NationStates

Anywhere Else But Here wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
My grandmother acts like the nicest most kind-hearted person that you could ever meet when she's in Church. But if you're not white -- expect her to talk shit about you the very moment she leaves.

My great-uncle's the opposite. He perfectly fits the stereotype of the grumpy uncle. At family reunions he sits around complaining about the children and being generally irritable, but when I came out to the extended family he sent me the sweetest e-mail in support.

Dawwwww.

Lady Scylla wrote:

Luminesa wrote:Most grumpy people are not very tolerant of anyone, though...

My grandmother acts like the nicest most kind-hearted person that you could ever meet when she's in Church. But if you're not white -- expect her to talk shit about you the very moment she leaves.

Oh dear.

Dooplevinia wrote:Thanks for trying to help but maybe someone how is actively a Mormon can explain as it seems you may be a tad confused. (No offense)

ThePeacekeepers wrote:Mormons are generally good people they do not drink or smoke and usually try to help people when given the chance. The person you met was not a true Mormon. Also they believe that some sins are so horrible that Christ's blood can't atone for them, so one's own blood must be spilt, adultery being the main one.

I actually am not aware of this. I have never committed adultery so I don't know for sure xD To my knowledge all sins can be forgiven some take a little longer then others Adultery and Murder being among some of the longer. The only sin that can't be forgiven is the so called "Unpardonable Sin" Mentioned in the Bible as denying the Holy Ghost.

ThePeacekeepers wrote:They believe it is a curse on the person and once they are a true Mormon they turn white. Black skin is also thought to be the mark of Cain.

No. Actually Joseph Smith ordained black people to the priesthood in the very beginning. Later as the church grew it became common practice to not give Black People the priesthood despite there being no doctrine to back them up. In 1978 the issue was brought up as people were unsure Spencer W. Kimball (The then president of the Church) then received revelation that (I'm paraphrasing here) of course Black People could get the priesthood!

Brigham young said that he has not a wife he loves so much that if he caught them in the act of adultery he would not put a javelin through them both and in doing so their blood would atone for their sins. Then it says what I mention before.

There is place that says that once a black man became saved he turned white and that is used as an example of what would happen to colored people who are saved.
http://www.ldslearning.org/book-of-morm ... k-skin.htm
https://www.lds.org/search?domains=scri ... alma+23+18
Look at those two links and you'll see that what I was saying was true about what Mormon's believe.

ThePeacekeepers wrote:

Dooplevinia wrote:Thanks for trying to help but maybe someone how is actively a Mormon can explain as it seems you may be a tad confused. (No offense)

I actually am not aware of this. I have never committed adultery so I don't know for sure xD To my knowledge all sins can be forgiven some take a little longer then others Adultery and Murder being among some of the longer. The only sin that can't be forgiven is the so called "Unpardonable Sin" Mentioned in the Bible as denying the Holy Ghost.

No. Actually Joseph Smith ordained black people to the priesthood in the very beginning. Later as the church grew it became common practice to not give Black People the priesthood despite there being no doctrine to back them up. In 1978 the issue was brought up as people were unsure Spencer W. Kimball (The then president of the Church) then received revelation that (I'm paraphrasing here) of course Black People could get the priesthood!

Brigham young said that he has not a wife he loves so much that if he caught them in the act of adultery he would not put a javelin through them both and in doing so their blood would atone for their sins. Then it says what I mention before.

There is place that says that once a black man became saved he turned white and that is used as an example of what would happen to colored people who are saved, I'll ask my pastor when I get the chance for the page and passage number.
http://www.ldslearning.org/book-of-morm ... k-skin.htm
https://www.lds.org/search?domains=scri ... alma+23+18
Look at those two links and you'll see that what I was saying was true about what Mormon's believe.

it says that in Jacob 3:8-9 and 2 Nephi 5:21-24

Ashmoria wrote:

Eli Islands wrote:I think they believe Jesus was a prophet (I could be wrong)

which doesn't make them Christian any more than considering the old testament the word of god makes you jewish.

Though, for what it's worth, the Byzantines initially considered Islam to be a slightly eccentric Arian heresy rather than a new religion precisely because of the position of Jesus within Islam; and your average 7th to 8th-century Byzantine theologian was hardly ignorant of comparative theology.

From a purely historical perspective, the separate status of Christianity and Islam may seem inevitable now, but it didn't necessarily seem so inevitable to early contemporaries.

Dooplevinia wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:I don't know anything about islam and following jesus.

They believe Jesus was Isa however they don't believe in any of his teachings as they believe the whole Bible was disformed and thus everything that Jesus said in the Bible he didn't actually say so they don't actually believe in any teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Almost nothing in this sentence is true.

Islam has tremendous respect for Jesus/Isa, respecting many of His teachings and acknowledging several of His miracles as well as both the Virgin Birth and the Second Coming.

What Islam rejects is the Crucifixion (and thereby the Resurrection) and Jesus' status within Christianity as the Son of God; Islam also rejects the Trinity.

Since there have been a fair number of Christian denominations over the last 2000 years that reject Jesus' divinity and/or the Trinity, these aren't by themselves enough to disqualify Islam as a Christian denomination.

The real point of distinction is that Jesus is neither the final nor greatest prophet, and that the individual who does hold that position within Islam openly argued he was starting a distinct, purified religion (albeit one that draws on both Judaism and Christianity).

The Archregimancy wrote:

Dooplevinia wrote:They believe Jesus was Isa however they don't believe in any of his teachings as they believe the whole Bible was disformed and thus everything that Jesus said in the Bible he didn't actually say so they don't actually believe in any teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Almost nothing in this sentence is true.

Islam has tremendous respect for Jesus/Isa, respecting many of His teachings and acknowledging several of His miracles as well as both the Virgin Birth and the Second Coming.

What Islam rejects is the Crucifixion (and thereby the Resurrection) and Jesus' status within Christianity as the Son of God; Islam also rejects the Trinity.

Since there have been a fair number of Christian denominations over the last 2000 years that reject Jesus' divinity and/or the Trinity, these aren't by themselves enough to disqualify Islam as a Christian denomination.

The real point of distinction is that Jesus is neither the final nor greatest prophet, and that the individual who does hold that position within Islam openly argued he was starting a new, purified religion (albeit one that draws on both Judaism and Christianity).

Islam itself, or at least Mohammed, does not reject the Bible, however most Muslims do. They reject the Bible because, even though Mohammed only ever showed respect for the Bible, or at least the Gospels, as Scripture, this becomes an untenable position to hold. If the Bible is Scripture, then Islam is false, as Islam contradicts the Bible. Therefore, Muslims have come to the conclusion that the Bible simply must have been corrupted at some point in its history.

I would argue that any denomination which rejects Jesus's divinity and/or the Trinity is not Christian.

I would argue that any denomination which rejects Jesus's divinity and/or the Trinity is not Christian.

Indeed, but Muslims do not claim to be Christian, they claim to be a totally different religion altogether.

And don't call me Shirley.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:which doesn't make them Christian any more than considering the old testament the word of god makes you jewish.

Though, for what it's worth, the Byzantines initially considered Islam to be a slightly eccentric Arian heresy rather than a new religion precisely because of the position of Jesus within Islam; and your average 7th to 8th-century Byzantine theologian was hardly ignorant of comparative theology.

From a purely historical perspective, the separate status of Christianity and Islam may seem inevitable now, but it didn't necessarily seem so inevitable to early contemporaries.

They probably didn't know Islam rejects both the Crucifixion and Resurrection. If they did, they certainly wouldn't see it as simply a heresy.

Venerable Bede wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Though, for what it's worth, the Byzantines initially considered Islam to be a slightly eccentric Arian heresy rather than a new religion precisely because of the position of Jesus within Islam; and your average 7th to 8th-century Byzantine theologian was hardly ignorant of comparative theology.

From a purely historical perspective, the separate status of Christianity and Islam may seem inevitable now, but it didn't necessarily seem so inevitable to early contemporaries.

They probably didn't know Islam rejects both the Crucifixion and Resurrection. If they did, they certainly wouldn't see it as simply a heresy.

It's difficult to tell exactly what Byzantines thought of Islam in the 7th century, not least because 7th-century Islam itself is shrouded in mystery. It's only in the last few decades that we've been able to conclude that the Qur'an actually does date to the 630s and 640s (if not even earlier), rather than to the end of the 7th century.

7th-century Byzantine authors did seem to think Islam was closer to Judaism than it was to Christianity. The Teaching of Jacob, an anti-Semitic screed from the 630s, shoehorns in a rejection of the idea that Muhammad was the Jewish Messiah. The Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute from the 640s 'prophecied' (after the fact) that the 'Ishmaelites' would 'hound the Christians' and seek to rebuild the Jewish Temple. And the Armenian bishop Sebeos wrote in the 660s that Muhammad convinced the Arabs to worship the God of Abraham (and, for that matter, banned eating carrion, drinking wine, telling lies, and committing adultery), and forged an alliance against Herakleios with the Jews, based on their common descent from Abraham.

Certainly in the 7th century, there didn't seem to be much of a suggestion that Islam was a Christian heresy - only that it was an Abrahamic, monotheistic faith with some relationship to Jewish Messianic prophecy. Quite what led the Byzantines to make that latter connection is another question altogether.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:which doesn't make them Christian any more than considering the old testament the word of god makes you jewish.

Though, for what it's worth, the Byzantines initially considered Islam to be a slightly eccentric Arian heresy rather than a new religion precisely because of the position of Jesus within Islam; and your average 7th to 8th-century Byzantine theologian was hardly ignorant of comparative theology.

From a purely historical perspective, the separate status of Christianity and Islam may seem inevitable now, but it didn't necessarily seem so inevitable to early contemporaries.

my sister spent quite a while on facebook trying to convince my newly evangelical cousin (73ish years old) that muslims and Christians and jews all worship the same god.

Auristania wrote:

I would argue that any denomination which rejects Jesus's divinity and/or the Trinity is not Christian.

Indeed, but Muslims do not claim to be Christian, they claim to be a totally different religion altogether.

And don't call me Shirley.

However, it has Christian roots. It's stil an Abrahamic religion.

Ashmoria wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Though, for what it's worth, the Byzantines initially considered Islam to be a slightly eccentric Arian heresy rather than a new religion precisely because of the position of Jesus within Islam; and your average 7th to 8th-century Byzantine theologian was hardly ignorant of comparative theology.

From a purely historical perspective, the separate status of Christianity and Islam may seem inevitable now, but it didn't necessarily seem so inevitable to early contemporaries.

my sister spent quite a while on facebook trying to convince my newly evangelical cousin (73ish years old) that muslims and Christians and jews all worship the same god.

We absolutely do not, we just shares some common stories.

Gim wrote:

Auristania wrote: Indeed, but Muslims do not claim to be Christian, they claim to be a totally different religion altogether.

And don't call me Shirley.

However, it has Christian roots. It's stil an Abrahamic religion.

It has Christian roots sure, so does secular Christmas.

Venerable Bede wrote:

Gim wrote:
However, it has Christian roots. It's stil an Abrahamic religion.

It has Christian roots sure, so does secular Christmas.

Yeah, so what's your point?

Gim wrote:

Venerable Bede wrote:It has Christian roots sure, so does secular Christmas.

Yeah, so what's your point?

My point is that Islam's relationship to Christianity has little or no bearing on its practice, tenets, theology, beliefs, etc. There is only cosmetic kinship.

Venerable Bede wrote:

Gim wrote:
Yeah, so what's your point?

My point is that Islam's relationship to Christianity has little or no bearing on its practice, tenets, theology, beliefs, etc. There is only cosmetic kinship.

What about Ishmael?

Gim wrote:

Venerable Bede wrote:My point is that Islam's relationship to Christianity has little or no bearing on its practice, tenets, theology, beliefs, etc. There is only cosmetic kinship.

What about Ishmael?

What about him? Muslims don't even apply the term to the same person, he just has the same lineage and name, but the Muslim Ishmael is a totally different person than the Christian or Jewish Ishmael; Muslims impute him in the place of Isaac at Abraham's sacrifice for instance (presumably to give the father of the Arabs top billing over the father of the Jews), and for some weird reason have it done with an axe instead of a knife.

Venerable Bede wrote:

Gim wrote:
What about Ishmael?

What about him? Muslims don't even apply the term to the same person, he just has the same lineage and name, but the Muslim Ishmael is a totally different person than the Christian or Jewish Ishmael; Muslims impute him in the place of Isaac at Abraham's sacrifice for instance (presumably to give the father of the Arabs top billing over the father of the Jews), and for some weird reason have it done with an axe instead of a knife.

Well, it's the same guy but different interpretations. He's still the son of Abraham.

Gim wrote:

Venerable Bede wrote:What about him? Muslims don't even apply the term to the same person, he just has the same lineage and name, but the Muslim Ishmael is a totally different person than the Christian or Jewish Ishmael; Muslims impute him in the place of Isaac at Abraham's sacrifice for instance (presumably to give the father of the Arabs top billing over the father of the Jews), and for some weird reason have it done with an axe instead of a knife.

Well, it's the same guy but different interpretations. He's still the son of Abraham.

So is Isaac, but he's not the same figure. And if we're talking about real persons, "interpretation" is a much more limited term than when applied to fictional characters. And even with purely fictional characters, radically different interpretations are not conflated.

Venerable Bede wrote:

Gim wrote:
Well, it's the same guy but different interpretations. He's still the son of Abraham.

So is Isaac, but he's not the same figure. And if we're talking about real persons, "interpretation" is a much more limited term than when applied to fictional characters. And even with purely fictional characters, radically different interpretations are not conflated.

Isaac has one interpretation, and that is shown in the Bible. What other "interpretations" are you talking about?

Gim wrote:

Venerable Bede wrote:So is Isaac, but he's not the same figure. And if we're talking about real persons, "interpretation" is a much more limited term than when applied to fictional characters. And even with purely fictional characters, radically different interpretations are not conflated.

Isaac has one interpretation, and that is shown in the Bible. What other "interpretations" are you talking about?

The Muslim one. Muslims believe the Bible is defective, and that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was going to sacrifice.

Venerable Bede wrote:

Gim wrote:
Isaac has one interpretation, and that is shown in the Bible. What other "interpretations" are you talking about?

The Muslim one. Muslims believe the Bible is defective, and that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was going to sacrifice.

Who was the mother of Ishmael?

Gim wrote:

Venerable Bede wrote:The Muslim one. Muslims believe the Bible is defective, and that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham was going to sacrifice.

Who was the mother of Ishmael?

Agar.

Venerable Bede wrote:

Gim wrote:
Who was the mother of Ishmael?

Agar.

Hagar is a prostitute with whom Abraham had sexual relations to try and have a child. God reassured Abraham that he would have a child with Sarah, but Abraham didn't believe him and had sex with Hagar.
Hagar bore Ishmael, and both were banished.