, please disable attempted understanding; I'm serious.
Plus, I haven't hardly got started, and we already have a couple
nice postulates to proceed from,
you are now aware of the possibility of one of formerly paired
photons apparently spontaneously re-polarizing
in your immediate vacinity indicating
a temporal time shif...wait, never mind that part
(seen any, btw?)
at least, if not also that clocks
(that you prolly couldn't get up to
a measly million miles an hour if you tried)
disappear at c (which speed it is not possible for them to reach)

and, that apparently the macro-connection
(macro is the..."real" world, to..."us")
of Bell's theorem is obviously being
obscured from you (that second you down there)
at least for...another day, lol.

tomorrow you will understand everything I am saying again!
I'd say we are relatively flying
(but we can just...well, speed things up immensely
if you happen to see one of those photons...)

[scotty]

I'd say we are relatively flying


Exactly, 20 years ago I would have been stoned.

[bbyrd009]

OK.

OK? OK? Ok; tough crowd.

[Timmy]

OK? OK? Ok; tough crowd.

:lol

[bbyrd009]

Exactly, 20 years ago I would have been stoned.

You are picking up what I'm putting down then;
At my age, I know better than to actually suggest
you get stoned on a site like this (did I say that out loud?)
even though that often seems to bring you closer to God.
But in this case, I'm not sure that the same advantage would
obtain, as the material is pretty self-stoning anyway--
we're talking about something Einstein proved,
after the clock thing was verified,
that even he sceptified...so

as no other Wu Li Masters have materialized
(silly me, I expected a cloud by now)

Bell's theorem is a mathematical proof...well dang

[bbyrd009]

...What it "proves" is that if the statistical predictions of quantum theory (QT) are correct, then some of our commonsense ideas about the world are profoundly mistaken.

Bell's theorem does not demonstrate clearly in what way our commonsense ideas about the world are inadequate. There are several possibilities. Each possibility has champions among the small number of physicists who are familiar with BT<1979><wow, this book is 33 years old>.
No matter which of the implications of BT we favor, however, the first sentence up there holds.

This is quite a conclusion because the statistical predictions of QT are always correct. <in physic-speak; I'd like to rephrase that for a believer--"predictions of the future that are always correct"> Quantum mechanics is the theory. <let's ignore for the moment the possibility that that may be what qualifies it as what might deceive even the very elect, if that were possible, because I doubt it, and because it just occurred to me. We'll get back to that :toofunny>

It has explained everything from subatomic particles to transistors to stellar energy. It has never failed. It has no competition. <I'd like to rephrase that for a believer...lol, I'm quoting><ok, so now I'm convinced that this will lead to that which would deceive even the very elect; hmm. but discernment and premises will simultaneously (and more convincingly, in the end) only reveal God more clearly, as they are deceived; ya, ya. And this guy is coming from discernment>
<continued>

[bbyrd009]

<...or at least when he veers, we'll see; at any rate, trust that we don't really care about physics here, per se>

...Quantum Physicists realized in the 1920's that our comonsense ideas were inadequate for describing subatomic phenomena. Bt shows that commonsense ideas are inadequate even to describe macroscopic events, events of the everyday world!

<unfortunately, in such a trippindicular way that I am going to have to dictate about three more pages, apparently 1-3 sentences at a time, lol, and then start working on our point><unless..? no> cont'd

[bbyrd009]

<Now, the original version of Bt used spin 1/2 particles, and what he discovered was that no matter what the settings of the polarizers (that verified the polarization of the 1/2 particles, later verified with photons), the verifying clicks in area A corresponded too strongly to the clicks in area B, statistically, to be explained by chance, thus dismantling Einstein's theory of local causes, which was his postulate for discrediting...all the freaky spin-locking and polarization-slaving we have been slogging through...in other words, Bell verified that Einstein was right, and was wrong to think he wasn't right the first time.> cont'd

[bbyrd009]

<Now, try to see that much impact is lost here; you are getting a story of a story of a story; but...

The correlations which Bell used were calculated but untested statistical predictions in
'64, and weren't confirmed until '72, despite the fact that thousands--or at least ten or twenty--physicists stood (or sat, if they were fat, I guess) around writing statistical mathematical evaluations, you know the kind, math with no numbers, on chalkboards and furiously discussing the merits of spin 1/2 particles in terms that...well, you get the point; their terms would have had you wondering, and then convinced of their deficiency of sanity, surely. Remember, this was the 60's, essentially before tv.> cont'd

[bbyrd009]

<bear in mind that we haven't even caught up to Einstein yet, much less the verifications that Bt provided; I'm relatively certain that when the End Of the World as You Know It comes, which may be in a hundred thousand years, a hundred years, or tomorrow, you will hear his name that day--Einstein's, not Bell's, he's just some statistical wonk credited with "the most profound discovery of science" by H Stapp, who apparently should know; heard of either one of them? 33 years later? Point made--> cont'd

[bbyrd009]

Ok, I think I can tie up Bell by tomorrow, but another postulate to sleep on,
this one provided on another thread, by RevDWW:

"If anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth, then I would prefer to remain with Christ than with the truth." Dostoevsky

What is Dostoevsky saying here?

[bbyrd009]

Exactly, 20 years ago I would have been stoned.

I meant, Brilliant! that is exactly the type
of seemingly pointless random observation
we need to cultivate, here,
which leads to our first postulate:

Inspiration is often unobscured when our minds
are in an alternate state, and we are not
thinking "normally."

A virtual breakthrough, one which also seems to verify
you as the Witness, if you read your post with that in mind.
(you are the Witness, right?)

[scotty]

I meant, Brilliant! that is exactly the type
of seemingly pointless random observation
we need to cultivate, here,
which leads to our first postulate:

Inspiration is often unobscured when our minds
are in an alternate state, and we are not
thinking "normally."

A virtual breakthrough, one which also seems to verify
you as the Witness, if you read your post with that in mind.
(you are the Witness, right?)

I accept that altered phsycological position. As long as I don't have to get stoned again,though due to damage already done,some areas of my mentality remain in an altered state.

[bbyrd009]

I accept that altered phsycological position. As long as I don't have to get stoned again,though due to damage already done,some areas of my mentality remain in an altered state.

Ah, I am reflecting that; one session of Foghat turned up to max with home speakers placed two feet apart and my head in between has caused some lasting effects...seemed like a good idea at the time.

And no; while stoning is a way to altered mind, it is a cheating way; there are better ways. Think what 40 days of fasting would do...

[bbyrd009]

Ok, and I figured out this guy's def of "Hitler is perfect"
(ha, hurts to even say it, huh?) he does not mean
as in "be ye perfect," that perfect we seek to attain
by following Christ--he means "perfectly manifested,"
which might also seem errant at first, but true.

A thorn bush is just a perfect manifestation of
...well, words get funny here, becuase it is really just a perfect manifestation,
but we'll say a perfect manifestation of the conditions that obtain,
from the pov of thorn bush.

[Timmy]

<...or at least when he veers, we'll see; at any rate, trust that we don't really care about physics here, per se>

...Quantum Physicists realized in the 1920's that our comonsense ideas were inadequate for describing subatomic phenomena. Bt shows that commonsense ideas are inadequate even to describe macroscopic events, events of the everyday world!

<unfortunately, in such a trippindicular way that I am going to have to dictate about three more pages, apparently 1-3 sentences at a time, lol, and then start working on our point><unless..? no> cont'd

OK.

:heeheehee

[bbyrd009]

OK.

:heeheehee

Ah, the Heretic speaks.
Actually, we're just about at the point
where "really, I do not know, hmm"
will be established to your satisfaction,
hopefully <you(r) being both "you" and "I"
there, hmm>

Hopefully that can be sensed out, as it is
trivial but important.
It will hopefully be established to your satisfaction
that "I do not know," wherein you are "I."
nevermind, I give up. On that part.

[bbyrd009]

<Now, the original version of Bt used spin 1/2 particles, and what he discovered was that no matter what the settings of the polarizers (that verified the polarization of the 1/2 particles, later verified with photons), the verifying clicks in area A corresponded too strongly to the clicks in area B, statistically, to be explained by chance, thus dismantling Einstein's theory of local causes, which was his postulate for discrediting...all the freaky spin-locking and polarization-slaving we have been slogging through...in other words, Bell verified that Einstein was right, and was wrong to think he wasn't right the first time.> cont'd

Ok, don't get lost here; all Bell really did was (show you how to walk on water)
confirm that Einstein was correct about paired particles staying paired even when we unpair them; or rephrased, that information can be, basically is, communicated in ways that we do not grasp, at least until we mentally enter
that place Scotty illuminated, for reasons which will hopefully become clear.
The goal here is to see our information blind spot, or why truth is "obscured."

[bbyrd009]

Ok, don't get lost here; all Bell really did was (show you how to walk on water)
confirm that Einstein was correct about paired particles staying paired even when we unpair them; or rephrased, that information can be, basically is, communicated in ways that we do not grasp, at least until we mentally enter
that place Scotty illuminated, for reasons which will hopefully become clear.
The goal here is to see our information blind spot, or why truth is "obscured."

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=1159790#post1159790

post 316.

[bbyrd009]

I accept that altered phsycological position. As long as I don't have to get stoned again,though due to damage already done,some areas of my mentality remain in an altered state.

Let me tell you, the first time you wake up--ok, well, you may have awakened once or twice already in your life, for a second--to an angel (a servant to you, in the real world) sitting on your nightstand (where it hangs all night, while you sleep) you are going to get some "altered state."

Today we will bring Bt into the macro world, the world we "see;"
or drag the macro to Bt, whatever. It will surely be anti-climactic
at first read, like most profound truths, until you are able to
hear it with diff ears; but being a Law (albeit a physical one)
it's prolly best to get it out there.

[bbyrd009]

Bt showed that either the statistical predictions of QT or the principle of local causes is false. It didn't say which, but only that both can't be true. When it was confirmed that the stat predictions of QT were correct

(by some other guys we never heard of--the ones who did a variation of the polarized photon pair thing; they turned on the photo-multiplier tube, the thing that "clicks" to indicate that it has just detected a <single> photon <from a former "pair"> that was in fact polarized correctly <representing your POV>)

the startling conclusion was inescapable: the principle of local causes--Einstein's postulate for discounting "superluminal," or faster-than-light communication--must be false. However, if the principle of local causes fails, and hence, the world is not the way it appears to be, then what is the true nature of the world?

[bbyrd009]

There are several mutually exclusive possibilities. The first possibility, which we have been discussing, is that, appearances to the contrary, there really may be no such thing as "separate parts" in our world ("locality fails," in the dialect of physics). In that case, the idea that events <genocide, for instance> are autonomous happenings is an illusion.

This would be the case for any "separate parts" that have ever interacted with each other. When "separate parts" interact with each other, they (their wave functions) become correlated (through the exchange of conventional signals)(forces).

<And should all this parenthetical explanation be getting to you, note that I am editing most of that out!>

Unless this correlation is disrupted by other external forces, the wave functions representing these "separate parts" remain correlated forever (If the Big Bang theory is correct, the entire universe is initially correlated).

For such correlated "separate parts," what an "experimenter" does in this area has an intrinsic effect upon the results of an "experiment" in a distant, space-like separated area.

<So physics is explaining your religion now, from an "atheistic" pov.>

[bbyrd009]

In this sense, Bt <is> the Trojan horse in the physicists' camp; first, because it proves that QT requires connections that appear to resemble telepathic communication, and second, because it provides the mathematical framework thru which serious physicists (all physicists are serious) could find themselves discussing types of phenomena which, ironically, they do not believe exist.

[bbyrd009]

Ok, this isn't coming out at all like I planned, but Truth Obscured
has temporarily moved to here
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=39495

[bbyrd009]

and we're back
Proverbs 18:9 Amplified

"He who is loose and slack in his work is brother to him who is a destroyer and [a]he who does not use his endeavors to heal himself is brother to him who commits suicide."

"Endeavors" here being translated "go to the Doctor," I guess. "Doing what might be considered normal in the circumstances." See commentaries.

But seems to agree with most of us, @
"Believe and understand that healings
occur by faith; but if you need a Dr go see a Dr?"

Something this illuminates, to me,
is just what our def of "faith" is here;
to us, it's an effort we make with our...intellect?
in that moment it comes to mind-
-and I'm all for positive thinking, but
"faith" is more reflected in the actions
that led up to needing the healing in the first place.

Maybe not always? A cigarette smoker believing for
a cure for lung cancer being the obvious, but there are
many similar ways to manifest what you don't want
whose connections are not as clear, imo.

Eat CAFO meat, deny yourself a vital
couple nutrients (Omega3 and D),
entertain the host of ills, while
"believing" for their cure?

A list of a hundred would be cool : )

2) ...

(the more...obscure the better?)

[bbyrd009]

Um, ten?
:toofunny

[Timmy]

2) You're driving at night, in a winter storm. You hit a patch of ice, the tires lose traction, and the car starts to spin. What do you do? What do you do?

You throw up your hands and cry, "Jesus take the wheel!" Of course! Just as you would in good weather when someone cuts you off and you're just about to crash if you don't slow down immediately. "Jesus take the wheel!" Or there's a fog so thick you can't see two feet in front of the car. Have Jesus take over. He can see through it, and He's a much better driver than you, for sure.

(How's that, BB?)

[bbyrd009]

Hmm, not quite what I had in mind,
but if it makes truth unobscured to someone else...

I might have said
"If you drive a car that uses gasoline,
don't bother praying for healing for,"
I don't know, "your nation's debt"
maybe.

But I guess I see your point.
If you are praying to your High Priest
you have other problems, anyway?

[Timmy]

Hmm, not quite what I had in mind,
but if it makes truth unobscured to someone else...

I might have said
"If you drive a car that uses gasoline,
don't bother praying for healing for,"
I don't know, "your nation's debt"
maybe.

But I guess I see your point.
If you are praying to your High Priest
you have other problems, anyway?

I suppose so. But hey, if it actually works, like it did in the song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU&ob=av3n), why not?

3) If your buddy is on the brink of death, in a hospital, and the doctors want to operate, right now, to save his life, just say "No! We'll pray instead."

http://leestoneking.com/my%20miracle.htm (Find "doctor's advice was" on the page.)

[bbyrd009]

I suppose so. But hey, if it actually works, like it did in the song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU&ob=av3n), why not?

3) If your buddy is on the brink of death, in a hospital, and the doctors want to operate, right now, to save his life, just say "No! We'll pray instead."

http://leestoneking.com/my%20miracle.htm (Find "doctor's advice was" on the page.)

Ha, I think she meant that as allegory?
And ok, although I have no objection, really,
to your direction here, I meant to supply
instances of obscured hypocrisy that
I might be vulnerable to?

I'm persuaded that someone who needs
medical attn., and yet refuses to avail themselves of it
is "a brother to him who commits suicide;"
but there are certainly many shades there.

[Timmy]

Ha, I think she meant that as allegory?
And ok, although I have no objection, really,
to your direction here, I meant to supply
instances of obscured hypocrisy that
I might be vulnerable to?

I'm persuaded that someone who needs
medical attn., and yet refuses to avail themselves of it
is "a brother to him who commits suicide;"
but there are certainly many shades there.

Allegory of what?

[bbyrd009]

Allegory of what?

Ha, since you surely already know,
I'm detecting a loaded Q; but I'll bite-
-"Allowing Christ to be the reason"
for your decisions, say.

[Timmy]

Ha, since you surely already know,
I'm detecting a loaded Q; but I'll bite-
-"Allowing Christ to be the reason"
for your decisions, say.

The reason for your decisions? Huh?

[bbyrd009]

The reason for your decisions? Huh?

Well, maybe it could be put better?
I could rephrase, but find phrasing here
to be irrelevant, if "Jesus take the wheel" =
"I'm getting raptured, and you're prolly frying."

[bbyrd009]

ok, and not sure how literally you're meaning the song-
-I haven't heard it, so a synopsis might be in order if
there is something in the song you're referring to?
(I can't listen to it at the moment, and that genre of music
gags me anyway)

[Timmy]

ok, and not sure how literally you're meaning the song-
-I haven't heard it, so a synopsis might be in order if
there is something in the song you're referring to?
(I can't listen to it at the moment, and that genre of music
gags me anyway)

It's the story of a woman driving to see her folks. Got a baby on board. She was driving too fast, hits a patch of black ice, she's terrified, she lets go of the wheel and asks Jesus to take it. The car stops in the shoulder, and the baby slept through the whole thing. The lady then prays, repenting of unspecified things, promising to do better.

So, yeah, there is an analogy there. Letting go of the "wheel" of your life, and letting Jesus "drive". But if we are not expected to take this advice literally when driving a car, how are we supposed to take it? What things can Jesus "drive" for us? Should I let Him manage the check book? (Couldn't mess it up much worse than I do. :lol) Should He decide when I retire? (I could roll a die, I guess?)

[bbyrd009]

It's the story of a woman driving to see her folks. Got a baby on board. She was driving too fast, hits a patch of black ice, she's terrified, she lets go of the wheel and asks Jesus to take it. The car stops in the shoulder, and the baby slept through the whole thing. The lady then prays, repenting of unspecified things, promising to do better.

So, yeah, there is an analogy there. Letting go of the "wheel" of your life, and letting Jesus "drive". But if we are not expected to take this advice literally when driving a car, how are we supposed to take it? What things can Jesus "drive" for us? Should I let Him manage the check book? (Couldn't mess it up much worse than I do. :lol) Should He decide when I retire? (I could roll a die, I guess?)

Ah; well to me, anyway, that song would be satanic.
I would interpret it as relying on Christ to save you
from consequences, which just doesn't fly, imo-
-mostly why I hate the genre.

Now obviously there are like a million shades
in there; is "too fast" speeding? etc., and I am
posting the extreme view; but I have issues with
that def of "repenting" also--naming your sin(s)
will get your future prayer heard, I guess,
and is def a better state of mind than being
unable to admit to some sin...

Funny, like a lot of my objections, it isn't the
actual words I have a prob with, it's the image
they end up repping?

As to your other Qs, I honestly believe that one
should do as they are led, as they are, or should be,
a new creation.

To me, Christ is about love your neighbor,
and arguably couldn't care less about your checkbook?
From my pov, having a checking account implies investment
in the system we see melting around us; you are letting a bank, which is able to borrow money at no interest that you, by proxy, have borrowed from future generations thru China at interest. what is wrong with this picture?
What is the advantage to you? Come again? I do better in manure; but I note that bullion has just taken a nice dip...

And retirement-ha. Ok, if you think you hated my take on banking
(which btw I think banking in the 1940s model was fine)-
-God, please allow me to die in Your service, some horrible torture
or whatever, rather than retire.

Lol, meaning, the Spirit is prolly going to guide you differently,
and I don't expect, or desire anyone to follow me here.
Wonderful, spirit-filled people have checking accts, and retire, surely.

On rolling a die there; I doubt most would ask the right Q there?
"Retirement" = "hoard $ for years (that steadily erodes in value)
so that you may one day create your own little temporary
paradise of no labor, and all cares covered."

Just reeks too much of another counterfeit, imo.
You wanna cast lots, start out asking
"1-3, empty checking account and direct funds
to wherever Spirit indicates they are needed now,
trusting God for...everything else;
4-6 continue planning for retirement."

But I've seen the result come back 4-6,
then the guy dies of a heart attack
right at 65, and his benevolent wife
Spiritually administers the trust, lol.

True story. So, you never know.

[Timmy]

I should have known "check book" and "retirement" would be hot buttons for you. :lol

[Timmy]

BTW, when I read "that song would be satanic", I LOLed, literally! :lol

[bbyrd009]

BTW, when I read "that song would be satanic", I LOLed, literally! :lol

Ha, prolly revealing my premises...but I mean,
it's literally a cliche' joke? (Oh, God,
OhGodOhGodOhGod, just get me out of this...)

So, in a possibly unintended way
(I say possibly because I'm not convinced one can
become famous w/o making a deal w/the devil),
in her skin-tite jeans, she is reinforcing
the Christian stereotype.

No doubt she has hit songs about dying and going to Heaven. Don't let me ruin her for you, because I haven't heard the lyrics,
and I could be totally off base.

[bbyrd009]

I should have known "check book" and "retirement" would be hot buttons for you. :lol

Well, it's weird; 5 years ago they would not really have been;
but really, how does one justify keeping $xxxx in a bank at no interest,
said bank having melted down 3 years ago and owing its existence to
Gov largesse, that prolly would not give them a loan, or if they did,
the terms would be from hell? Good luck with that.

[bbyrd009]

No offense to Underwood fans; there's nothing wrong with her-
-she is what is manifesting, after all.

[Timmy]

Ha, prolly revealing my premises...but I mean,
it's literally a cliche' joke? (Oh, God,
OhGodOhGodOhGod, just get me out of this...)

So, in a possibly unintended way
(I say possibly because I'm not convinced one can
become famous w/o making a deal w/the devil),
in her skin-tite jeans, she is reinforcing
the Christian stereotype.

No doubt she has hit songs about dying and going to Heaven. Don't let me ruin her for you, because I haven't heard the lyrics,
and I could be totally off base.

Well, what do ya know! We're on the same side of this issue, kinda. 'Course, I've already noticed this. I, too, don't believe that God will miraculously get you out of situations you have gotten yourself into, by your own foolishness or selfishness or laziness or... well, I don't think God ever gets anyone out of anything, their fault or not. (Hence, the "kinda" above. I suppose you do think He does that, on occasion, if it's not their fault?)

[Timmy]

Well, what do ya know! We're on the same side of this issue, kinda. 'Course, I've already noticed this. I, too, don't believe that God will miraculously get you out of situations you have gotten yourself into, by your own foolishness or selfishness or laziness or... well, I don't think God ever gets anyone out of anything, their fault or not. (Hence, the "kinda" above. I suppose you do think He does that, on occasion, if it's not their fault?)

Oh, and it may go without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that I don't endorse the Carrie Underwood School of Defensive Driving. :lol

[bbyrd009]

Well, what do ya know! We're on the same side of this issue, kinda. 'Course, I've already noticed this. I, too, don't believe that God will miraculously get you out of situations you have gotten yourself into, by your own foolishness or selfishness or laziness or... well, I don't think God ever gets anyone out of anything, their fault or not. (Hence, the "kinda" above. I suppose you do think He does that, on occasion, if it's not their fault?)

God? Directly? No, I don't. I believe He has reserved that right,
but just does not operate that way. I believe that someone
with even a mustard-seed faith is hedged with a certain
protection, "angels" works for me; but I'm pretty sure one can
chase them off in ignorance of the def of "manifest."

The music industry is in the domain of satan,
and I am sceptical of anyone allowed to
rise to the top, at least in that system.

However, there is music in that genre that
I do find edifying, don't get me wrong-
-First Baptist Church of Vallejo, CA
(I think it's 1st Bap--in the old movie theater downtown)
fugeddaboudit! You can like see the angels.

However, i don't expect a hit album
from them anytime soon.

[odooley6985]

People so ignorant when it comes to Islam. Terrorists are using the words of the Qur'an to control people by taking the words of the Qu'ran out of context. People do that all the time with the bible. Do those idiots at the Westboro Baptist church represent all Christians?

[bbyrd009]

People so ignorant when it comes to Islam. Terrorists are using the words of the Qur'an to control people by taking the words of the Qu'ran out of context. People do that all the time with the bible. Do those idiots at the Westboro Baptist church represent all Christians?I should prolly warn you that agreeing with me on this forum (or for that matter, any other forum :lol) is not healthy...there are several ordained ministers here convinced that Allah is the antichrist, and I suggest you get lined up and start cursing Muslims if you want to be popular.

[HRea]

I should prolly warn you that agreeing with me on this forum (or for that matter, any other forum :lol) is not healthy...there are several ordained ministers here convinced that Allah is the antichrist, and I suggest you get lined up and start cursing Muslims if you want to be popular.
1. We're not cursing muslims; you keep trying to make this personal but it isn't

2. allah may or may not be the antichrist, you'll need to ask him yourself about this; but the koran has teachings that are certainly antichrist in their nature

3. agreeing or disagreeing - it's by open discussion that we learn from each other and come to a better understanding. The Bible does teach that "iron sharpens iron".

Following up on #2 above, there are 3 very important aspects where the Bible and the koran conflict, and these 3 are HUGE (definitely biggies):

1. the koran teaches that Jesus was not crucified and nor did He die for sins of any, for none can bear the sins of another; the Bible teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is the central theme of New Testament salvation and His shed blood is the atonement for our sins; Jesus bore our sins on the cross. The Bible states through Paul that if Christ was not crucified, then our faith is vain.

2. the koran teaches that allah had no son, neither was he planning to have a son; the Bible teach that God gave His only begotten Son for our salvation. The Bible teaches that it is antichrist to deny the Son. In addition, the revelation of who Jesus is (Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in flesh) has nor corresponding concept in the koran. The koran teaches that the very idea of having a begotten son, let alone manifesting himself in flesh is offensive to allah.

3. the koran teaches salvation by works; the Bible teaches salvation by Grace

[bbyrd009]

Ty for your response. My last post was extreme,
and I'm having to answer this on the fly, so...

1) I'm not Muslim, so it really isn't personal to me.
My last post just reflects my response to what I viewed
as looking for monsters, and erroneously finding Muslims a convenient one.

2) And yet the Qur'an states very plainly
that Christ is the way, and is to be followed,
and hell is the price to be paid for not doing so.

3) Amen. It isn't discussion that I would inhibit,
but uninformed accusations.

1) ...I'm not qualified to respond here; I am aware
of the verses you mention, and admit that Christ is
not prayed to by a Muslim (and should not be by a Christian, either).
I think this concept is most closely reflected in Christ's calling Himself
"Son of Man," and the Muslim response to Him reflects
the then current influence of the early Romish church.

Who here doesn't have issues with some, many,
Catholic practices? And yet I cannot call them lost,
having worked with practicing Catholics. You might consider
that Christ has many names, and they are just the other end
of the spectrum in this matter.
For instance, Christ has earned the title "Good,"
and a strong Scriptural argument can be made
that anyone who does good follows Christ.

I actually have not found the
"Christ was not crucified" quote
in the Qur'an.

2) And yet, 2/87 (the first ref I turned to, there are prolly better ones)
"...We gave Jesus the Son of Mary clear signs,
and strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit.

Is it that whenever there comes to you
a Messenger with what you yourselves
do not desire, you are puffed up with pride?"

Seems apropos.

3) "A good deed covers many sins."

I hope this might get someone, one person,
to reflect that although the forms are different,
and the culture is alien to you, Muslims who
faithfully follow the Qur'an are not your enemy,
and any arguments that attempt this might
be explained in the context of Religion,
and end up being semantics discussions.

My chief aim here is to illuminate that
your eye shows your premises;
if you look for boogeymen, a la Fox news,
you will find them.

[HRea]

2) And yet the Qur'an states very plainly
that Christ is the way, and is to be followed,
and hell is the price to be paid for not doing so.
One of the subtleties in the koran is that Christ is only for the "people of the Book" and not for everyone. Because of our discussion about this, I've been reading several pro-islamic scholar sites (specifically to get a pro-bias understanding of their views), and this is one of the topics universally discussed.

I actually have not found the
"Christ was not crucified" quote
in the Qur'an.
The quote is actually "nor crucified him"; the extended quote is "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so". Again, most of the pro-islamic scholars interpret this to mean that allah executed a clever ruse to make it appear that the enemies of Christ had won, when, in fact, allah had delivered Jesus from being crucified.

We've discussed the "Son of God" issue before, but this issue ("they killed him not, nor crucified him") is infinitely more important because it was the atoning sacrifice (blood shedding, death) of Christ on Calvary that paid the price for my sins and the sins of the world, and instituted the New Covenant (the death of the testator). The gospel of Christ (death, burial, and resurrection) is the power of God unto salvation.

My chief aim here is to illuminate that
your eye shows your premises;
if you look for boogeymen, a la Fox news,
you will find them.
Rest assured that none of my sources include "a la Fox news". I have made it a point to use a mixture of anti and pro-islam sites to gain insight, to see where both sides come from in their understanding of the conflicts.

[Walks_in_islam]

The "people of the book" referenced include (4) sets of monotheistic believers in God, Allah, Ehohim, all referenced as the same diety.

Nowhere in the Quran are those who follow Christ rather than follow the example of Christ (who by the way prayed to God and taught how to pray to God himself) cross referenced with the "people of the book"

It is a recognized fact that many years of Christ's ministry are lost but the few words that were recorded are recognized as a message from God Himself.

One of the subtleties in the koran is that Christ is only for the "people of the Book" and not for everyone. Because of our discussion about this, I've been reading several pro-islamic scholar sites (specifically to get a pro-bias understanding of their views), and this is one of the topics universally discussed.


The quote is actually "nor crucified him"; the extended quote is "but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them so". Again, most of the pro-islamic scholars interpret this to mean that allah executed a clever ruse to make it appear that the enemies of Christ had won, when, in fact, allah had delivered Jesus from being crucified.

We've discussed the "Son of God" issue before, but this issue ("they killed him not, nor crucified him") is infinitely more important because it was the atoning sacrifice (blood shedding, death) of Christ on Calvary that paid the price for my sins and the sins of the world, and instituted the New Covenant (the death of the testator). The gospel of Christ (death, burial, and resurrection) is the power of God unto salvation.


Rest assured that none of my sources include "a la Fox news". I have made it a point to use a mixture of anti and pro-islam sites to gain insight, to see where both sides come from in their understanding of the conflicts.

[HRea]

The "people of the book" referenced include (4) sets of monotheistic believers in God, Allah, Ehohim, all referenced as the same diety.
The terms "people of the book" and "people of the scripture" refer to those who pre-date the muslim and have confessed faith in the God of Abraham - the Jews and the Christians. It doesn't include muslims, and it's not referencing to the koran. This is what I've found on pro-islam sites (not the anti-islam sites and not on "a la Fox News").

[Walks_in_islam]

Excluding Muslims as people of "their book" LOL the (3rd) referenced followers of "the book" are specifically referred to as the Sabians

The terms "people of the book" and "people of the scripture" refer to those who pre-date the muslim and have confessed faith in the God of Abraham - the Jews and the Christians. It doesn't include muslims, and it's not referencing to the koran. This is what I've found on pro-islam sites (not the anti-islam sites and not on "a la Fox News").

[HRea]

Excluding Muslims as people of "their book" LOL the (3rd) referenced followers of "the book" are specifically referred to as the Sabians
LOL, it is amusing that some are confused about muslims being excluded; although it becomes much clearer why they are excluded since the koran is instructing muslims about who are and specific conduct toward the "people of the book" and "people of the scriptures". It makes perfect sense that they would be excluded.

And, LOL, the subject of the Sabians and just who they may be. Since this is a matter of recorded history, it's somewhat easy to deduce who they may be. Many groups of people have been called Sabian (or Sabean): descendants of Noah, religious sect of Sheba, an amalgamated group of Messianic Jews, the followers of John the Baptist who had yet to hear about Jesus, a secluded group of pagans who worshipped the moon god, a Persian group derived from zorastian beliefs, and a group that resurrected Egyptian idolatrous worship. Of the list and given the time frame of the writing of the koran, the followers of John the Baptist are the most likely group.

I'm a conservative apostolic christian, why am I teaching you these things?

LOL.

[bbyrd009]

Well, my reading of the Qur'an is naive, I guess, but I seem to read
unity there with Muslims and any followers after Abraham or Christ.
Ok and the constant "LOL"ing just reads as self serving, laughing at
someone else's opinion.

[bbyrd009]

Dang and I was really hoping it was not you.

[HRea]

Well, my reading of the Qur'an is naive, I guess, but I seem to read
unity there with Muslims and any followers after Abraham or Christ.
Ok and the constant "LOL"ing just reads as self serving, laughing at
someone else's opinion.
It was not my intention to give that impression. When walks_in_islam responded with LOL, I thought I would too to keep things from spiraling into contention. I guess I overused them and will be more judicious in my use of "LOL" in the future.

[bbyrd009]

Well, it is weird how what is written might not be
what is read; I run into trouble there a lot.
Prolly I'm just sensitized.

[Walks_in_islam]

I was lightly amused at Muslims being discounted in the Quran itself. Otherwise there is no contention?

"Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians" seem to be (4) different groups to me.

"Those who believe" are Muslims. This same statement is repeated in 2:62, 5:29, and 22:17 and reference (4) separate groups each time. The Quran gently but firmly teaches that there is to be no quarrel with these people (sigh - would that our Imams teach this more since the time was taken to record it there and perhaps there would be a tolerance between believers?)

It is true that not much is known about the Sabians as there are bits and pieces of fragmented history. La ilahah il Allah (There is no God but Allah) was said to be the fundamental basis of their teaching, as is for the Jews and for Muslims and for (some? probably most?) Christians.




It was not my intention to give that impression. When walks_in_islam responded with LOL, I thought I would too to keep things from spiraling into contention. I guess I overused them and will be more judicious in my use of "LOL" in the future.

[Walks_in_islam]

"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.

Did Jesus teach to fear God and example to worship God and does the Bible say that he taught this or not? Did Jesus himself pray to Allah (excuse me ELI) or not?


1. We're not cursing muslims; you keep trying to make this personal but it isn't

2. allah may or may not be the antichrist, you'll need to ask him yourself about this; but the koran has teachings that are certainly antichrist in their nature

3. agreeing or disagreeing - it's by open discussion that we learn from each other and come to a better understanding. The Bible does teach that "iron sharpens iron".

Following up on #2 above, there are 3 very important aspects where the Bible and the koran conflict, and these 3 are HUGE (definitely biggies):

1. the koran teaches that Jesus was not crucified and nor did He die for sins of any, for none can bear the sins of another; the Bible teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is the central theme of New Testament salvation and His shed blood is the atonement for our sins; Jesus bore our sins on the cross. The Bible states through Paul that if Christ was not crucified, then our faith is vain.

2. the koran teaches that allah had no son, neither was he planning to have a son; the Bible teach that God gave His only begotten Son for our salvation. The Bible teaches that it is antichrist to deny the Son. In addition, the revelation of who Jesus is (Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in flesh) has nor corresponding concept in the koran. The koran teaches that the very idea of having a begotten son, let alone manifesting himself in flesh is offensive to allah.

3. the koran teaches salvation by works; the Bible teaches salvation by Grace

[bbyrd009]

Again, I guess I read with infant's eyes,
but I started the Qur'an about the time
I started posting here, and I have been
mostly struck by how the Qur'an seems to
include anyone who believes in One God,
in contrast to what I read on this forum:

74:31
And We have set none but angels as guardians of the Fire,
and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,-
in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty,
and the Believers may increase in Faith,-
and that no doubts may be left for the
People of the Book and the Believers...

seems pretty clear to me.

[HRea]

"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.

Did Jesus teach to fear God and example to worship God and does the Bible say that he taught this or not? Did Jesus himself pray to Allah (excuse me ELI) or not?

Following up on #2 above, there are 3 very important aspects where the Bible and the koran conflict, and these 3 are HUGE (definitely biggies):

1. the koran teaches that Jesus was not crucified and nor did He die for sins of any, for none can bear the sins of another; the Bible teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is the central theme of New Testament salvation and His shed blood is the atonement for our sins; Jesus bore our sins on the cross. The Bible states through Paul that if Christ was not crucified, then our faith is vain.

2. the koran teaches that allah had no son, neither was he planning to have a son; the Bible teach that God gave His only begotten Son for our salvation. The Bible teaches that it is antichrist to deny the Son. In addition, the revelation of who Jesus is (Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in flesh) has nor corresponding concept in the koran. The koran teaches that the very idea of having a begotten son, let alone manifesting himself in flesh is offensive to allah.

3. the koran teaches salvation by works; the Bible teaches salvation by Grace


@Walks_in_islam, let's deal with the 3 conflicts above before beginning a new line of questions. You quoted the 3 conflicts in your reply but didn't respond to them. It's important that we deal with them since they reveal our perception of Jesus Christ, specifically conflicts #1 and #2. Unless I know what your view of Jesus Christ is, in light of your islam beliefs, it would be very difficult for me to know how to respond to you question.

[bbyrd009]

Ok, but please remember that his response will be so many words,
at the end of the day.

HOLY HUMOR and troubled times, people of all faiths should remember these four great religious truths: 1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's Chosen People. 2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. 3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world. 4. Baptists do not recognize each other at the liquor store.

[Walks_in_islam]

It is because this conflict is in your own mind.

It is not difficult to respond to my question at all. You have a book and you should be able to respond from your book if the words in that book match your response. They do not and they will not.

Our book says as you accurately pointed out that Allah has no son nor no need of a son nor ever begot a son and also says that Jesus was spoken into existance and sent as a warner/messenger by Allah himself.

Your book uses the phrase "son of man" in the gospels in the following locations:

Matthew 8:20 9:5,6 10:23 11:19 12:8
12:32 12:40 13:37 13:41 16:13-17
16:27 16:28 17:9 17:12 17:22,23
19:28 20:18,19 20:28 24:27 24:30 x2
24:37 24:39 24:44 25:31 26:2
26:24 x2 26:45 26:64

Mark 2:10 2:28 8:31 8:38 9:9
9:12 9:31 10:33,34 10:45 13:26
14:21 x2 14:41 14:62

Luke 5:24 6:5 6:22 7:34 9:22
9:26 9:44 9:58 11:30 12:8
12:10 12:40 17:22 17:24 17:26
17:30 18:8 18:31-33 19:10 21:27
21:36 22:22 22:48 22:69 24:7

John 1:51 3:13 3:14 5:27 6:27
6:53 6:62 8:28 9:35-38 12:23
12:34 x2 13:31

This is who Jesus himself said he was. You would overwrite Jesus' own words then?

There is no conflict from the beginning of time until today between believers who believe and can state that there is one God and no other beside Him. The (4) mentioned have, within themselves, those who hold to that belief.

Who was the Son of God?

Solomon? 6: He said to me, `It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my Son, and I will be his Father.

David? Words to his father Nathan: I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.'" In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

There is more. The "sons of God" were present at creation. The "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of man" were fair and had children with them. Somehow "only son" got penned into a passage in the midst of all these other sons. What is this?

@Walks_in_islam, let's deal with the 3 conflicts above before beginning a new line of questions. You quoted the 3 conflicts in your reply but didn't respond to them. It's important that we deal with them since they reveal our perception of Jesus Christ, specifically conflicts #1 and #2. Unless I know what your view of Jesus Christ is, in light of your islam beliefs, it would be very difficult for me to know how to respond to you question.

[bbyrd009]

To a Christian, this of course seems to reduce
Christ to a Son of Man. I would point out here
that although the words might conflict with a
Christian's sensibilities, the Qur'an does elevate
Christ to an example to be followed.

It is tempting, having accepted Christ
(as best as one is currently able)
to then suppose that the model that
Christ was presented to them in
is the only acceptable model, and/or
that Christ is dishonored somehow
with any other.

Who among us does not know a man
who never goes to church, yet seems to
just naturally apply Christ in their lives?
I have known only a couple such men
and women, maybe a few, but I have found
their quiet spirituality to have depth, and could not
say that because they refused the forms that
I was comfortable with, my version of Christ,
that they were not saved.

[HRea]

It is because this conflict is in your own mind.

Our book says as you accurately pointed out that Allah has no son nor no need of a son nor ever begot a son and also says that Jesus was spoken into existance and sent as a warner/messenger by Allah himself.

There is more. The "sons of God" were present at creation. The "sons of God" saw that the "daughters of man" were fair and had children with them. Somehow "only son" got penned into a passage in the midst of all these other sons. What is this?
I see in your reply that instead of discussing doctrines and teachings, you needed to personally insult me. This is sad for that to happen in the exchange of ideas.

Have you been islam all your life or are you a recent convert? If you believe the koran's view of who Jesus is, you would not have understood my answer to your question. Why and to whom Jesus prayed is directly connected to the incarnation of Jesus and the mystery of Immanuel.

From your reply, the Jesus you have described is NOT the same Jesus of the New Testament, but a corrupted shadow of the One Whom Christians believe in, making islam and Christianity incompatible. Let me identify why I say this:

1. Jesus is Immanuel - God with us, not simply a messenger, and His purpose for coming was to redeem man with His Own precious blood. Whether you hold to the trinitarian view of God or the Oneness, Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. To deny His deity, as islam has done, is the spirit of anti-christ. Christians are warned against this very teaching. The incarnation is hoped for by the Jews and recognized as already happened by the Christians.

2. Jesus was crucified, died, and rose again, bearing my sins (and the sins of the whole world) on the cross. He stated several times that this was His purpose in coming into this world, and His death, burial and resurrection is the gospel message, the power of God unto salvation. It is an incredible affront to Christian believers to attempt to change Jesus' purpose from being our propitiation into one of simple messenger. His teachings and commands are important, but the WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT hinges on the blood of Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection.

3. Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, not just another son of God. Yes, many have borne the title or have been referred to as a son of God, but none are God's Begotten Son - only Jesus. Herein is also a marvel mystery revealed - Jesus is both man and God. His flesh is the Begotten Son, His Spirit is Deity. The incarnation of God also caused all darkness to be confused as it did not understand this type of a man being being born.

4. Salvation is by grace, not acts of penance, nor deeds to impress God, but by His grace. The work of God in us is revealed by our character (fruit) and our actions (works), but character and actions do not determine salvation.

islam's teaching about Jesus are too incompatible to be in any way reconcilable with Christianity.

[Walks_in_islam]

My reply merely consists of probably what seem to you to be less than palatable passages and references from your book. Do you suppose that these were written so long ago as to be intended for the purpose of insulting you? I did not describe Jesus from the Quran, I described Him as the bible describes him. It is offensive to you only because the bible does not describe him as you or your ministers describe him and when the words are penned in front of you it appears to bring you....?....?...discomfort...?...?

Why and to who Jesus prayed to is no mystery. Why should it be?

Jesus' words, not mine:

"And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

This Mighty One - this is who Jesus prayed to and who Jesus taught his followers - you - to pray to. "ELI"

This is who Adam and Abraham and Noah and Lot and David and Solomon and Elijah and Elisha and every single referenced messenger or prophet prayed to and this is who Muhammad taught must be the only one who is prayed to.

The New Testament? Set up by the Council of Nicea? The whole history of mankind from Adam to today teaches one purpose for mankind and one God for mankind to serve. The teachings of Jesus reflect this exactly and to the letter. The teachings of the later church do not.

This is what you say on the subject of deeds: Salvation is by grace, not acts of penance, nor deeds

This is what the Quran teaches about deeds:

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

These words are not however from the Quran

This is also what the Quran teaches about deeds:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

These words are also not from the Quran

What else say you on the subject of deeds?

I see in your reply that instead of discussing doctrines and teachings, you needed to personally insult me. This is sad for that to happen in the exchange of ideas.

Have you been islam all your life or are you a recent convert? If you believe the koran's view of who Jesus is, you would not have understood my answer to your question. Why and to whom Jesus prayed is directly connected to the incarnation of Jesus and the mystery of Immanuel.

From your reply, the Jesus you have described is NOT the same Jesus of the New Testament, but a corrupted shadow of the One Whom Christians believe in, making islam and Christianity incompatible. Let me identify why I say this:

1. Jesus is Immanuel - God with us, not simply a messenger, and His purpose for coming was to redeem man with His Own precious blood. Whether you hold to the trinitarian view of God or the Oneness, Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. To deny His deity, as islam has done, is the spirit of anti-christ. Christians are warned against this very teaching. The incarnation is hoped for by the Jews and recognized as already happened by the Christians.

2. Jesus was crucified, died, and rose again, bearing my sins (and the sins of the whole world) on the cross. He stated several times that this was His purpose in coming into this world, and His death, burial and resurrection is the gospel message, the power of God unto salvation. It is an incredible affront to Christian believers to attempt to change Jesus' purpose from being our propitiation into one of simple messenger. His teachings and commands are important, but the WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT hinges on the blood of Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection.

3. Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God, not just another son of God. Yes, many have borne the title or have been referred to as a son of God, but none are God's Begotten Son - only Jesus. Herein is also a marvel mystery revealed - Jesus is both man and God. His flesh is the Begotten Son, His Spirit is Deity. The incarnation of God also caused all darkness to be confused as it did not understand this type of a man being being born.

4. Salvation is by grace, not acts of penance, nor deeds to impress God, but by His grace. The work of God in us is revealed by our character (fruit) and our actions (works), but character and actions do not determine salvation.

islam's teaching about Jesus are too incompatible to be in any way reconcilable with Christianity.

[Walks_in_islam]

My friend - these (54) locations are offered as reference only.

There is nothing in the Quran nor in the Hadiths / teachings that follow (including the definite and sure fact that Jesus, not Mohammad or anyone else, will return and rule the world) that in any way reduce the status of Jesus as example to be followed

To a Christian, this of course seems to reduce
Christ to a Son of Man. I would point out here
that although the words might conflict with a
Christian's sensibilities, the Qur'an does elevate
Christ to an example to be followed.

It is tempting, having accepted Christ
(as best as one is currently able)
to then suppose that the model that
Christ was presented to them in
is the only acceptable model, and/or
that Christ is dishonored somehow
with any other.

Who among us does not know a man
who never goes to church, yet seems to
just naturally apply Christ in their lives?
I have known only a couple such men
and women, maybe a few, but I have found
their quiet spirituality to have depth, and could not
say that because they refused the forms that
I was comfortable with, my version of Christ,
that they were not saved.

[HRea]

My reply merely consists of probably what seem to you to be less than palatable passages and references from your book. Do you suppose that these were written so long ago as to be intended for the purpose of insulting you? I did not describe Jesus from the Quran, I described Him as the bible describes him. It is offensive to you only because the bible does not describe him as you or your ministers describe him and when the words are penned in front of you it appears to bring you....?....?...discomfort...?...?

Why and to who Jesus prayed to is no mystery. Why should it be?

Jesus' words, not mine:

"And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

This Mighty One - this is who Jesus prayed to and who Jesus taught his followers - you - to pray to. "ELI"

This is who Adam and Abraham and Noah and Lot and David and Solomon and Elijah and Elisha and every single referenced messenger or prophet prayed to and this is who Muhammad taught must be the only one who is prayed to.

The New Testament? Set up by the Council of Nicea? The whole history of mankind from Adam to today teaches one purpose for mankind and one God for mankind to serve. The teachings of Jesus reflect this exactly and to the letter. The teachings of the later church do not.

This is what you say on the subject of deeds: Salvation is by grace, not acts of penance, nor deeds

This is what the Quran teaches about deeds:

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

These words are not however from the Quran

This is also what the Quran teaches about deeds:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

These words are also not from the Quran

What else say you on the subject of deeds?
Why do you keep seasoning your reply with jabs and stabs, imagining wickedness where there is none? Let's have a conversation free from petty insults.

Perhaps you really don't know Who Christians believe Jesus is...He is both Son of God and Son of man. The scriptures you quoted are only half the picture. The Son of man would die on the cross on Calvary for my sins and your sins and the sins of the world.

The disciple Thomas would confess before all when he had met the risen Savior:

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

No, Jesus wasn't a messenger; He is Immanuel. He isn't an example to follow, He is that Spirit that will be put in us during conversion (being Born Again) that causes us to be like Him.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the Old (First) Testament (Covenant) and the New (Second) Testament (Covenant). Otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did about the New Testament. The First was on tables of stone, the Second was on the fleshly tables of our hearts. The whole purpose of both WASN'T to serve God, but to be reconciled to God. Sin separated us from God. What Adam enjoyed in the Garden wasn't servitude but fellowship. Did Adam worship God? Yes, but not as a minion grovels before a master.

As far as deeds are concerned, the scriptures you quoted are way out of context...those who stood before the throne to be judged were those who were not taken in the 1st resurrection. Those in the 1st resurrection were already judged to be righteous. The ones before the throne were the ones left.

The second quote is, again, only half the picture. However, Jesus is instructing us concerning how we treat one another, not salvation by works, and in particular, how we treat the least among us is how we are actually treating Jesus.

A right Christian understanding of the purpose of works is that works perfect our faith and by works our faith is justified. Father Abraham is used as an example of this. Perhaps islam do not have a concept of the grace of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Titus 3:5
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Walks_in_islam]

islam's teaching about Jesus are too incompatible to be in any way reconcilable with Christianity.

Was it I who declared irreconcilable differences in the middle of a discussion about similarities? I have said nothing of wickedness either, imagined or real.

The quoted verses are what they are and if they are incorrect then I am innocently wondering if they should be removed? From where were these incorrect statements added?

There is teaching by Jesus as to what constitutes salvation (also a nod to God/Eli by Jesus):

Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."

"And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor"


Your take on the judgement is similar to your other explanations in that your explanation is not what the story says. The story later finishes with what is also in the Quran:

My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done

I will leave you to puzzle the purpose of the referenced book of life into which names were recorded at judgement.

Jesus stated that it is sin to boast of one's good deeds and that they were to be done in secret. Islam also teaches this thing.

Saul/Paul never met Jesus although there are (3) conflicting stories that he had. I otherwise have no interest in his teaching when his teaching contradicts Jesus and those who were with him (It is believed that James, who contradicts this faith thing, was one of 3 named James who DID know and walk with Jesus) Innocently wondering if you have read the book of James and the many references on faith vs works?

Why do you keep seasoning your reply with jabs and stabs, imagining wickedness where there is none? Let's have a conversation free from petty insults.

Perhaps you really don't know Who Christians believe Jesus is...He is both Son of God and Son of man. The scriptures you quoted are only half the picture. The Son of man would die on the cross on Calvary for my sins and your sins and the sins of the world.

The disciple Thomas would confess before all when he had met the risen Savior:

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

No, Jesus wasn't a messenger; He is Immanuel. He isn't an example to follow, He is that Spirit that will be put in us during conversion (being Born Again) that causes us to be like Him.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the Old (First) Testament (Covenant) and the New (Second) Testament (Covenant). Otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did about the New Testament. The First was on tables of stone, the Second was on the fleshly tables of our hearts. The whole purpose of both WASN'T to serve God, but to be reconciled to God. Sin separated us from God. What Adam enjoyed in the Garden wasn't servitude but fellowship. Did Adam worship God? Yes, but not as a minion grovels before a master.

As far as deeds are concerned, the scriptures you quoted are way out of context...those who stood before the throne to be judged were those who were not taken in the 1st resurrection. Those in the 1st resurrection were already judged to be righteous. The ones before the throne were the ones left.

The second quote is, again, only half the picture. However, Jesus is instructing us concerning how we treat one another, not salvation by works, and in particular, how we treat the least among us is how we are actually treating Jesus.

A right Christian understanding of the purpose of works is that works perfect our faith and by works our faith is justified. Father Abraham is used as an example of this. Perhaps islam do not have a concept of the grace of God.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Titus 3:5
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[HRea]

Does islam have the concept of Immanuel?

islam's teaching about Jesus are too incompatible to be in any way reconcilable with Christianity.

Was it I who declared irreconcilable differences in the middle of a discussion about similarities?
No, you were not the one who declared this...I did, specifically because islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God, islam denies that Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, and islam denies that Jesus is Immanuel. These form a great gulf between the two. If you can reconcile these, then I'll withdraw my assertion.

The quoted verses are what they are and if they are incorrect then I am innocently wondering if they should be removed? From where were these incorrect statements added?
Let's discuss the Bible verses that you have posted. Did you read them contextually? Did you read them at all or did you post from another site? You probably googled some search and these appeared. Fair enough if that's what you did as google is a good starting point when exploring a subject you're not familiar with. However, here are 2 verses that you included about the "Son of man":

Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins

Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I really don't think you meant to include either of these (or many of the others) since they demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ, especially His authority to forgive sins. Many of the ones you listed reveal why Jesus is Immanuel.


There is teaching by Jesus as to what constitutes salvation (also a nod to God/Eli by Jesus):

Your take on the judgement is similar to your other explanations in that your explanation is not what the story says.
Actually, in my response I forgot that you don't understand the Law of the Old Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament ushered in by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the spiritual nature of salvation in the New Testament, the effectual workings of the Grace of God, or the whole New Birth experience. I sometimes make assumptions and these assumptions aren't always correct. You've always been islam so you wouldn't have the foundational Christian teachings. My bad.

If you assume that Jesus is only a messenger, then several Bible scriptures will seem out of place, confusing, or applied incorrectly. However, if you come to understand Jesus as Immanuel, then the meaning of many of the Bible verses will become clear.

Does islam have the concept of Immanuel?

[Walks_in_islam]

I see the issue of deeds appears to be closed. LOL

James is not a long book, nor is Revelation. Do you to take the time to study then return to correct the misguided view that your deeds do not matter.

Since you chose twice to ignore specific passages I gave them all to you. The "sitting on the right hand" thing appears to have been passed over along with the "there is only one who is good, that is God". The rest of the list was passed in amusement to allow you to pick through them and choose the ones that support your view. Thank you for your validation however since you chose to come in here and speak it does not look good, from an objective review, to pass over specific passages from your book,, and leave then unanswered by closing them then offering contradictory ones. I reference the passages that mirror the teachings of the Quran. That you can reference contradictory passages only highlights that fact that (and this is deeply unfortunate) your book is full of contradictions.

I well understand the woven fabrication that is created out of bits and pieces of your book. I also understand the parts that are brushed aside (swept under the rug). It APPEARS to me that many of the swept parts mirror the teachings of the Quran. Innocently wondering if they should be removed?

You and I and all of us will bow to God one day. I will reiterate that Jesus will be exactly where Jesus said he will be and where the Quran says he will be on that day. At the right hand of God.

Your deeds will be read to you (I see that book of life thing got brushed over too) and you will be stunned to know, though you shouldnt because your book said it would be this way, that your deeds will determine where you will be sent.

Believing this enough to perform every single deed with intention to serve and glorify God is what faith is.

Does islam have the concept of Immanuel?


No, you were not the one who declared this...I did, specifically because islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God, islam denies that Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, and islam denies that Jesus is Immanuel. These form a great gulf between the two. If you can reconcile these, then I'll withdraw my assertion.


Let's discuss the Bible verses that you have posted. Did you read them contextually? Did you read them at all or did you post from another site? You probably googled some search and these appeared. Fair enough if that's what you did as google is a good starting point when exploring a subject you're not familiar with. However, here are 2 verses that you included about the "Son of man":

Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins

Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

I really don't think you meant to include either of these (or many of the others) since they demonstrate the deity of Jesus Christ, especially His authority to forgive sins. Many of the ones you listed reveal why Jesus is Immanuel.



Actually, in my response I forgot that you don't understand the Law of the Old Testament, the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament ushered in by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the spiritual nature of salvation in the New Testament, the effectual workings of the Grace of God, or the whole New Birth experience. I sometimes make assumptions and these assumptions aren't always correct. You've always been islam so you wouldn't have the foundational Christian teachings. My bad.

If you assume that Jesus is only a messenger, then several Bible scriptures will seem out of place, confusing, or applied incorrectly. However, if you come to understand Jesus as Immanuel, then the meaning of many of the Bible verses will become clear.

Does islam have the concept of Immanuel?

[HRea]

Your reply is full of insults, it is very disappointing. You have chosen to completely ignore my responses and not focus on the main conflicts that I have highlighted many times for you. Instead, your response with insults and LOL's is quite childish while I'm trying to engage in a serious conversation.

I see the issue of deeds appears to be closed. LOL
No, the subject not closed.

However, I see that because you have chosen 3 times to completely ignore the HUGE conflicts, and that you fully accept them to be irreconcilable, realizing that Christianity can in no wise accept islam's version of Jesus Christ. Instead you try to distract so that others won't notice the HUGE conflicts between the Bible's version of Jesus and the koran's corrupted version.

James is not a long book, nor is Revelation. Do you to take the time to study then return to correct the misguided view that your deeds do not matter.
I told you what James said about faith and works. You did not respond then.

Since you chose twice to ignore specific passages I gave them all to you. The "sitting on the right hand" thing appears to have been passed over along with the "there is only one who is good, that is God".
I addressed the passages you posted. Are you not reading my posts? You are the one not responding to the main conflicts. This is because you cannot. The koran has a very skewed view of who Jesus is...and outrightly lies about His crucifixion and death on the cross.

The rest of the list was passed in amusement to allow you to pick through them and choose the ones that support your view.
So you were not serious about this discussion...passed in amusement...do you sit and chuckle because you cannot answer the HUGE conflicts? Do you LOL when I say that Jesus is Immanuel and ask if islam even has the concept of Immanuel? Are you thoroughly entertained when I bring up redemption through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation? Are you ROFL when the Bible declares that it is the spirit of anti-christ to deny that Jesus is the Son of God?

I well understand the woven fabrication that is created out of bits and pieces of your book. I also understand the parts that are brushed aside (swept under the rug). It APPEARS to me that many of the swept parts mirror the teachings of the Quran. Innocently wondering if they should be removed?
You are not innocently wondering...and you have been unable to answer any of the HUGE conflicts I've given (except one - you rightly said that the koran plainly denies that Jesus is the Son of God). So which book is correct? Either Jesus is Immanuel (Bible) or He isn't (koran). Either Jesus is the Son of God (Bible) or He isn't (koran). Either Jesus was crucified and died on Calvary (Bible) or He didn't (koran). Either Jesus has the power to forgive sins and redeem mankind (Bible) or He can't (koran).

You and I and all of us will bow to God one day. I will reiterate that Jesus will be exactly where Jesus said he will be.
No doubt in my mind whatsoever.

where the Quran says he will be on that day. At the right hand of God.
I'm not sure which version of the koran you're reading, since no where does it make such statement. In fact, the koran places Jesus in the 2nd heaven, lower than both Moses and Abraham. You should probably get a more accurate version to read.

[bbyrd009]

Hrea, you post eloquently, and it pains me to see
the difference you see; a wall, where I am not finding one.
You are just some unpronounceable words away from grasping
that you are both agreeing in loud voices.

[Walks_in_islam]

Your answer

Your reply is full of insults, it is very disappointing. You have chosen to completely ignore my responses and not focus on the main conflicts that I have highlighted many times for you. Instead, your response with insults and LOL's is quite childish while I'm trying to engage in a serious conversation.

I am not highlighting the conflicts. I am highlighting the similarities. I have not however engaged in labelling or namecalling

No, the subject not closed.

No? Then perhaps you will explain why you say you are saved by faith and James/Jesus wrote that you are saved by works based on faith / following the commandments and John wrote that you are judged by your works

However, I see that because you have chosen 3 times to completely ignore the HUGE conflicts, and that you fully accept them to be irreconcilable, realizing that Christianity can in no wise accept islam's version of Jesus Christ. Instead you try to distract so that others won't notice the HUGE conflicts between the Bible's version of Jesus and the koran's corrupted version.

The intolerance of christianity is well-documented. Including in our Constitution which was written in part as answer to it. So I am not stunned to hear that differences in belief are irreconcilable by a christian. Your comment above is noted and accepted. My answers or comments are made directly to you with little thought as to what others may or may not think of them


I told you what James said about faith and works. You did not respond then.

I was so unsure about this that I went back and looked for passages from James. I was unable to find any in your posts. This is probably the reason that I failed to respond to them.


I addressed the passages you posted. Are you not reading my posts? You are the one not responding to the main conflicts. This is because you cannot. The koran has a very skewed view of who Jesus is...and outrightly lies about His crucifixion and death on the cross.

<grin> I must unfortunately take a short trip this morning. When I get back however we will look over the (4) stories of the crucifixion and resurrection together and see if we can determine, from your book, what happened. Do you to know you are assisgned homework and this is what it is: read carefully each version from each book. Then: come back and tell me what exactly happened. (3) of them, since they are different from any (4th) have to be "outrightly" untrue.


So you were not serious about this discussion...passed in amusement...do you sit and chuckle because you cannot answer the HUGE conflicts? Do you LOL when I say that Jesus is Immanuel and ask if islam even has the concept of Immanuel? Are you thoroughly entertained when I bring up redemption through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation? Are you ROFL when the Bible declares that it is the spirit of anti-christ to deny that Jesus is the Son of God?

I am serious about the similarities between the two books. I am amused by the grabbing of some other text or passage in some cases by the same writer that penned the similarities used to example irreconcilable differences

You are not innocently wondering...and you have been unable to answer any of the HUGE conflicts I've given (except one - you rightly said that the koran plainly denies that Jesus is the Son of God). So which book is correct? Either Jesus is Immanuel (Bible) or He isn't (koran). Either Jesus is the Son of God (Bible) or He isn't (koran). Either Jesus was crucified and died on Calvary (Bible) or He didn't (koran). Either Jesus has the power to forgive sins and redeem mankind (Bible) or He can't (koran).

The Quran pens Jesus as a messenger and warner. I said this.


No doubt in my mind whatsoever.


I'm not sure which version of the koran you're reading, since no where does it make such statement. In fact, the koran places Jesus in the 2nd heaven, lower than both Moses and Abraham. You should probably get a more accurate version to read.

You know what, I probably mis-spoke. YOUR book and Jesus himself places Jesus at the right hand of the one Jesus prayed to and taught his followers word for word to pray to and who Muhammed insisted that his followers pray to for all time. The Quran simply highlights judgement by deeds, as Revelation does.

[Walks_in_islam]

Back. Long day. Where were we?

Day of judgement. What is this about lower heaven?

From the Quran concerning the day of judgement (the Quran is silent on the precise location of Jesus)

Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my
mother as gods in derogation of Allah’?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say
what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it.
Thou knowest what is in my heart . . .”

From the Quran concerning the message of Jesus

(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you
part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your
Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

From the Bible concerning the message of Jesus:

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

“Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good (added warning to your audience: You say what they believed, Jesus said what they had done) will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

This is a better match to what the Quran says than to what you say. Just sayin'.

Some other statements by Jesus, similar to what the Quran also says:

"I can of Myself do nothing."
"My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me."
"The word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."
"I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges."
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
"The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority"
"The word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."

So many more I am tired of typing them

[Walks_in_islam]

Very eloquently as it turns out. Earns serious discussion and respectful nod.

Hrea, you post eloquently, and it pains me to see
the difference you see; a wall, where I am not finding one.
You are just some unpronounceable words away from grasping
that you are both agreeing in loud voices.

[Walks_in_islam]

I dont think he's gonna come back until he studies harder though.

Very eloquently as it turns out. Earns serious discussion and respectful nod.

[bbyrd009]

I'm convinced that we have elevated knowledge at the cost of wisdom in this country.
I know illiterate Egyptians with much more sense, and would prolly hire one over a Dr. in most fields.
Particularly spirituality.

[Walks_in_islam]

Who knows he will come out of the discussion with at least a thought to search the book carefully before speaking. It will do him good to read and puzzle over every single word that Jesus spoke.

I'm convinced that we have elevated knowledge at the cost of wisdom in this country.
I know illiterate Egyptians with much more sense, and would prolly hire one over a Dr. in most fields.
Particularly spirituality.

[HolyFire]

islam's teaching about Jesus are too incompatible to be in any way reconcilable with Christianity.

Was it I who declared irreconcilable differences in the middle of a discussion about similarities? I have said nothing of wickedness either, imagined or real.

The quoted verses are what they are and if they are incorrect then I am innocently wondering if they should be removed? From where were these incorrect statements added?

There is teaching by Jesus as to what constitutes salvation (also a nod to God/Eli by Jesus):

Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother."

"And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor"


Your take on the judgement is similar to your other explanations in that your explanation is not what the story says. The story later finishes with what is also in the Quran:

My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done

I will leave you to puzzle the purpose of the referenced book of life into which names were recorded at judgement.

Jesus stated that it is sin to boast of one's good deeds and that they were to be done in secret. Islam also teaches this thing.

Saul/Paul never met Jesus although there are (3) conflicting stories that he had. I otherwise have no interest in his teaching when his teaching contradicts Jesus and those who were with him (It is believed that James, who contradicts this faith thing, was one of 3 named James who DID know and walk with Jesus) Innocently wondering if you have read the book of James and the many references on faith vs works?

A good balance is saved by faith, faith shown by works and in the end we are judged by works.

[bbyrd009]

Amen; unbeatable.

[Walks_in_islam]

That seems to be a common thread

A good balance is saved by faith, faith shown by works and in the end we are judged by works.