Islam and Christianity

fredifreeloader wrote: sorry israfil, but youre still not clear here.  you originally talked of Gods love of creation, then you said you meant his love for, not of, (whats the difference?)and then you said God loves his creation, all of it.  but then you introduce a stipulation in "whether it is humans or animal", indicating you are excluding non-human, non-animal elements.  could we have a clear statement, please, as to what you view as being the object of Gods love, and what the nature of his love is?

Fred you are looking too deep into one word that I am using interchangably because whether God has a "love for" or "love of" the meaning is that he is not only the governor of the universe but also the caretaker of the universe, and its inhabitants. I believe I've noted the particulars in my last post on what that means. When I stated "whether humans or animals" is a statement which is symbolic for his love for all creation "whether big or small" "whether bird or lizard" "whether the moon or sun" all things that exist within the universe he has love for.

fredifreeloader wrote: israfil - what do you mean by the oneness of God, and what do you mean by his love of creation, do you mean his love of the act of creation, or his love of what he created?  or both?

Fred....

There is Only One God as there is only One sun that we orbit around as there is only one planet earth in our Solar System..As Jesus said God is ONE. Simple math brother, there is simply One artisan that is the Creator of everything we see and hear. I will not bring trinity to this issue because trinity in what my statements here does not apply as I am mainly saying that as Jesus said and as Muhammad said God is ONE. what I meant for his love for creation I mean FOR not of....As GOD love his creation, all of it. Whether it is humans or animal. We can see this type of love from our autonomous nervous system that all animals share.

When we are not thinking our heart beats. We do not contro, it but it controls itself. It beats because its functions are to pump blood to circulate through our body. the fact that we are designed to be alive and functional is love in itself. This type of love cannot be shared by a mother or father. This is what I mean....

DavidC wrote: Incidentally, for my Muslim friends who just love to pick my Bible apart, Matthew 5:22 is an excellent example of how the Bible has been edited. The King James verson adds the text "without a just cause", a phrase not in the original scripture and one reason so many churches reject the King James version. I guess the clerics on King Jimmy's payroll were afraid of the King's anger - justified or not!

My dear bro DavidC, once in a life time, I did try to find my faith outside the influence of Islam. During that time, and still now, I came across reading the Bible, as being the book of largest religious community on earth. It was exactly this fear among others, a factor of so much uncertainity in the contents of the book, that I couldn't stand on it for a long. How can I observe certain commandments of the book, which may sometimes later, found to be spurious. This was making me skeptic rather than an honest believer in God. Since then I am happy that I am a Muslim, embracing not only Islam but the faith of Moses as well as Jesus. Quran provides me the strength in my conviction of being on the right path. The conviction, not only through faith but through human intellect as well.

DavidC wrote: Incidentally, for my Muslim friends who just love to pick my Bible apart, Matthew 5:22 is an excellent example of how the Bible has been edited. The King James verson adds the text "without a just cause", a phrase not in the original scripture and one reason so many churches reject the King James version. I guess the clerics on King Jimmy's payroll were afraid of the King's anger - justified or not!

david - can you point out exactly where artscholbe called someone foolish?  i am finding it very hard to pinpoint a reason for the mini-sermon you delivered for his benefit.  of course i may have missed something totally obvious

as for your gratuitous remarks (quoted above) they are an even bigger mystery.  let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the translators of the authorised version made a mistake (easily done, after all), for you then to go on and accuse them of "editing" (a deliberate act) because james was paying them to do so, is an absolute disgrace.  interesting that you have offered nothing to substantiate this slander.  but that wont stop your friends lapping it up