Is there a fundamental misunderstanding betwen Mormons and Muslims? help solving the puzzle!!

[b_line]

I think Hebrews 11:1 puts it the best, but a simple way is trusting in something you can't prove.

What I'm saying is that the Bible teaches that we are saved through our faith, not our works.

I'm a faith +works kinda guy. Because I believe how we treat others in this life affects us in the next life, and being a good person is a good idea regardless of religion.

Important things to me:

1. Working hard at worthwhile things.
2. Being kind and loving (being Christlike)
3. Family in general, and more specifically my wife and kid.
4. Friends.

That is not necesarily the order, but I would say that those things are most important to me in my life.

 

[Siro]

I think Hebrews 11:1 puts it the best, but a simple way is trusting in something you can't prove.

What I'm saying is that the Bible teaches that we are saved through our faith, not our works.

Heh. Someone's been reading Saint Augustine.

 

[Hantlers]

Heh. Someone's been reading Saint Augustine.

I've been reading my bible.

Saved by faith, but faith without works is dead. Basically, faith is what we have, our works are the proof that we have faith.

I've never read Augustine's stuff. Probably should sometime.

 

[MVP]

It's relevant in building a sense of community-- I imagine..

It is valid point. But I hated it growing up. Christmas eve dinner or Good Friday or some other Catholic requirements not to eat meat was driving me mental and made me wanting to eat meat on those days even more. I was getting the looks as a teenager in school cafe when I was ordering something with meat on those days - "what, wait you don't belong"? I love individual expression and freedom of choice. Community and its rules sounds depressing and suppressing. Maybe I am just a rebel at birth lol.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It is valid point. But I hated it growing up. Christmas eve dinner or Good Friday or some other Catholic requirements not to eat meat was driving me mental and made me wanting to eat meat on those days even more. I was getting the looks as a teenager in school cafe when I was ordering something with meat on those days - "what, wait you don't belong"? I love individual expression and freedom of choice. Community and its rules sounds depressing and suppressing. Maybe I am just a rebel at birth lol.

It's because human beings aren't monolithic-- what works for one person, or one family might not work for another. Your reason is perfectly valid.

Some people love being Mormon and living in Utah. Different faiths (or lack thereof) resonate with people to different extents, which explain why there is such a wide range of belief systems that people hold today. My Islamic faith is a best fit for me, as the Mormon faith might be a best fit for Bronco70 or Trout. Siromar strikes me as an exemplary individual even though he is an atheist. If we're all working towards the same things, and accomplish similar things that our God would approve of (prooviding that He exists), who am I to say that I am a better person than they?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Of course we are where we are because of how history unfolded. How else can it be? And while my comment was in jest, I fully believe in the essence of it. I'm not a believer, and to me Islam is just another ideology in the endless ocean of human ideologies. And it is an ideology that the world would be much better without. That obviously applies to many other ideologies, but I tend to bring up Islam because it touches the lives of many of the people I personally know. Muslims of the Muslim world are the ones who really pay the price Islam demands. The religion has obliterated Middle Eastern intellectual culture, and there are virtually no worthwhile Muslim thinkers as far as the rest of humanity is concerned. The philosophical discourse within the Muslim world is over nonsense like whether it is permissible for women to drive or go to school. That bothers me more than all the violence and bloodshed, because it tells me that these things are here to stay.

I'm just not seeing a path to the modernization that Islam desperately needs. The sad fact is that Islam acts as a serious barrier to progress wherever it's present. Even in more modern places like Turkey, it is hard to argue that Islam adds up to a net positive. How can you blame me for being resentful when I don't see a way forward for the culture that I come from?

I'm about to coach a basketball game-- later tonight I'll recommend a book for you that I think you'd really enjoy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colton]

What? I don't agree. All scripture, every word of it, is God-breathed. Those are God's words. God's words are flawless, perfect...that would be inerrant. I don't see why we wouldn't have need of the scripture after Psalms, Jesus hadn't come to save our sins yet...that was a pretty big deal in the Bible.

Then which version of the Bible do you consider to be flawless and perfect? The KJV? The NIV? The Martin Luther translation in German? The original Greek and/or Latin? And if that last one, who do you trust to translate it into a language you are familiar with, without introducing any errors at all? And which source of the original Greek and Latin manuscripts is the flawless/perfect one? (because different sources disagree with each other in places)

If the Bible were truly inerrant, then in my opinion it would be clear which *version* of the Bible is the inerrant one. Because they can't all be. Or so it seems to me. I do believe that the original *revelations* given to the prophets and apostles were inerrant... that's what's truly scripture to me. But not the error-filled transcriptions we have today.

Again, I'm fine if you disagree with me. I'm writing this to explain what I believe, not to persuade you that I'm correct.

My point about Psalms is that how can a passage in Psalms be used to claim that the Bible is complete, if when it was written the Bible was NOT complete? Any Jew in the time of Jesus could have used that very same passage to explain why none of the New Testament was needed. Your argument is the same as theirs, and both are flawed in my opinion.

 

[sirkickyass]

All scripture is God-breathed? Who wrote it down?

 

[Hantlers]

Then which version of the Bible do you consider to be flawless and perfect? The KJV? The NIV? The Martin Luther translation in German? The original Greek and/or Latin? And if that last one, who do you trust to translate it into a language you are familiar with, without introducing any errors at all? And which source of the original Greek and Latin manuscripts is the flawless/perfect one? (because different sources disagree with each other in places)

If the Bible were truly inerrant, then in my opinion it would be clear which *version* of the Bible is the inerrant one. Because they can't all be. Or so it seems to me. I do believe that the original *revelations* given to the prophets and apostles were inerrant... that's what's truly scripture to me. But not the error-filled transcriptions we have today.

Again, I'm fine if you disagree with me. I'm writing this to explain what I believe, not to persuade you that I'm correct.

My point about Psalms is that how can a passage in Psalms be used to claim that the Bible is complete, if when it was written the Bible was NOT complete? Any Jew in the time of Jesus could have used that very same passage to explain why none of the New Testament was needed. Your argument is the same as theirs, and both are flawed in my opinion.

All of those versions, they have the same gospel message, correct? Even when checking the Bible's current translation with what was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were only a minor fraction of differences, and they were all minor words that did not change any message in the Bible!

As for Psalms, again, God-breathed words. Do you think God knew what was going to be in the Bible in the future? He is all-knowing after all.

 

[sirkickyass]

All of those versions, they have the same gospel message, correct? Even when checking the Bible's current translation with what was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were only a minor fraction of differences, and they were all minor words that did not change any message in the Bible!

As for Psalms, again, God-breathed words. Do you think God knew what was going to be in the Bible in the future? He is all-knowing after all.

I suggest you spend substantially more time researching the history of Bible translation. Even your reference to a supposed "current translation" appears to state that you believe there is a currently agreed upon correct translation. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this is why the most honest translations currently published are heavily footnoted. Even the decision about which books are in and which books are relegated to the Apocrypha changes substantially from region to region and is political rather than strictly doctrinal.

Sadly, the book has changed immeasurably over the centuries. Some of the best parts, even that one about turning the other cheek, appear to have been entirely fabricated from whole cloth.

For starters, I recommend "Misquoting Jesus."

 

[The Blue Elephant]

You know what the one Holy book that is more than 1000 years old that is universally agreed upon to be untouched is (at least by every single branch of Islam)???? If you were to buy a Qur'an in Shi'i Iran, Wahabi Saudi Arabia, 15th centuary Ottoman Empire, 10th centuary Islamic Caliphate, or 16th centuary Safavid dynasty every single Qur'an will be the same word for word letter for letter. Currently there is an ancient text called the Sana'a manuscript that are said to maybe contain a different version of the Qur'an but this information hasn't been made public.

 

[Siro]

You know what the one Holy book that is more than 1000 years old that is universally agreed upon to be untouched is (at least by every single branch of Islam)???? If you were to buy a Qur'an in Shi'i Iran, Wahabi Saudi Arabia, 15th centuary Ottoman Empire, 10th centuary Islamic Caliphate, or 16th centuary Safavid dynasty every single Qur'an will be the same word for word letter for letter. Currently there is an ancient text called the Sana'a manuscript that are said to maybe contain a different version of the Qur'an but this information hasn't been made public.

Can't the same be said about the Old Testament in its original Hebrew? The Vedas in Sanskrit? There are plenty of holy books that haven't changed in over a thousand years.