What causes muslims to be violent

[Immanuel Can]

The first of anything is always "unique," in that it is first. But that's the only "uniqueness" Adam had. Other than that, he was an ordinary man.

Then you are equivocating the meaning of "begotten".

No, not at all. Think again.

Words often have more than one implication. You know that: you can do exactly the same operation with the words "unique" or "only" in English. That's just a feature of language. That's why one always needs the context of the utterance, the whole grammar of the passage, to recognize what is being called "unique" and why.

For example, let's say a doctor discovers a "unique" cure for COVID.

Does this mean that only one person will be cured?
Or does it mean that the new treatment is different from other treatments?
Or does it mean that it need only be used once?
Or does it mean that the Mayo Clinic is the only place this particular treatment is performed, however many times it may be performed?

You won't know unless you have a more complete context in which the word "unique" is being applied.

That's very ordinary, actually, and not at all a unique phenomenon. And there's no equivocation, so long as the context is clear.

[Skepdick]

The first of anything is always "unique," in that it is first. But that's the only "uniqueness" Adam had. Other than that, he was an ordinary man.

Then you are equivocating the meaning of "begotten".

No, not at all. Think again.

Words often have more than one implication. You know that: you can do exactly the same operation with the words "unique" or "only" in English. That's just a feature of language. That's why one always needs the context of the utterance, the whole grammar of the passage, to recognize what is being called "unique" and why.

For example, let's say a doctor discovers a "unique" cure for COVID.

Does this mean that only one person will be cured?
Or does it mean that the new treatment is different from other treatments?
Or does it mean that it need only be used once?
Or does it mean that the Mayo Clinic is the only place this particular treatment is performed, however many times it may be performed?

You won't know unless you have a more complete context in which the word "unique" is being applied.

That's very ordinary, actually, and not at all a unique phenomenon. And there's no equivocation, so long as the context is clear.

For example, any other sons-by-spiritual birth (John 3:16, see also John 1:9-13 ) will be derived from this unique Son, i.e. the only Son of this kind that God has. So that all who are "born again," or "born from above," more literally, as per John 3:16, are called "sons of God." But they are only sons by second birth, not THE Son of God.

Abraham's sons are neither "sons-by-spiritual birth"; nor "born again"; nor "born from above"; nor "sons by second birth".

All of Abraham's sons are THE sons of Abraham. By direct birth.

Only Isaac is "begotten".

Abraham's other sons were not "derived from the begotten son".

[Immanuel Can]

Only Isaac is "begotten"

Wikipedia:

"Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind".[1] Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special.[2] Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".[3]

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue.[4] Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.

The term is notable outside normal Greek usage in two special areas: in the cosmology of Plato and in the Gospel of John. As concerns the use by Plato there is broad academic consensus, generally following the understanding of the philosopher Proclus (412–485 AD)."

[Skepdick]

Only Isaac is "begotten"

Wikipedia:

"Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind".[1] Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special.[2] Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".[3]

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue.[4] Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.

The term is notable outside normal Greek usage in two special areas: in the cosmology of Plato and in the Gospel of John. As concerns the use by Plato there is broad academic consensus, generally following the understanding of the philosopher Proclus (412–485 AD)."

So you agree that Isaac was another begotten son of God.

Well done.

[Immanuel Can]

So you agree that Isaac was another begotten son of God.

You're not paying attention, so I think we're both wasting our time.

[Skepdick]

You're not paying attention, so I think we're both wasting our time.

Attention and uncompromising focus is all that I am paying.

To the inconsistency you refuse to acknowledge.

[Immanuel Can]

To the inconsistency you refuse to acknowledge.

To say "usage varies" is not "inconsistent." It's how language works.

Context determines usage. The example I gave you already proves that, in the case of "unique." But you paid no attention to that, because, I think, you're not interested in facts but in knee-jerk contradiction. So I'll save myself the trouble of explaining, since the explanation already exists if you want to think about it.

[Skepdick]

Context determines usage.

Usage determines usage ( P=P, right? Or have you changed your mind?) .Context determines interpretation.

But I totally understand why you want to misunderstand.

[Immanuel Can]

But I totally understand why you want to misunderstand.

Not bothering.

[Skepdick]

But I totally understand why you want to misunderstand.

Not bothering.

I'd abandon a losing argument too...

[Immanuel Can]

But I totally understand why you want to misunderstand.

Not bothering.

I'd abandon a losing argument too...

Not bothering.

[Skepdick]

Not bothering.

I'd abandon a losing argument too...

Not bothering.

That's twice you've bothered to not bother now.

Your mis-use of that phrase is rather... begotten.

[Averroes]

John 3:16-18 is saying that there is only one "son of God" in the Bible.

It's not, actually. Look again. It's only saying there is only one "only begotten" Son -- you''ll see that it says that there. "Only begotten" is the KJV translation's attempt to convert a Greek word to English, and the key emphasis is supposed to be on "only," not "begotten," (as "begotten" is an antiquated and imprecise word, there, and does not actually appear in the Greek) and as you can see from more recent translations, a better word would have been "unique," or "only-of-kind." That's how we should understand it today.

You are misguided. I was quoting directly from one of the sites you provided me the link to. If you are in doubt you can check John 3:16 on the site for yourself to verify that it didn't say "begotten". Here is what you provided for me as reading material: https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-ke ... salvation/

Some translations do indeed say "only begotten son" among them the KJV but not in one of the links you provided me. But that too results in a contradiction. Because, Prophet David is also said to be a "begotten son" of God in Psalms 2:7 in the KJV:

• “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.[KJV Bible Psalms 2:7]

Clearly, it is contradictory for Jesus to be the only "begotten son" of God, while David was also a "begotten son" of God in the KJV Bible.
_________________

So when John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His unique Son," it's not claiming God has no other sons. For example, any other sons-by-spiritual birth (John 3:16, see also John 1:9-13 ) will be derived from this unique Son, i.e. the only Son of this kind that God has. So that all who are "born again," or "born from above," more literally, as per John 3:16, are called "sons of God." But they are only sons by second birth, not THE Son of God.

The "derived son" or "unique son" theory also results in contradictions in the Bible, as the Bible also says in Exodus 4:22 that Jacob was the first born son.

• 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
  23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.[KJV Exodus 4:22]

Now, if Jacob is to be the first born son, then it is clear that no other sons can exist before Jacob otherwise Jacob would not be the first born. And when Jacob was born, he was also the unique son as there was no other sons, otherwise again he wouldn't be the first born. If one now says all other sons are derived sons from some "unique son", then either Jacob is that unique son or else Jacob cannot be the first born son.

God the Almighty has no sons whatsoever. In biblical language, however, from a purely logical perspective, it is clear that Jesus can neither be the only "begotten son" as David preceded him in that according to the Bible, nor the "unique son" as Jacob preceded him in that according to the Bible, nor the only "son" as a lot of people preceded him in that according to the Bible again.
_____________________

John 3:16 affirms the unique relation of Son as belonging to Jesus Christ.

No it doesn't.

But we could go on, and I'll give you another website that lists such verses: https://www.openbible.info/topics/deity_of_christ

Thank you for providing a new bunch of biblical verses for me to study. I have read them too and pondered upon them but alas I found nothing there too which even remotely says that Jesus was God. Let me take some of these verses and share my understanding of them. I am quoting directly from the site provided.

1. John 8:58 ESV: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

That statement clearly does not say that Jesus was God. When biblical Jesus made that statement, Abraham was of the past (ie he had already passed away), while Jesus himself was in the present, ie still alive.  This is the same as: Before Abraham existed (now he is no more),  I exist (if that statement was made, then Jesus must have been alive). But according to Christians, at one point in time Jesus died, so then he was no more.
I too could say for example, "Before my grandfather was (ie he is no more now), I am ( ie I still exist in the present)." Saying "I am" does not make me God. Descartes also said "I am", no one took him for God.


2. John 10:30 ESV: I and the Father are one.”

That too does not make Jesus God. That verse has been quoted out of context and if we read further through the Gospel of John at John 17, it is said that the disciples also are one with the Father and are now perfectly united in this same oneness. Biblical Jesus says in John 17:

• Holy Father, protect them by Your name, the name You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one. [John 17:11]
  I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me. [John 17:22-23]

If Jesus is considered to be God according to John 10:30, then all the disciples too must be considered to be God according to John 17:11 and John 17:22-23.


3. Matthew 15:25 ESV:But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”

A woman calling biblical Jesus "lord" according Matthew 15:25 does not make Jesus God. Prophet Abraham too was called "lord" by his wife Sarah according to Genesis 18:12 and that didn't make Abraham God as well.


4. John 14:9 ESV: Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

When understood in the biblical context it is clear that biblical Jesus is not equating himself with the Father in John 14:9. The key word here is "seen". The verb "to see" has many meanings. Below is what the dictionary says about the verb "to see":

to see:
1. Perceive with the eyes; discern visually.
2. Discern or deduce after reflection or from information; understand.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/see

In Exodus 33:20, it is said that no man can see the Face of God and live.

• “But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!" [Exodus 33:20]

If it is thought that Jesus was equal to the Father, Who is the true God according to the Bible and given that a lot of people at that time have seen Jesus' face and continued to live, then Exodus 33:20 would be false. And there would be yet another contradiction in the Bible. If such a possibility is admitted then Bible believers would be in a great dilemma as to which of John 14:9 or Exodus 33:20 were true.
But on the second meaning of "to see" which is "to understand", John 14:9 would not contradict Exodus 33:20. It would then read as follows: "whoever has understood me has understood the Father". And later in that same verse, biblical Jesus says that he speaks not of his own authority, in other words he was saying that he was a messenger of God. And this would also be consistent with other verses of the NT for example Acts 2:22 where it is said that Jesus was a man chosen by God to convey His message or signs:

• “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.[Acts 2:22]

________________________

Yet, I really have to doubt your sincerity. I have good reason to suppose you have no interest in this one either: I know, because even a person with basic search skills can find many such sites, and yet you pretend you can't. A person who cared would have already searched out this information, and would have advanced questions about it...not without actually reading it thoughtfully, as you did with John 3:16, but carefully, and with a willingness to be convinced if the evidence warrants it. That's really all it takes: but you didn't even try. Why not, if you were sincere?

I am sincerely trying to have a respectful and polite exchange of point of view with you. And I find it benefitting that you are sharing your understanding of Christianity with me, even if we are not yet agreeing.

Indeed, as you said there are many sites where biblical verses are quoted out of context, but I always want to discuss these verses with a trinitarian Christian in order to understand their mindset and witness how they reason out (if any) their faith from their scriptures. And this is one of the reasons I am benefitting from your willingness and effort to discuss these biblical verses with me in a respectful manner.

[Averroes]

So where does all this get us? Nowhere, apparently. A person has to be willing to listen and to change his mind. I see nothing in your treatment of John 3:16 to suggest any interest in understanding. But as a Christian, my duty is only to point you to the truth, not to force you to take it in.

We are discussing and getting to know each other's point of view. For me this is already a great achievement in itself. I acknowledge your effort of pointing but to me you are pointing in the wrong direction.

That's a key difference from Islam. Islam is "submission."

Islam means peace. And peace can only be found by freely submitting to the will of God, the Almighty. Islam cannot be forced on anyone. To be a Muslim, one must freely and without being compelled, submit to the Will of God, the Almighty by doing what He has prescibed and by refraining from what He, the Almighty has forbidden. God, the Almighty says in the Holy Quran:

• There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. [Holy Quran, interpretation of meaning 2:256]

________________

Christianity, rightly understood, can never be compelled. Mere submission is not enough. One must believe in one's heart and voluntarily confess with one's own lips (Romans 10:9) -- things which no force can compel, as John Locke rightly pointed out long ago.

You say "rightly understood" and I think that this is the key. And that is the purpose of our current discussion which is to arrive at this "right understanding" of Christianity. This is also why I am interested in understanding how you have come to draw your fundamental belief that Jesus was God from the Bible. For there are many other people who also call themselves Christians but with the difference that they reject that Jesus was God. For example, the Unitarians believe that considering and worshipping Jesus as God is the greatest blasphemy and the greatest sin.

John Locke said the same thing. Here's a quote from his Essay Concerning Toleration:

“But if God … would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion. The way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind, and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means which could not reach but would rather cross the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation, which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with.” (177)

I find it interesting that you quoted John Lock at this point, so I am going to mention his intimate friend Isaac Newton. The great mathematician and scientist Isaac Newton is a well-known example of a Christian who rejected the trinity and considered it to be the greatest blasphemy. Isaac Newton after having spent many years studying the Bible and Christian history and wrote about 5 million words on the subject in the process, finally ended up rejecting the divinity of Jesus and considered that worshipping Jesus as God was the most fundamental sin. Wikipedia has an interesting entry on that.

Wikipedia:

• Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity,[117] with one historian labelling him a heretic.[118]
  
  By 1672, he had started to record his theological researches in notebooks which he showed to no one and which have only recently been examined. They demonstrate an extensive knowledge of early Church writings and show that in the conflict between Athanasius and Arius which defined the Creed, he took the side of Arius, the loser, who rejected the conventional view of the Trinity. Newton "recognized Christ as a divine mediator between God and man, who was subordinate to the Father who created him."[119] He was especially interested in prophecy, but for him, "the great apostasy was trinitarianism."[120]
  
  Newton tried unsuccessfully to obtain one of the two fellowships that exempted the holder from the ordination requirement. At the last moment in 1675 he received a dispensation from the government that excused him and all future holders of the Lucasian chair.[121]
  
  In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.[122]
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

John Lock was also the confident of Isaac Newton, to whom the latter wrote lenghily on various subjects and particularly on his rejection of trinity. John Lock didn't disclose that to anyone as that would have meant the demise of Isaac Newton in medieval England. As you must already know, in the time of Newton trinitarian medieval England was a barbaric and dangerous place like most trinitarian medieval and contemporary environments. Had it been known that Newton had rejected trinity and embraced a non-trinitarian faith, he would probably have been beheaded like Charles I in his time. That was the treatment reserved for traitors in medieval England. The interesting thing is that John Lock knew that, and that's why he wrote what you quoted in your post! He was in fact addressing trinitarian Christianity's intolerance towards other denominations of Christianity itself! Violence and intolerance between Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans were very common at that time in England. So thank you for reminding us of Christianity's violence towards each other by quoting Locke.
The Unitarians, like Newton, believe that only the Father is the only true God and only the Father is to be worshipped and no one else. And they say they rightly draw their belief from the NT itself.
_____________________

So I cannot persuade you. A man must choose to listen. And you can stop your ears. I can't make you do otherwise. All I can tell you is that if, one day, you're ready to consider this question sincerely, there are answers.

I think I can be (and have been) perduaded by anyone who has the truth on his/her side. But I can't stop my intellect. If something does not make sense, then I will voice it in a respectful manner God willing. And if something does not make sense intellectually, then to me it can only raise more concerns than be providing answers.
_________________

Back to John 3: 16 -- "...that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Belief is absolutely necessary. God will have it no other way.

I do believe in the real Prophet Jesus(peace be upon him) the son of Mary and the Messiah. Belief in Prophet Jesus (pbuh) as a messenger of God, the Almighty is necessary in Islam to be considered a Muslim. But I don't believe in the description of him in the Bible, because the unknown writers of the Bible have currupted his message and image, for example by falsely portraying him as a universal hate preacher such as:

• Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said:
  "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.[Luke 14:25-26]

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God because of clear moral corruptions such as Luke 14:26 and many others.
But as you say Christianity is a religion of faith and not of reason and morals. And thus many Christians are mislead to believe that they should hate their family and community members because of verses such as Luke 14:26 prescibes of them. That is why there are statistics from statistical academic studies that show that the greater the percentage of Christians in a country, the greater the homicide rate. And that is in stark contrast to the Muslims, as statistical studies have shown that the greater the percentage of Muslims in a country, the lesser the homicide rate. There is an interesting entry on Wikipedia which elaborates on this. Veritas is the one who provided me the reference to the following information!

Wikipedia:

• Statistical academic studies have found that violent crime is less common among Muslim populations than among non-Muslim populations.[328][329][330][331] The average homicide rate in the Muslim world was 2.4 per 100,000, less than a third of non-Muslim countries which had an average homicide rate of 7.5 per 100,000.[332] The average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Muslim countries was 2.1 per 100,000, less than a fifth of the average homicide rate among the 19 most populous Christian countries which was 11.0 per 100,000, including 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States.[333] A negative correlation was found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Muslims, in contrast to a positive correlation found between a country's homicide rate and its percentage of Christians.[331] According to Professor Steven Fish: "The percentage of the society that is made up of Muslims is an extraordinarily good predictor of a country’s murder rate. More authoritarianism in Muslim countries does not account for the difference. I have found that controlling for political regime in statistical analysis does not change the findings. More Muslims, less homicide."[329][334] Professor Jerome L. Neapolitan compared low crime rates in Islamic countries to low crime in Japan, comparing the role of Islam to that of Japan's Shinto and Buddhist traditions in fostering cultures emphasizing the importance of community and social obligation, contributing to less criminal behaviour than other nations.[330]
  
  A statistical textual analysis of the Qur'an and Bible conducted by software engineer Tom Anderson in 2016, using the Odin Text analytics software, found that violence is less frequent in the Qur'an than in the Bible. According to Anderson: "Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%)."
  
  Gallup and Pew polls
  Polls have found Muslim-Americans to report less violent views than any other religious group in America. 89% of Muslim-Americans claimed that the killing of civilians is never justified, compared to 71% of Catholics and Protestants, 75% of Jews, and 76% of atheists and non-religious groups. When Gallup asked if it is justifiable for the military to kill civilians, the percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable were 21% among Muslims, 58% among Protestants and Catholics, 52% among Jews, and 43% among atheists.[336] Gallup in 2008 found that Palestinians held generally less violent views than Israelis, with up to 14% of Palestinians and up to 52% of Israelis saying it is sometimes justifiable to kill civilians.

Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.

[Immanuel Can]

[You are misguided.

No, I'm right. But unlike what you say, I'm not referring to the KJV. The manuscripts in the Bible are in Greek, and I was referring to them. I have them right here, if you ever want to talk about the Greek. But the KJV was only composed in 1611, and by then there were already many Bible manuscripts in existence, even in English. And since then, the Greek has been retranslated into English in even better translations than the KJV.

So don't rest your judgment on the KJV. It's but one step in the proper translation of the original languages into English.

John 3:16 affirms the unique relation of Son as belonging to Jesus Christ.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

1. John 8:58 ESV: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

That statement clearly does not say that Jesus was God.

Yeah, actually, it does. And you can see that the Jewish authorities knew it does too, because as the passage says, they immediately took up stones to stone him for blasphemy. They were quite familiar with the use of the words "I AM" as a name of God.

But no, you and I are not going to play quotation-tag. I can see very well where you're coming from, because of your feigned inability to locate basic material on the internet. You just want to argue points that have been handled ably by others. And I'm happy for you to look up more answers, or to believe as you do presently. I'm certain you'll choose to do what you choose to do, and I can't stop you.

There's no value in an "it-says-that / no-it-doesn't" kind of exchange, and frankly, my time's too short to bother.

We're going back to the OP now.