Okay, I’ll accept that I may have been wrong regarding the jizya.
Since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, do you have any comments to add regarding Ibn Warraq’s claim that “Christians were very rarely persecuted under Islamic rule”?
Okay, I’ll accept that I may have been wrong regarding the jizya.
Since you seem to be knowledgeable in this area, do you have any comments to add regarding Ibn Warraq’s claim that “Christians were very rarely persecuted under Islamic rule”?
One interpretation is that fasting is equivalent to shedding blood. Instead of shedding it, one simply prevents its renewal.
But those of us who believe in the Trinity don’t believe He “split Himself in half”. He’s “one and three at the same time”, no “splitting”, and the same God worshipped by Jews, Samaritans, JW’s, Mormons and Muslims.
To outsiders the dogma of the Trinity appears so contrived and convoluted that it seems pretty reasonable to say it’s not compatible with monotheism. And the whole idea of the trinity has no direct evidence in the OT or NT of the Bible. It became dogma of mainstream churches in the early 3rd Century as a way they could claim both that Jesus was Divine and that they were still a monotheistic religion.
It’s more or less true. I mean, there was sporadic persecution of both Christians and Jews, but for the most part, they were left alone. They didn’t have full civil rights in the medieval Islamic world, but they also weren’t generally actively oppressed.
The specific person I had in mind when I began this thread holds both these beliefs. She’s a black Pentecostal Xtian, though.
I’m not a Christian, but it doesn’t seem that “contrived” or “convoluted” to me. The alternative- that Christians are best understood as polytheists who worship three different gods- seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it? How hard is it really to wrap your head around “three versions o the same thing,” especially when that thing is something already as out-there as “God.”?
Very little religious doctrine is actually well supported by the founding texts and ALL of it has socio-political origins.
Thats not what the Trinity actually is, it explicitly is NOT that God can take three different forms. The Trinity claims that The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost have all existed for all time since the creation of the universe, that they are all equal, that they are three distinct persons BUT only one being and that the Son (Jesus) is both fully human and fully a god.
Which is why its pretty reasonable for other religions to say “hey actually that looks a lot like polytheisim”, especially when you see the worship of idols of Mary and Saints etc that happens in Catholicism.
In fact I can make a case that Hinduism is more monotheistic than Trinitarian christianity. All the Hindu gods are just aspects of Brahma when it comes down to it.
So, do you think Christians worship three different, separate, independent gods the way a polytheist might worship a sky god, a rain god and a fire god?
Since it’s all made up anyway, I don’t really get trying to tell people they made it up wrong. I’ll take it at face value that it makes sense enough to them.
I agree with you, the disagreements among the various Christian sects over minor variations of wording to the formula of the Trinity seem pretty silly to me. But they took it pretty seriously, the Catholic church systematically persecuted those who were christians but argued for a simpler view in which Jesus was divinely created and didn’t exist for all time (Arianism).
The point of which is to say that any Muslims or Jews that chose to say “Christians don’t worship the same god as us, god is one” do have a pretty good basis.
Most practicing Christians certainly treat God and Jesus as entirely distinct beings, regardless of what the mumbo-jumbo of academic theology says. It’s important to remember a few things in religion discussions:
Sure they do.
No religion could stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
Debate Fiercely mate! Obviously have an opinion about things.
I still maintain He would not be proud of you at all!:dubious: