Friday, May 30, 2008

Latina Catholics Becoming Muslims

From a Muslim site, this extended post on Latina Catholics becoming Muslim:

What I find interesting is that none of the converts talks about their actual relationship with God. One major
topic seems to be wearing the hijab and how it affects how they feel about themselves and how others treat them.


When Beatriz Kehdy was growing up in Sao Paulo, Brazil, she felt uncomfortable with the standards of beauty that she says were a part of the culture in which she was raised.

An emphasis on external beauty and the body, she says, became increasingly foreign to her own personal values.

Kehdy moved to New York City almost 10 years ago and eventually discovered a sense of place in Islam and in the hijab, or headscarf worn by women in the faith.

“When I wear the hijab, I feel more respected, people talk to me with respect,” she said.
The now 27-year-old architect converted from Catholicism to Islam four years ago, but didn’t tell her family until a few years later, in a letter.

“When I started wearing the hijab, there was a problem,” she said.

“My father didn’t want me to wear it in public in Brazil.”

Kehdy is one of many Latin American women in the US who have embraced the Islamic faith.
The American Muslim Council, based in Chicago, estimates that there are more than 200,000 Latino Muslims in the United States.

Women make up 60 percent of conversions to Islam, according to experts.

Mosques around the country have begun to offer special classes where women converts can learn about Islam.

The North Hudson Islamic Educational Center, in Union City, N.J., offers both English and Spanish Language classes.

Mariam Abassi, vice president of the Da’wah (outreach) program at the center, said about 500 members of the center are Latino converts.

There are between 4,000 and 5,000 members in total.


Many Latinas choose to accept Islam because they marry Muslims.

Others convert when they’re single, often because they feel unfulfilled by the religion in which they were raised.

For a large number of Latinas, that faith is Catholicism.

“Some of them really have doubt about the Trinity,” a central belief in Catholicism that says God exists in three beings, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; said Chernor Sa’ad Jallah, assistant Imam at the Islamic Cultural Center, in East Harlem, the largest mosque in New York City.

“They find it really confusing,” In his community of about 1,500 people, between 10 and 15 percent are Latinos.


Some said they were uncomfortable making confessions to a priest and feeling as though they had no direct relationship with God.

“I was raised as a Catholic but I didn’t like it.

I felt this emptiness,” said Mayeline Turbides, a 21-year-old Dominican student who lives in West New York, N.J.” I was never convinced.” She took the name Leila after she became a Muslim.

Before discovering Islam, Turbides had explored evangelical Christianity and Mormonism, which failed to draw her in.

About two years ago, her Muslim boss started talking to her about Islam.

“I used to go out, to drink.

I got drunk 500 times,” Turbides said in Spanish.

“But nothing made sense.

I wanted rules.”

When it comes to assimilating to a new faith, Islam appeals to Catholic Latinas for several reasons.

“There are many similarities between Catholicism and Islam,” said Ibrahim Hooper, Communications Director and spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Washington, D.C.

“Both have principles that need to be followed, regarding how you conduct yourself as person, how you operate in a community.”

Others find a new religion to be an escape from the confines of machismo, or chauvinism.

“I feel more protected,” Turbides said.

“Men used to shout things at me when I was walking down the street.

They would honk their horns.

When I wear the hijab, nobody says anything.”

For New Yorker Yuri Lara, the 23-year-old daughter of Ecuadorian immigrants, understanding the role of women in Islam, and dispelling what she considers to be stereotypes, was one of her biggest concerns when she was studying the religion.

“We have rights, we have a voice, it’s all in the Quran,” said Lara, who studied psychology at SUNY Albany.

But for many Latina converts to Islam, conversion brings with it the challenge of gaining acceptance from their own families and other non-Muslims, a process that takes time.

“At first my family was unhappy,” said Demaris Tapanes, 32, who was born and raised in Union City, N.J., to a Puerto Rican mother and a Cuban father.

“'Why do you have to cover?'" she said of her family’s objection to the hijab.

“One of my brothers told me he didn’t want me to cover because after 9/11, people resented Muslims,” she said “He was concerned for my security.”

Wearing the hijab presents other challenges, as Turbides found out when she wore the head covering to the grocery store where she works.

“People would ignore me,” Turbides said.

“My boss is a Muslim, but they’re nice to him because he is an Arab.

Since I am Latina, they tell me that I’m pulling away from my religion.

I felt very bad that day.”

Despite the obstacles they face to practice their adopted faith, many women converts say Islam changed their lives.

“I’m a better version of myself now,” said Lara.

“I’m closer to my family than I ever was.

I think more about others, as opposed to me, me, me.

I think about what I’m going to eat before I take the last bite left.”

Estela Ramon, who attends the class at the North Hudson Islamic Educational Center, in Union City, became interested in Islam after her husband, Delfino, who was born in Mexico, converted to Islam four years ago.

“At first I asked him if he was crazy,” said Ramon, who is also from Mexico and was raised a Catholic.

Ramon, 34, says that her husband changed for the better when he turned to Islam.

“He used to drink and get angry,” she said.

“Now he is more confident in himself, he is more responsible.

And he doesn’t drink anymore.”
Ramon is reading a Spanish translation of the Quran and is thinking of converting too.

Although she says she is drawn to the lifestyle that Islam proscribes, Ramon says she is not ready to accept the faith.

“My time to say yes has not come," she said.

“When God wants me to, I will accept it.”


You have heard it here before: If we don't evangelize our own, someone else will do it for us. And they may be Muslim.

Comments?

21 Comments:

At May 30, 2008 1:06:00 PM MDT , Blogger SWP said...

Traditionalist Catholics are shaking their lace-covered heads right now. Catholics used to exercise this kind of modesty and mortification. Covering your head at mass was not sexist; it was about modesty. Not eating meat on Friday was a way to teach your body self-control as a way to draw closer to God. Canon law never outlawed such practices; merely the consent of bishops following the spirit of the times. Were those same bishops listening attentively to the Holy Spirit? Were they truly hearing the wisdom of church practice? I grew up after all these things had been relegated to the archives. Let's hope that Papa Benny can begin correcting the reform movement in time to make Catholics countercultural with the Gospel and not countercultural with the culture.

 
At May 31, 2008 10:15:00 AM MDT , Anonymous Sandra Miesel said...

The Saudis are already funding missionary efforts in Mexico. I've long thought that if Muslims made a major push, they could easily convert substantial numbers of Latinos. Catholicism doesn't stand up to competition too well in Latin America, does it?

That said, these women are deluded about what Islam does to women.

 
At May 31, 2008 12:28:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

Many Christian realized that the teaching of the Churches and the bible can't be acceptable. Why should we born sinner? Why must we be penalized for the mistake of Adam and Eve?
Many can accept TRINITY, did Jesus ever mentioned he is God or there are three Gods or One God but three difference person?

Even Priest and Pastors have revert to Islam
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf/priests_n_preachers.htm

 
At May 31, 2008 12:39:00 PM MDT , OpenID thepracticingcatholic said...

What a tragedy. Like many other things, modesty and respect for woman existed in the Church before Islam was ever conceived of. These women have apparently never been taught that, nor much else about their (former) faith. And it doesn't sound like they are being very well-informed about Islam, either. It seems they care more about living in the world than about their relationship with God.

May they be brought back safely to the true God and the true faith (as I myself have been, Deo gratias!). And may Catholics in general be more proactive and bold about preaching and teaching Truth--to each other, no less than to anybody else!

 
At June 2, 2008 11:11:00 AM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

Yes, what a tragedy for those who pray and serve human (Jesus) instead the true Almighty God the Creator

WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION:
THE MYTH & THE REALITY

http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_comparison_full.htm


With best regards

 
At June 2, 2008 9:11:00 PM MDT , Blogger LYL said...

I wanted rules.

She didn't get *rules* in the Catholic Church?
!!!

Okay.

Jane, the tragedy is that people are losing faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, which faith saves us, since no human being is capable of living up to God's Law. No, I submit, that not even the average Muslim could live up to the laws of Allah.

These women are turning to Islam, because their own society (not *very* Catholic, by the sounds of it) has rejected the sound teaching of the Catholic Church on modesty.

Many Christian realized that the teaching of the Churches and the bible can't be acceptable.

No, they just don't understand it. It is perfectly acceptable and even reasonable.

Why should we born sinner?

What do you mean "should." The plain fact of the matter is that we *are*. Read any newspaper and you'll see that that *is* the case. As GK Chesterton said, Original Sin is the one doctrine of Christianity that can really be proved.

Why must we be penalized for the mistake of Adam and Eve?

We are not being punished.

If a dog mates with a dog, it produces puppies. If a cat mates with a cat it produces kittens. If a fallen human being makes love with a fallen human being, they beget a small fallen human being
(a baby) who is then restored to the life of grace through baptism.

See? Not hard to understand at all.

Many can accept TRINITY, did Jesus ever mentioned he is God or there are three Gods or One God but three difference person?

Jesus said, "Before ever Abraham was, I Am."

"I Am" is God's name ("I Am Who I Am"). Jesus was making a monstrous claim, if He were only human. In which case, why do Muslims revere Him as a prophet?

Anyone who respects Jesus (whether secularist, Muslim or other non-Christian) cannot have it both ways. You cannot respect the man, yet fail to worship Him as God, for He acted as if He were God.

 
At June 2, 2008 9:15:00 PM MDT , Blogger LYL said...

Traditionalist Catholics are shaking their lace-covered heads right now.

That's nice. But they're not wearing their mantillas in the streets and it's there that these young women were feeling vulnerable.

Catholics used to exercise this kind of modesty and mortification.

Some of us still do.

The problem for many, is a lack of understanding of *why* we are to do/not do certain things. The answer - or part of it - is to gently teach the faith.

 
At June 3, 2008 2:41:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man.

St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."

Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that require women to cover their heads in church [25]. Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is "The head covering is a symbol of woman's subjection to the man and to God" : The same logic introduced by St. Paul in the New Testament [26].


From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam didn't invent the head cover, but Islam endorsed it. The Quran urges the believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty and then urges the believing women to extend their head covers to cover the neck and the bosom "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty......And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms...." (24:30,31).

The Quran is quite clear that the veil is essential for modesty, but why is modesty important? The Quran is still clear:

"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested" (33:59).

This is the whole point, modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection.

Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil of the Christian tradition, is not a sign of man's authority over woman nor is it a sign of woman's subjection to man. The Islamic veil, unlike the veil in the Jewish tradition, is not a sign of luxury and distinction of some noble married women.The Islamic veil is only a sign of modesty with the sole purpose of protecting women, all women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better safe than sorry.

In fact, the Quran is so concerned with protecting women's bodies and women's reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished,"And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)- Flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors"(24:4).

Compare this strict Quranic attitude with the extremely lax punishment for rape in the Bible

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives" (Deut. 22:28-30).

One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished? The man who only paid a fine for rape, or the girl who is forced to marry the man who raped her and live with him until he dies? Another question that also should be asked is this: which is more protective of women, the Quranic strict attitude or the Biblical lax attitude?

Some people, especially in the West, would tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilised behaviour, and self restraint. We would say: Fine but not enough.

1. If 'civilization' is enough protection, then why is it that women in North America, dare not walk alone in a dark street - or even across an empty parking lot?

2. If Education is the solution, then why is it that a respected university like ours has a 'walk home service' for female students on campus?

3. If self restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace on the news media every day? A sample of those accused of sexual harassment, in the last few years, includes: Navy officers, Managers, University professors, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and the President of the United States!

I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women's office at Queen's University:


o In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes",
o 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives",
o 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime",
o 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university, and
o A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn't get caught."

 
At June 3, 2008 3:00:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

Thanks LYL,

But you still can't prove that Jesus declare he is Almighty God the Creator.

Jesus said, "Before ever Abraham was, I Am."

Your church has cheated you. Abraham is not the first man. It was Adam and Eve and their generations.

Please show me that Jesus ever said " I am God" or " Worship me"

Mark 12:28-33 (New International Version)

The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[b] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

Isn't this what Islam teachs

112:1 SAY: "He is the One God:

112:2 "God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of All Being. [1]

112:3 "He begets not, and neither is He begotten;

112:4 "and there is nothing that could be compared with Him.

with best regards

 
At June 3, 2008 6:05:00 PM MDT , Blogger LYL said...

Jesus said, "Before ever Abraham was, I Am."

Your church has cheated you. Abraham is not the first man. It was Adam and Eve and their generations.


Your argument is lacking, I'm afraid.

I did not say Abraham was the first man, nor is there any point in what you say.

I said, that Jesus said, "before Abraham ever was, I Am."

Now, it is well known that Abraham lived a very long time before Our Lord Jesus Christ, so how could a mere man say, "before Abraham ever was, I Am"?

Also, St Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." Jesus did not rebuke him for doing so, as He certainly would have if He were not, in fact, God.

And what have I said about veils? Nothing.

If lax practice in the Catholic faith has meant that Catholic or other western women have ceased to be modest, then that just means they should take up modesty again. I don't see how Islam helps. No muslim can possibly live up to Allah's laws, because all human beings are sinful and we are forever transgressing the laws of God. The Law of Moses did not help the Jews to be holy, it just showed how badly behaved they were. Likewise Catholics are incapable of fully living up to the laws of God, which is why we need faith in a Redeemer and Saviour. Our Lord Jesus Christ and faith in Him, makes it possible for us to enter heaven.

What does Islam have to offer? Rules? The Catholic Church has rules. Worship of God? The Catholic Church has true worship of God.

Personally, I have less respect for Islam than I used to, since so many of your co-religionists (or people who claim to be Muslims) are so busy lopping people's heads off and blowing people up so they can have sex with 72 virgins in heaven, whose virginity is constantly being renewed. So many hymens to bust!

 
At June 4, 2008 12:16:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

my dear lyl,

I hope you remember the following teaching of Jesus

“And this is the way to have eternal life-to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.” (17:3, NLT).

“A man comes running up to him asking him, Good Teacher, what should I do to get eternal life? And Jesus said to him, why do you call me good? Only God is truly good.” (10:17-18, NLT).

“I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, NLT).

“For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want.” (John 6:38, NLT)

“So Jesus told them, I am not teaching my own ideas but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teachings is from God or is merely my own.” (John 7:16, NLT).

You should worry about youself, not someone that you and me have no control. There may be some born muslim who don't practise Islam but there are billion more who pray and serve Almighty God the Creator just as what Abraham,Moses, Jesus did.

 
At June 5, 2008 11:04:00 PM MDT , Blogger godescalc said...

Jane: Christians have not forgotten the words of Christ, I assure you. I commend you for knowing them and hope you read more of them! We cling to Christ because in His teachings are the words of life, and in His death we find forgiveness and join our sufferings to His - as prophesied by Isaiah centuries before: "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all... The punishment that brought us peace is upon him, and by his stripes we are healed." (Isaiah 52-53)

If I may, I'd like to address two of your objections:

'Please show me that Jesus ever said "I am God" or "Worship me"' - but surely if we do, you will answer that Christian scribes have corrupted the Gospels?

Nevertheless: Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30.) The people then wanted to stone Him for claiming to be God. He did not deny it, but referred to himself as "the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world" (Jn 10:36). He declared the sickness of Lazarus to be "for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it", and proceeded to raise Lazarus from the grave after that sickness killed him (John 11). He again talks of Himself as the Son of God in Matthew 11:27 and in John 5:19 (which you quoted yourself!) and confirms it when charged by the high priest in Matthew 26:63-64. And in John 14-17, he talks at length of Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Praying to the Father, He says: "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (17:5)

(Quotes from the NIV translation.)

With regards to the treatment of rape victims in the Laws of Moses, two points: One, that in the culture of the time (and in some cultures still today), rape victims faced considerable stigma and would have a hard time getting married; the law, therefore, made the rapist provide his victim what part of what he had robbed her of, namely the chance to marry and start a family. That this law would be outrageous and cruel now is due to the happy fact that our society does not have that kind of stigma against rape victims. Two, it is written that the rapist is forced to take her as wife, but not that the woman should be forced to consent, nor that her father should be forced to give her away; what actually happened back then, if they didn't want to, is something you'd probably have to look into Jewish rabbinical tradition to answer.

(Also it has been argued that the passage in Deuteronomy is not actually referring to rape. Not everyone finds this convincing, though.)

A study found 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn't get caught.

This is extremely disturbing. Did the pamphlet contain a reference for this study?

 
At June 6, 2008 6:25:00 AM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

Thanks,godescalc

For your time and passion replying my comment.

But I still waiting for someone to explain to me what the following means:

“A man comes running up to him asking him, Good Teacher, what should I do to get eternal life? And Jesus said to him, why do you call me good? Only God is truly good.” (10:17-18, NLT).

“I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, NLT).

“For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want.” (John 6:38, NLT)

“So Jesus told them, I am not teaching my own ideas but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teachings is from God or is merely my own.” (John 7:16, NLT).

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[b] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

My simple question to all Christians, who do love most ALmighty God the Creator or Jesus the Creation?

If your answer is Jesus, please provide an explaination why you choose to love Jesus, a son of man more that Almighty God the Creator of the whole universe including you and me.

What is worst and great sin is that you go again the most important commandment of Jesus, Moses and all the prophets including Muhammad.

With regards to the treatment of rape victims in the Laws of Moses
and the bible, you must agree with me the laws of the bible are obselete because it only suitable only during the time of Moses.

I don't intend to discuss what the bible wrote about sex and rapes but it seem that the biblical language are not words of Almighty God the Creator

http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/biblespeak.htm

Cheers

 
At June 8, 2008 3:54:00 AM MDT , Blogger Mahsheed said...

Jane,

I understand your confusion. I am sure you must believe the Christians have deficient intelligence that they could have such absurd beliefs in the face of such evidence. I don't blame you for thinking that. However you must wonder that if we had corrupted our Scriptures, then why we didn't change these?

The answer to your question is that our Lord Jesus Christ is both true God and true Man and in these verses He is acting through His human nature. Jesus often spoke in riddles that even His disciples didn't fully understand at the time until later. As True Man, He is our model of perfect obedience and faith and the perfect Son. We not only understand God through Him, we also understand Man through Him.

Faith is a gift from God and we could not hold this belief (and certainly neither could the monotheistic Jews come to this conclusion) if it were not true.
The disciples in the Bible and other people came to believe He was God in a gradual manner or after certain incidents. For example, here or here or here or here or here.


Regarding the rape statistics pamphlet, I wouldn't set much store by it.

Regards,
Mahsheed

 
At June 8, 2008 10:44:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

My dear Mahsheed.
I understand very well the teaching of Jesus but can't understand why Christian don't

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[b] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

Jesus teach us that the Almighty God the Creator is One and we must love Almighty God with our soul, mind and strength.

Where did you learn that Jesus is Almighty God the Creator? Can you provide your proof or you must be another blind follower of the Church.

Cheers

 
At June 10, 2008 7:52:00 AM MDT , Blogger godescalc said...

Hi Jane,

"Where did you learn that Jesus is Almighty God the Creator?"

From His own words: "Before Abraham was, I Am"; "I and the Father are one"; and while praying, speaking to the Father of "the glory I had in Your presence before the world began". I do not see how you could interpret these as saying that Jesus was just a man.

"My simple question to all Christians, who do love most, Almighty God the Creator or Jesus the Creation?"

Jesus Himself said that He and God Almighty were one; we do not have to choose.

"With regards to the treatment of rape victims in the Laws of Moses
and the bible, you must agree with me the laws of the bible are obselete because it only suitable only during the time of Moses."

Absolutely. The moral precepts of the Laws of Moses are still accounted as valid - no murder, rape, adultery, idol-worship, &c. - but the exact legal prescriptions, and commandments aimed at specific circumstances, ritual purity, and making the Jews stand out among the nations (e.g. the command to wear tassles on all clothing) are not binding on Christians.

Mahsheed: thanks for the link. It doesn't directly cover the 60%-claim, but it seems similar issues exist there, as well - studies which ask men if they would commit acts they themselves considered rape tend to get lower results. (I came across the figure of ~13% while googling, which is still rather worrying.)

 
At June 10, 2008 11:24:00 AM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

My dear godescalc

Why your understanding contradict to following teaching of Jesus?

Mark 12:28-33 (New International Version)

The Greatest Commandment
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[b] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

“And this is the way to have eternal life-to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent to earth.” (17:3, NLT).

“A man comes running up to him asking him, Good Teacher, what should I do to get eternal life? And Jesus said to him, why do you call me good? Only God is truly good.” (10:17-18, NLT).

“I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, NLT).

“For I have come down from heaven to do the will of God who sent me, not to do what I want.” (John 6:38, NLT)

“So Jesus told them, I am not teaching my own ideas but those of God who sent me. Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teachings is from God or is merely my own.” (John 7:16, NLT).

Are you confused between the teaching of Paul the murderer and Jesus?

 
At June 10, 2008 3:11:00 PM MDT , Blogger godescalc said...

Hi Jane,

I am not confused at all; I have not quoted anything that Paul said about Jesus, only what Jesus said Himself. Jesus said "I and the Father are one" in the Gospel of John (Jn 10:30). Similarly "Before Abraham was, I Am" (John 8:58) and "the glory I had in Your [the Father's] presence before the world began", which Jesus said in John 17:5.

For reasons which Mahsheed explained already, we do not accept that Jesus' claim of divinity contradicts the teachings of Jesus that you cite above.

Yrs,

godescalc

 
At June 10, 2008 10:52:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

My dear godescalc


Let us study THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN

John's Gospel is radically different from the three others; to such an extent indeed that Father Roguet in his book Initiation to the Gospel (Initiation à l'Evangile), having commented on the other three, immediately evokes a startling image for the fourth. He calls it , different world'. It is indeed a unique book; different in the arrangement and choice of subject, description and speech; different in its style, geography, chronology; there are even differences in theological outlook (O. Culmann). Jesus's words are therefore differently recorded by John from the other evangelists: Father Roguet notes on this that whereas the synoptics record Jesus's words in a style that is "striking, much nearer to the oral style", in John all is meditation; to such an extent indeed that "one sometimes wonders if Jesus is still speaking or whether His ideas have not imperceptibly been extended by the Evangelist's own thoughts".

Who was the author? This is a highly debated question and extremely varying opinions have been expressed on this subject.

A. Tricot and Father Roguet belong to a camp that does not have the slightest misgivings: John's Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, its author is John, son of Zebedee and brother of James. Many details are known about this apostle and are set out in works for mass publication. Popular iconography puts him near Jesus, as in the Last Supper prior to the Passion. Who could imagine that John's Gospel was not the work of John the Apostle whose figure is so familiar?

The fact that the fourth Gospel was written so late is not a serious argument against this opinion. The definitive version was probably written around the end of the First century A.D. To situate the time it was written at sixty years after Jesus would be in keeping with an apostle who was very young at the time of Jesus and who lived to be almost a hundred.

Father Kannengiesser, in his study on the Resurrection, arrives at the conclusion that none of the New Testament authors, save Paul, can claim to have been eyewitnesses to Jesus's Resurrection. John nevertheless related the appearance to a number of the assembled apostles, of which he was probably a member, in the absence of Thomas (20,19-24), then eight days later to the full group of apostles (20,25-29).

O. Culmann in his work The New Testament does not subscribe to this view.

The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible states that the majority of critics do not accept the hypothesis that the Gospel was written by John, although this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Everything points however towards the fact that the text we know today had several authors: "It is probable that the Gospel as it stands today was put into circulation by the author's disciples who added chapter 21 and very likely several annotations (i.e. 4,2 and perhaps 4,1; 4,44; 7,37b; 11,2; 19,35). With regard to the story of the adulterous woman (7,53-8,11), everyone agrees that it is a fragment of unknown origin inserted later (but nevertheless belonging to canonic Scripture)". Passage 19,35 appears as a 'signature' of an 'eyewitness' (O. Culmann), the only explicit signature in the whole of John's Gospel; but commentators believe that it was probably added later.

O. Culmann thinks that latter additions are obvious in this Gospel; such as chapter 21 which is probably the work of a "disciple who may well have made slight alterations to the main body of the Gospel".

It is not necessary to mention all the hypotheses suggested by experts in exegesis. The remarks recorded here made by the most eminent Christian writers on the questions of the authorship of the fourth Gospel are sufficient to show the extent of the confusion reigning on the subject of its authorship.

The historical value of John's stories has been contested to a great extent. The discrepancy between them and the other three Gospels is quite blatant. O. Culman offers an explanation for this; he sees in John a different theological point of view from the other evangelists. This aim "directs the choice of stories from the Logia [ Words.] recorded, as well as the way in which they are reproduced . . . Thus the author often prolongs the lines and makes the historical Jesus say what the Holy Spirit Itself revealed to Him". This, for the exegete in question, is the reason for the discrepancies.

It is of course quite conceivable that John, who was writing after the other evangelists, should have chosen certain stories suitable for illustrating his own theories. One should not be surprised by the fact that certain descriptions contained in the other Gospels are missing in John. The Ecumenical Translation picks out a certain number of such instances (page 282). Certain gaps hardly seem credible however, like the fact that the Institution of the Eucharist is not described. It is unthinkable that an episode so basic to Christianity, one indeed that was to be the mainstay of its liturgy, i.e. the mass, should not be mentioned by John, the most pre-eminently meditative evangelist. The fact is, he limits himself, in the narrative of the supper prior to the Passion, to simply describing the washing of the disciples' feet, the prediction of Judas's betrayal and Peter's denial.

In contrast to this, there are stories which are unique to John and not present in the other three. The Ecumenical Translation mentions these (page 283). Here again, one could infer that the three authors did not see the importance in these episodes that John saw in them. It is difficult however not to be taken aback when one finds in John a description of the appearance of Jesus raised from the dead to his disciples beside the Sea of Tiberias (John 21,1-14). The description is nothing less than the reproduction (with numerous added details) of the miracle catch of fish which Luke (5,1-11) presents as an episode that occurred during Jesus's life. In his description Luke alludes to the presence of the Apostle John who, as tradition has it, was the evangelist, Since this description in John's Gospel forms part of chapter 21, agreed to be a later addition, one can easily imagine that the reference to John's name in Luke could have led to its artificial inclusion in the fourth Gospel. The necessity of transforming a description from Jesus's life to a posthumous description in no way prevented the evangelical text from being manipulated.

Another important point on which John's Gospel differs from the other three is in the duration of Jesus's mission. Mark, Matthew and Luke place it over a period of one year. John spreads it over two years. O. Culmann notes this fact. On this subject the Ecumenical Translation expresses the following .

"The synoptics describe a long period in Galilee followed by a march that was more or less prolonged towards Judea, and finally a brief stay in Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, describes frequent journeys from one area to another and mentions a long stay in Judea, especially in Jerusalem (1,19-51; 2,13-3,36; 5,1-47; 14,20-31). He mentions several Passover celebrations (2,13; 5,1; 6,4; 11,55) and thus suggests a ministry that lasted more than two years".

Which one of them should one believe-Mark, Matthew, Luke or John?

sources
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm

 
At June 11, 2008 1:22:00 AM MDT , Blogger Mahsheed said...

godescalc,

I'm glad you liked the link. I prefer to go by my own experience rather than trust feminist propaganda.


Jane,

What we believe does not contradict Scripture and Scripture does not contradict itself. We do believe in one God. Your presupposition is that you think a man became God, which we agree is impossible.

We say that God became a man named Jesus. Now do you say that it is impossible? Or do you say that God would never do something like that?

If you say it is impossible then you are saying that God is not all-powerful and omnipotent. But nothing is impossible for God.

If you say that God wouldn't become a man then you are claiming to know God's ways. Who are you to know what God would or wouldn't do?

But the real reason you believe that God wouldn't become a man is that you believe your own scripture, the Quran is true. Well you believe in your Scripture and we believe in ours.

I have therefore proven to you that it's not a matter of logic but a matter of faith.

Your faith is in a book; our faith is in a Person named Jesus and our faith is a gift from God. It's not an abstract belief but a relationship with the living God. So when you tell me that Jesus is just a man it's like you are telling me that my husband is dead, but of course I live with him and talk to him and so I know you a are wrong.

Now my question to you Jane is how much do you love God? Would you give up everything to follow Him? Even if that meant losing everything else that you love in life?

Mahsheed

 
At June 15, 2008 2:21:00 PM MDT , Blogger jane abraham said...

Mahsheed said...

If you say that God wouldn't become a man then you are claiming to know God's ways. Who are you to know what God would or wouldn't do?

Sorry Mahsheed, may be you know Almighty God the Creator more than me.

If Jesus is God, kindly explain why Jesus said the following:

John 14:28

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.


Also explain to me why Almighty God who turn to Jesus is crying for help.

Matthew 27:46

46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[a] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[b]

Good Luck

 

Post a Comment

<< Home