The Religion Discussion

[sMASH]

my purpose here is not to compare religion, theologies, philosophies. i don't want to quibble about which one right or wrong, or if this is so, how this is so. my intention is to get an understanding of the other point of view, what ever it may be.

its like this: i may be a fabricator, i know my trade, i know the tricks. a painter would know about painting, the drying times, the viscosity, the humidity effects, how to prepare the surface.

i would like to know how is painting done. all i know is that a man puts paint on a surface and it looks good. i want to understand how he does his thing, and what really goes on in it.

that does not mean that i want to stop being a fabricator to be a painter. that does not mean that i want to compare both trades to see which one i better.
and if i keep saying 'in fabrication we doh do this so, we do it so...' and 'nah, u eh find this makin more sense?' then i am not trying to learn about painting, but trying to convert painting into fabricating.

i just want to understand what goes on in the other thing... with limited friction.

[MG Man]

BRB.... raping MgMan... will organize second shahadda to wipe those sins away.

u nat sewious

Of course not!!!

Mg Would like it

yew are such a tease

[brams112]

All religions have diffrent views on what their books say,thing is once we pray to god is what that matters.

[d spike]

I am trying to understand your logic.

There are two things wrong with this statement.
First of all, Logic is logic.
This isn't MY logic or explanation.
This rationale existed long before Islam began... (and I am certainly not that old )
Secondly, Logic is logic.
Unless English is not your first language, you shouldn't have a problem processing a logical sequence... Only a fanatic is a stranger to rational thinking.
The beauty in human communication is that minds that think along different lines can meet and understand each other's point of view. Explanation is assisted by logic.
I'm afraid your problem is that you consider this line of thought to be alien to your religion, and so you have erected a mental block to it...
I'm sorry to say it, but the mark of an intelligent person is the ability to think logically outside the confines of what one already knows.

Also, is this explanation from Christian dogma?

(sigh) This statement does nothing to allay my fear that I mentioned earlier.
It also shows that you have no idea what "dogma" means.
What I have presented is simply a very old theological explanation.
"Dogma" is doctrine or a tenet of faith.
So to answer your question, this explanation is not FROM dogma, but is the thinking that caused the Doctrine of the Trinity to be made dogma.
I wonder if this question is just a clumsy attempt to ask if this thinking is Christian in origin... (Nooooooo... really?) ...clearly it is.

references please.

Why do you ask? Are you going to do actual research?

[d spike]

one need not speak actively about islam to perform dawah. one simply has to perform every action according well, and they would ask u what compels u to act that way. and then u can reply, 'i was waiting for u to ask that...'

Very good description of "witnessing".

every body interested in what spike believes in

Well, I belonged to an obscure sect of Pastafarianism, called the Nyahbinghininni... we forsake all types of pasta except the wide, flat kind... on which we place a herb and then roll it up... this can then be eaten, but most often is smoked. The latter is done gradually, while the former is done hastily and at once - normally accompanied by the holy cry, "Babyloncomin"...
I am rather laid back when compared to some of my more fervent brethren. They allow the pasta to stale, so it develops large weevils before they roll it. (This is called a "roach") Some of the younger, more impatient brothers can't wait for the pasta to stale, so some of us used to rent or lease weevils to these brothers. I used to do it too, but I only had two weevils to lease (Simon and Fred) so I was referred to as the "lessor of two weevils". The elders of the church caught me in the act of renting out Simon, and I was charged with Simony. They took away my weevils, and told me not to do it again... but man is sinful in nature, and when I found another pair of weevils, I started renting them out again.

They reminded me of a pair of friends I have, an Arab and a Mexican, so I called them Amal and Juan. I was caught again, but succeeded in hiding Amal. I claimed that I only had one weevil, but witnesses told the elders I had two. When I said I didn't know what this other weevil looked like, an elder responded, "It matters not... if you've seen Juan, you've seen Amal."
I have since been excommunicated and exiled.

[d spike]

oh spike ...u may continue...

...I will stop at this point for your feedback...

I need some feedback from you regarding what you thought about the material posted, in order to continue. That way I will know how to frame my explanation.

[sMASH]

my feed back is, this is like a jig saw puzzle now, and i feel we can go on a little more to see how the pieces start fitting.

feel free to pause when u deem necessary.

[megadoc1]

I am trying to understand your logic.

There are two things wrong with this statement.
First of all, Logic is logic.
This isn't MY logic or explanation.
This rationale existed long before Islam began... (and I am certainly not that old )
Secondly, Logic is logic.
Unless English is not your first language, you shouldn't have a problem processing a logical sequence... Only a fanatic is a stranger to rational thinking.
The beauty in human communication is that minds that think along different lines can meet and understand each other's point of view. Explanation is assisted by logic.
I'm afraid your problem is that you consider this line of thought to be alien to your religion, and so you have erected a mental block to it...
I'm sorry to say it, but the mark of an intelligent person is the ability to think logically outside the confines of what one already knows.

Also, is this explanation from Christian dogma?

(sigh) This statement does nothing to allay my fear that I mentioned earlier.
It also shows that you have no idea what "dogma" means.
What I have presented is simply a very old theological explanation.
"Dogma" is doctrine or a tenet of faith.
So to answer your question, this explanation is not FROM dogma, but is the thinking that caused the Doctrine of the Trinity to be made dogma.
I wonder if this question is just a clumsy attempt to ask if this thinking is Christian in origin... (Nooooooo... really?) ...clearly it is.

references please.

Why do you ask? Are you going to do actual research?

[sarc] if only d spike was around back then to explain this to Allah and his messenger ,Christians would not be erroneously accused of Tritheism [/asam]

[AdamB]

The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins, so that by seeking GOD's forgiveness and asking for HIM to accept our repentance, GOD's PERFECT ATTRIBUTES would be made manifest.

You couldn't have read that in the Holy Bible !!
If so, please tell us what scripture and also where you bought your bible.

AdamB is a Muslim.

If the intention of GOD was to make man a people who would NOT commit sins and the fact is that we do...then we would have to say that "GOD failed in that HE did not create what HE intended / the creation came out different from what GOD wanted to create".

This would mean that GOD is NOT PERFECT in at least HIS ability to create and by extention possibly in other attributes. This is certainly NOT the case, so The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins.

And whoever says otherwise "GLORIFIED BE ALLAH (GOD) AND HE IS HIGH EXALTED ABOVE ALL THAT THEY (LYING FABRICATORS) ATTRIBUTE UNTO HIM. QURAN 37:180

[MG Man]

bahahahahahahahahaha
ohgadoye adam

[AdamB]

From what I know of islam, he is still completely wrong. They have a different concept of original sin

"No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another” (Quran 6:164)

So you ain't born with no original sin, not even from your father...

“Then Adam received Words (of forgiveness) from his Lord, and he accepted his repentance. Verily, He is the One Who repeatedly accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.” (Quran 2:37)

^^^This is where Adam (Not AdamB...lol..) is is relieved of his sin, so it ain't pass down to nobody. No need for Jesus to die (in Islam) for our sins. Don't know where Adam getting this information from for that ludicrus statement.

OK Pal,
My previous posts had absolutely nothing to do with "original sin" but rather with the sins that we commit on a day to day basis, some knowingly others unknowingly. It was in response to Duane's question:
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:

^ just trying to understand what you posted... why do you think God wants us to repent?

However, you are absolutely correct that it is the Islamic view that man is born without any sin. Thanks for researching and reading the Quran. This opposes the Christian concept. Why do you assume that the latter concept is the correct one?

If you want original sin, then pray to GOD ask HIM to give you the sins of your father!!

[AdamB]

you know what might be helpful to the the thread at this time, a little explanation on what is dawah, and how it can be done.

any body willing to show others what we do and the ways we can do it?

Dawah is a word in Arabic that means "to invite" or "to offer to share." This is a very important part of being a Muslim (compulsory on the individual) and it can be somewhat difficult at times. Yet it is not impossible. The fact is that sharing Islam is a very simple concept. The difficulty comes in when you are trying to communicate the idea to others, especially when they have already been predisposed to believe in something else and to believe that Islam is something bad.

Muslims keep in mind at all times that they are on a special mission to deliver a message of inviting people to worship Allah (GOD) according to the way that He wants to be worshipped. We are to call them to know the truth and how to follow it. We do this with both our kind words and correct actions.

The most important subject is the worship of Almighty God, without any partners or associates or "gods" besides Almighty God.

We call to all that is right and righteous and forbid evil.

Our words are used in lectures, sermons, books, tapes and dialogs. These words help people to understand the truth of Islam.

Our actions are observed by others through your behaviour and manners. We become the role model for what Islam is all about.

Both methods (dawah by words and actions) were used by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when delivering the message of Islam. He was the perfect example of what he was calling the people to do. Ayesah, may Allah be pleased with her, said that if you would like to see a living example of the Quran walking, then simply look to Muhammad, peace be upon him. His life was the best example of the noble teachings and principles set forth in the Quran.

Muslims are supposed to advise everyone by using a gentle and simple approach to attract the hungry souls to the Way of Allah. For sure today more than ever, people need to know about Islam and be able to put it into practice.

And who is better in speech than he who [says: "My Lord is Allah (believes in His Oneness)," and then stands firm (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allah's (islamic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: "I am one of the Muslims."
( سورة فصلت , Fussilat, Chapter #41, Verse #33)

one need not speak actively about islam to perform dawah. one simply has to perform every action according well, and they would ask u what compels u to act that way. and then u can reply, 'i was waiting for u to ask that...'

clear example here is spike. every body interested in what spike believes in, why, because of what he says and how he says it.

Point taken,
The nature of man from the arabic is that he is "naseetu"...he forgets, he commits sins against his own soul and affecting others' rights.
I humbly apologize to those I have offended, I promise to try to be a good boy from now on.

[AdamB]

my purpose here is not to compare religion, theologies, philosophies. i don't want to quibble about which one right or wrong, or if this is so, how this is so. my intention is to get an understanding of the other point of view, what ever it may be.

its like this: i may be a fabricator, i know my trade, i know the tricks. a painter would know about painting, the drying times, the viscosity, the humidity effects, how to prepare the surface.

i would like to know how is painting done. all i know is that a man puts paint on a surface and it looks good. i want to understand how he does his thing, and what really goes on in it.

that does not mean that i want to stop being a fabricator to be a painter. that does not mean that i want to compare both trades to see which one i better.
and if i keep saying 'in fabrication we doh do this so, we do it so...' and 'nah, u eh find this makin more sense?' then i am not trying to learn about painting, but trying to convert painting into fabricating.

i just want to understand what goes on in the other thing... with limited friction.

Whilst your objective may be what you have stated above, the objective of da'wah is to tell people of Tawheed (Oneness of GOD) , what it entails, what is its opposite (shirk-associating partners with GOD), how to recognize it, and how to avoid it. It is up to them to accept or reject. Allah will soften their hearts to the truth if they are sincere and ask for HIS guidance.

Verily, the reminder benefits the believers, and the opposite for the opposite.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

someone told me an interesting thing today:

"the more serious someone's illness is, the stronger the medication they would require. Some people believe they are terminal and cannot live without very strong medication. Most people cannot bear that high strength medication, while some cannot live without it"

he also went on to say:
"people who are not ill do not require any medication; however they should strive to remain healthy"

[megadoc1]

someone told me an interesting thing today:

"the more serious someone's illness is, the stronger the medication they would require. Some people believe they are terminal and cannot live without very strong medication. Most people cannot bear that high strength medication, while some cannot live without it"

he also went on to say:
"people who are not ill do not require any medication; however they should strive to remain healthy"

hmm Duane yuh on to something here, Jesus said exactly the same thing

(Matt 9:12 [HCSB])
But when He heard this, He said, “Those who are well don’t need a doctor, but the sick do.

(Matt 9:13 [HCSB])
Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.”



(Mark 2:17 [HCSB])
When Jesus heard this, He told them, “Those who are well don’t need a doctor, but the sick do need one. I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Luke 5:31 [HCSB])
Jesus replied to them, “The healthy don’t need a doctor, but the sick do.

(Luke 5:32 [HCSB])
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus came for people who are sick (sinners), if you aren't sick move along!

[d spike]

Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
Due to the very nature of the first item, Fundamentalist thinking (that may be an oxymoron) is rife with the second item...

Now there are certain misconceptions that I see being bandied about here.
They concern Free will and the Christian concept of Original sin.

If the intention of GOD was to make man a people who would NOT commit sins and the fact is that we do...then we would have to say that "GOD failed in that HE did not create what HE intended / the creation came out different from what GOD wanted to create".

This would mean that GOD is NOT PERFECT in at least HIS ability to create and by extention possibly in other attributes. This is certainly NOT the case, so The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins.

The above assumes the non-existence of Free will.
Free will exists due to God’s love.
Man is not the slave of God.
Man was created a free being, free to choose God or not.
If you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, it is yours.
To think that God “fails” because people sin is an overly simplistic way of thinking, and shows little understanding of why the Creation exists.

you are absolutely correct that it is the Islamic view that man is born without any sin. Thanks for researching and reading the Quran. This opposes the Christian concept. Why do you assume that the latter concept is the correct one?

If you want original sin, then pray to GOD ask HIM to give you the sins of your father!!

This post quoted demonstrates ignorance of the concept of Original sin.
Before anyone thinks I am putting poor AdamB down, let me say that MANY Christians also don’t understand this concept either – but that doesn’t stop them from talking about it… which is why people like AdamB cannot be blamed for their errant thinking.

People tend to think of “sin” as “wrong action”, but sin actually refers to the lack or absence of something very important to our spiritual selves. Original sin refers to an absence of a once-inherent link to the divine.

The story of Adam and Eve (whether it actually happened or not) is meant to teach us something about the human experience.
We were meant to be with God, and to do this we need a special link to the divine.
We are born without this link.
This condition is called Original sin.

[AdamB]

someone told me an interesting thing today:

"the more serious someone's illness is, the stronger the medication they would require. Some people believe they are terminal and cannot live without very strong medication. Most people cannot bear that high strength medication, while some cannot live without it"

he also went on to say:
"people who are not ill do not require any medication; however they should strive to remain healthy"

Sounds like good common sense. Life is the illness that is terminal. The hearts become diseased and are in need of the cure. Man is in need, in need of their LORD.

[megadoc1]

Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
Due to the very nature of the first item, Fundamentalist thinking (that may be an oxymoron) is rife with the second item...

Now there are certain misconceptions that I see being bandied about here.
They concern Free will and the Christian concept of Original sin.

If the intention of GOD was to make man a people who would NOT commit sins and the fact is that we do...then we would have to say that "GOD failed in that HE did not create what HE intended / the creation came out different from what GOD wanted to create".

This would mean that GOD is NOT PERFECT in at least HIS ability to create and by extention possibly in other attributes. This is certainly NOT the case, so The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins.

The above assumes the non-existence of Free will.
Free will exists due to God’s love.
Man is not the slave of God.
Man was created a free being, free to choose God or not.
If you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, it is yours.
To think that God “fails” because people sin is an overly simplistic way of thinking, and shows little understanding of why the Creation exists.

you are absolutely correct that it is the Islamic view that man is born without any sin. Thanks for researching and reading the Quran. This opposes the Christian concept. Why do you assume that the latter concept is the correct one?

If you want original sin, then pray to GOD ask HIM to give you the sins of your father!!

This post quoted demonstrates ignorance of the concept of Original sin.
Before anyone thinks I am putting poor AdamB down, let me say that MANY Christians also don’t understand this concept either – but that doesn’t stop them from talking about it… which is why people like AdamB cannot be blamed for their errant thinking.

People tend to think of “sin” as “wrong action”, but sin actually refers to the lack or absence of something very important to our spiritual selves. Original sin refers to an absence of a once-inherent link to the divine.

The story of Adam and Eve (whether it actually happened or not) is meant to teach us something about the human experience.
We were meant to be with God, and to do this we need a special link to the divine.
We are born without this link.
This condition is called Original sin.

agreed here with d spike

God’s right to govern the Universe
this right doesn’t come from the fact that He is all loving, all powerful, all just, etc. but from the fact that He is creator and by a natural tenure holds everything as His own. Therefore we can conclude that His every action is just. I used the example of “cutting my lawn”. It is my lawn, now someone may disagree and believe that I am hurting baby trees and call me unjust but it is my lawn, therefore I can cut it if I please. Even if God were to willfully destroy every being in the Universe for no other reason than His pleasure, He is still just. This is an action I believe we have all subscribed to by our living.


The Existence of Evil
evil is a result of God’s love. There are different beings, creatures and species on the earth: worms, bacteria, dogs and humans etc. The privilege of being a human is having the capacity to exhibit true love which must be a free choice to be truly called love. So God created us like him – it is the only way love can be exhibited - for God is love. Being like God means we have freewill and we can choose God or No God. This choice allows for the existence of evil. Could not the Almighty God find another way to do this? The answer is yes but then we will all be robots. God made us like Him because that is the only way love can be shown. There is only one way to be like God.


What about suffering in the world?
God could instantly stop suffering on the earth. However it will mean forcing His will on humanity. God could rule the earth like Superman. He can use His omniscience and His omnipresence and instantly stop evil wherever it happens on the earth. Humanity would be subject to Him in every way and the earth would be a beautiful place. However, we will then stop being human. So God in His eternal wisdom has chosen to rule the earth through His love – it is only then that His nature would be manifest in us.

[AdamB]

Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.
Due to the very nature of the first item, Fundamentalist thinking (that may be an oxymoron) is rife with the second item...

Now there are certain misconceptions that I see being bandied about here.
They concern Free will and the Christian concept of Original sin.

If the intention of GOD was to make man a people who would NOT commit sins and the fact is that we do...then we would have to say that "GOD failed in that HE did not create what HE intended / the creation came out different from what GOD wanted to create".

This would mean that GOD is NOT PERFECT in at least HIS ability to create and by extention possibly in other attributes. This is certainly NOT the case, so The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins.

The above assumes the non-existence of Free will.
Free will exists due to God’s love.
Man is not the slave of God.
Man was created a free being, free to choose God or not.
If you love something, set it free. If it returns to you, it is yours.
To think that God “fails” because people sin is an overly simplistic way of thinking, and shows little understanding of why the Creation exists.

you are absolutely correct that it is the Islamic view that man is born without any sin. Thanks for researching and reading the Quran. This opposes the Christian concept. Why do you assume that the latter concept is the correct one?

If you want original sin, then pray to GOD ask HIM to give you the sins of your father!!

This post quoted demonstrates ignorance of the concept of Original sin.
Before anyone thinks I am putting poor AdamB down, let me say that MANY Christians also don’t understand this concept either – but that doesn’t stop them from talking about it… which is why people like AdamB cannot be blamed for their errant thinking.

People tend to think of “sin” as “wrong action”, but sin actually refers to the lack or absence of something very important to our spiritual selves. Original sin refers to an absence of a once-inherent link to the divine.

The story of Adam and Eve (whether it actually happened or not) is meant to teach us something about the human experience.
We were meant to be with God, and to do this we need a special link to the divine.
We are born without this link.
This condition is called Original sin.

@dspike
First of all, to be subtle in insulting people / insulting people with panache is still insulting them. I am the opposite, I say what I mean / tell people what's on my mind in the clearest terms but I promised to be good. Almost everytime you respond to others' posts you insult them, that's not nice (examples in blue above). You assume that your view on everything is the correct one and that everyone else is "dumb". This is a discussion forum where everyone has their own point of view and the right to express them. You claim to be the "godfather" of Christianity (and its knowledge / doctrines), yet you hide and don't say where you stand concerning which branch of Christianity you subscribe to or that you don't subscribe to any at all.

So the question is "Where does your great knowledge come from?" I have asked concerning the belief of the Trinity but you cleverly sidestep. I will say more on this topic in another post.

Secondly, pertaining to the above post: I will refine my statement to read "If you want original sin, then pray to GOD ask HIM to give you the sins of your father (Adam)!! If you don't comprehend MY logic in my preceeding statement

AdamB wrote:
If the intention of GOD was to make man a people who would NOT commit sins and the fact is that we do...then we would have to say that "GOD failed in that HE did not create what HE intended / the creation came out different from what GOD wanted to create".

This would mean that GOD is NOT PERFECT in at least HIS ability to create and by extention possibly in other attributes. This is certainly NOT the case, so The intention of GOD was to make man a people who would commit sins.

What is it in this statement that "assumes the absence of free will?" What is referred to above is the ability of GOD to create, HIS PERFECTNESS and INTENTION. I am not saying that "GOD fails because people sin" but rather "man sins because we have been created to sin". This is linked to repentance which is what the post was really about.

Why do you assume by default that only the Christian concepts are correct? Yet you can't make up your mind if the "story of Adam and Eve really happened". Is it not stated in the Bible? Do you not believe the Bible and everything it contains? If muslims disbelieve in even one word or one letter of the Quran, it is considered a sin equal to an act of disbelief. (This is Islamic doctrine, so no comments please about fundmentalism / errant thinking).

People tend to think of “sin” as “wrong action”, but sin actually refers to the lack or absence of something very important to our spiritual selves. Original sin refers to an absence of a once-inherent link to the divine.
There are different views on sin in different religions but "original sin" as you have defined it is unique to Christianity in which there are also differing views. From Wikipedia:

Original sin[1] is, according to a Christian theological doctrine, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]

The doctrine is not found in Judaism;[4] its scriptural foundation is in the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle. (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22)[2] It began to be developed by the 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus in his controversy with the dualist Gnostics.
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[5] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam.

Orthodoxy prefers using the term "ancestral sin",[6][7] which indicates that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin "[8] In this quotation, "original sin" is used not of the personal sin of Adam, which is his alone and is not transmitted, but in reference to the "distortion of the nature of man", which is inherited.

An important exposition of the belief of Eastern Christians identifies original sin as physical and spiritual death, the spiritual death being the loss of "the grace of God, which quickened (the soul) with the higher and spiritual life".[9] Others see original sin also as the cause of actual sins although, in this view, original and actual sin may be difficult to distinguish.[10]

[AdamB]

I am trying to understand your logic.

There are two things wrong with this statement.
First of all, Logic is logic.
This isn't MY logic or explanation.
This rationale existed long before Islam began... (and I am certainly not that old )
Secondly, Logic is logic.
Unless English is not your first language, you shouldn't have a problem processing a logical sequence... Only a fanatic is a stranger to rational thinking.
The beauty in human communication is that minds that think along different lines can meet and understand each other's point of view. Explanation is assisted by logic.
I'm afraid your problem is that you consider this line of thought to be alien to your religion, and so you have erected a mental block to it...
I'm sorry to say it, but the mark of an intelligent person is the ability to think logically outside the confines of what one already knows.

Also, is this explanation from Christian dogma?

(sigh) This statement does nothing to allay my fear that I mentioned earlier.
It also shows that you have no idea what "dogma" means.
What I have presented is simply a very old theological explanation.
"Dogma" is doctrine or a tenet of faith.
So to answer your question, this explanation is not FROM dogma, but is the thinking that caused the Doctrine of the Trinity to be made dogma.
I wonder if this question is just a clumsy attempt to ask if this thinking is Christian in origin... (Nooooooo... really?) ...clearly it is.

references please.

Why do you ask? Are you going to do actual research?

I ask because I want to know if you have made it up or if it is "the thinking that caused it to be made dogma", who thought of it, where it is documented in order to be verified. Also, the validity from the source ie whether the thinking was substantiated from the Bible.

Now is an opportune time to mention to you the Islamic concept of "knowledge" and "Logical thinking".

Ilm-ul-Kalam (knowledge of theological rhetoric)

[ A discipline that searches for answers to creedal issues using Logic ]

Ilmul-Kalaam (argumentation based on Greek philosophy) is among such innovations in the religion that created intellectual schisms in the Muslim nation and initiated deviant trends. One of the sects that indulged in Ilmul-Kalaam were the Mu’tazilah. They gave precedence to intellect over the revealed texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah – when they perceived the two conflicted. This attitude set an evil precedent for all later groups who sought to make intellect and desire decisive over the Qur’aan and the Sunnah

Ibn Baz Fatwa on this topic:

Q 3: Some people read many intellectual and scientific books and think that they have become a scholar or a Da’y (caller to Islam), although they may have poor knowledge in Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and have not read any books about Shari’ah (Islamic law). What is Your Eminence’s opinion in this regard?

A: Knowledge of Shari’ah (Islamic Law) is derived from what Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) have said, and not from someone else’s words. The first source of Islamic knowledge is the Word of Allah (Quran) and His Messenger, then the views of Muslim scholars who explain and interpret them for people. These scholars are Allah’s successors on earth after the messengers.

Allah (may He be Glorified and Exalted) says:(Surah Al-`Imran, 3: 18) Allah bears witness that Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), and the angels, and those having knowledge (also give this witness). Here, knowledge refers to knowing Allah and His Religion. Allah (may He be Exalted) says:(Surah Fatir, 35: 28) It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah. They are the messengers and their insightful followers, who follow this truthful religion and abide by the Qur’an and Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet). Muslim scholars are the heirs of Messengers, since they explain the religion and guide others to Allah.

Moreover, a true knowledge seeker studies and reflects on the Qur’an and Sunnah and learns from Muslim scholars. This is the way of acquiring knowledge of Shari`ah which involves doing acts of obedience, meditating and benefiting from others. A knowledge seeker should read a lot, with the aim of attaining as much knowledge as possible. They should reflect on knowledge and look for answers to unclear matters in trustworthy books of Tafsir (exegesis of the meanings of the Qur’an) such as Tafsir by Ibn Kathir, Al-Baghawy and others, in addition to paying great attention to books of Hadith. Furthermore, knowledge of Shari`ah should be taken from knowledgeable scholars among Ahl-ul-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah (those adhering to the Sunnah and the Muslim main body) and not scholars of ‘Ilm-ul-Kalam (a discipline that searches for answers to creedal issues using logic), innovators in religion or ignorant people.

Anything that is not included in the Qur’an and Sunnah cannot be considered Islamic knowledge, even if it is useful in worldly affairs. Here, we are concerned about knowledge that is useful in the Hereafter, which eliminates ignorance, clarifies the religion and shows people what Allah has made lawful and unlawful to them. Indeed, this is the true knowledge of Shari`ah (Islamic Law).

Ibn Baz fatwas

The above is an Islamic ruling of Shaykh Ibn Baz. Only the most highly qualified of scholars are allowed to issue them.

You can see the similarity here concerning your statements about using logic to derive knowledge as opposed to valid sources / scriptures.

Maybe you need a jolt in memory:
AdamB wrote:

We (muslims) only say about GOD what HE has informed us about HIMSELF in HIS book (Quran) and from HIS messenger (Muhammad).

Did you actually read this before you hit the "Submit" button?
Forget about religion (based on faith) just use logic (based on rational thinking) - something Muslim scholars used to be famous for...
You are claiming to be true
a statement that is found only in one book
and you hold this premise to be true
because it is found in this book
and you believe the book to be true
because it contains that statement.

In other words,
your faith is based on a book which was written based on that same faith.

I would suggest you look up "circular thinking".

Try and understand the difference between Faith and Knowledge.

Your comments please, easy on the insults!!

[AdamB]

My Christian friends,
Can you identify which branch of christianity you subscribe to?

http://islamic-invitation.com/images/all-christian.jpg

[megadoc1]

My Christian friends,
Can you identify which branch of christianity you subscribe to?

http://islamic-invitation.com/images/all-christian.jpg

I am catholic .....as for me I belong to this branch
Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Joh 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
Joh 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

and you see all those branches that you post in that pic, they all need to be part of the same branch (Jesus) on a personal level not corporately as you think it is done,
secondly, If you did your research you would see that there is only one bible but many translations of it only a few are purposely rendered in error to suit a particular belief system such as the Jehovah witnesses' new world translation
but if you take any other translation (not different bible as you erroneously called it) and test them against the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts ( which are available for you today)they would be very close
thirdly, God is not concerned about what denomination or abomination ...lol that I belong to, all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

My Christian friends,
Can you identify which branch of christianity you subscribe to?

http://islamic-invitation.com/images/all-christian.jpg

AdamB which Islamic sect do you subscribe to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sc ... d_branches

[RBphoto]

It have some Jammat ppl who hate asja pple worse than Hindu... jusayin.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

all He is concerned about is "do I know you?" and "how did you respond to my love displayed as the Son on the cross"

why is God concerned about that?

[Kasey]

If more than one person (many!!) aggrees with the way Spiky is handling his responses to AdamB, and are of other religious beliefs, and also have been up to speed with this thread from day one (2009),...........then do we aggree that AdamB's complaints of being insulted are just?

Called someone grandpa here:

Grandpa
you entitled to your opinion and I entitled to mine.

Time and condition for allowing yourself to be slapped 70 times 7 is gone bro! I prescribe to standing up for your rights, taking no BS.

Called sMASH misguided here:

BTW Not everyone who posts on this forum claiming to present views of a religion actually knows everything that they claim to know. My brother in faith sMASH has some misguided views as well. That happens when you accept without questioning or seeking firm evidences.

Name-called here again:

Your statement above is the statement of a FEEBLE MIND, it neither sounds very scientific nor logical!! Where did you study the "science of styles of writing" OR conducted experiments on "trolls in Arab and non-Arab countries"?

And to quote you again..."DUMBASS!!!!!"

Told someone to keep their trap shut here:

If you have nothing constructive to add, then keep your trap shut. Is there a scientific hypothesis that describes you behaviour?

Of course IMHO this was the most insulting, and offensive to hindus where he called Hindus men drunkards and gays, and that they do "simmy dimmy":

All of the hindus I have known my entire life and they are many, none of them ever read a Hindu scripture. They just call the pundit to do their simmy dimmy and plant a flag. Some may be like you, to show off (or taunt their in-laws.

As for me, I was disobedient, every other word a curse, just like you before I encountered Islam read the Quran cover to cover, then accepted. Now, many years later, I am not perfect but practise to the best of my ability. Yes I am a good muslim boy...from a hindu father who doesn't pretend to be religious by putting up flags...and proud to be a good example to my kids.

As for the Friday evening lime, you'll be sure NOT to see me there because the only good hindu boys who lime and don't consume alcohol are the boys who like boys, which is not a problem in your religion as well, right? Anything goes, all rivers flow to the sea...

Kasey, you have to excuse them, they can only write in accordance with their level of intellect.

Awwww, are your yittle feeelings being hurt? Now you claim insult because you are getting uncomfortable?

If yuh can't take the heat GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Before I proceed with this post, I need to make something absolutely clear:
I am not about decrying any major religion, or saying any one religion is better that another.
I only have a problem with two things where religion is concerned:
1. Fundamentalism;
2. Errant teaching.

I have an issue with that regarding religion

Fundamentalism is defined as "strict adherence".

I cannot understand though how someone can follow only some of the rules of a religion. It's either you are Christian 100% or Muslim 100% or Hindu 100% or you aren't. I don't think there is a 50% Hindu or 73% Muslim etc

So technically each religion teaches that every follower should strive to be a fundamentalist.
Not so?

Does any religious text for any religion say "follow these words in moderation or according to your own comfort level"?

[sMASH]

it may be defined as 'strict adherence' but the popular recent interpretation of intolerant fanboyism is what i presume is meant.
probably fanatic would be more appropriate.

buttttt, i was in the middle of a theology class.

[AdamB]

My Christian friends,
Can you identify which branch of christianity you subscribe to?

http://islamic-invitation.com/images/all-christian.jpg

AdamB which Islamic sect do you subscribe to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_sc ... d_branches

I subscribe to the Sunni branch but not one particular school of law because they were imams who gave religious verdicts / rulings all according to the Quran and each according to the hadith that were available to them at the time (to the best of their knowledge). They all said that if any other sound hadith came afterward that opposes their view on any particular ruling, then to leave off what they had ruled and go with the new ruling.

All of the four branches under Sunni belong to Ahlus-sunnah wal Jamaa'ah - "They are those who hold on to the Sunnah of the Messenger, the ones who unite themselves upon that and they are the Companions of the Messenger, the Scholars of Guidance, who follow the Companions and whoever travels upon their path in terms of belief, speech and action until the Day of Judgement, while remaining steadfast upon this adherence. They avoid innovating and innovations in whatever place or age/era they may be. They are the ones who will remain uppermost, aided (by Allaah) until the Day of Judgement."

So Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah have been described with sticking to the Sunnah and [in all circumstances] avoiding/disregarding the invented matters and innovations in the Deen (religion).

By the word Jamaa'ah the totality of muslims is not meant, nor those who are largest in number or the great majority. There are other synonymous terms used to describe Ahlus-Sunnah:
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/aqeedah/0022.htm

The Shia and Khawaarij are deviated sects (along with the Ahmadiyya movement present in Trinidad) and Allah (GOD) knows best their fate as HE is the one who will judge everyone on the Day of Judgment.

[AdamB]

@ Kasey, those posts were in response to abusive or non-constructive posts. I have not intentionally insulted anyone here who was interested in having a serious debate / discussion.
I have apologized for those posts and do so again.

I see you had asked a question for which you did not get answer:
Who created God?
The muslim position on this question is that it is a doubt brought about from the whisper of Satan.

On the authority of ‘Aa’ishah -Radi Allaahu anha- who said that the Messenger of Allaah -
sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam- said: ‘If the Shaytan comes to one of you and says: ‘Who created
you?’ say ‘Allaah.’ Then he will say: who created Allaah? So if one of you finds this
situation then say: ‘I have believed in Allaah and His Messengers.’ This doubt will
then leave you.’
Narrated by Ahmad graded Hasan by Albani [saheehah 116]

In another narration also in Saheehah (Hadeeth No.117), the Prophet -sallAllaahu alayhi wa
sallam- said: ‘The Shaytan comes to one of you and says: ‘Who created this? Who
created that? Who created this? Until he says who created your lord? So if this
reaches you then seek refuge in Allaah and it will end.’
Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Sunni.

It is obligatory for the one Shaytan whispers to, by saying ‘who created Allaah?’, that he turns away from debating with him and responds with what was mentioned in the previous Ahadeeth, the summary of which is:
I have believed in Allaah and His Messengers. ‘He is Allaah, The One, Allaahus-Samad,
He does not beget nor was He begotten, and there is none like unto Him.’ Then he
should spittle to his left three times and seek refuge from the Shaytan. This (then)
stops him from being carried away by the whisperings of Shaytan.

Shaykh Al-Albaani said: I truly believe that whoever does this sincerely, out of obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, these whisperings will definitely leave him and his Shaytan will be defeated due to the saying of the Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam-: ‘Then this doubt will leave you.’