Will somebody please explain to me WHY any African American would ever want to be a Muslim? Do they not know that Muslims enslaved Africans for so many years that (according to what I have read) the Arab word for Black person is the same word they use for SLAVE?
Here's an excerpt from an article I read just today that hits this topic:
..........
So ingrained is slavery in Islam that the religion's holiest city, Mecca (site of the Haj pilgrimage), was a slave trading capital. Up until the 20th century, Mecca served as the gateway to the Muslim world for slaves brought out of Africa. Azumah notes:
"It became a custom for pilgrims to take slaves for sale in Mecca or buy one or two slaves while on Haj as souvenirs to be kept, sold or given as gifts."
The last slaves were traded there openly in 1960!
Arab enslavement of black Africans continues to this day in the Muslim world, particularly in the Sudan, Niger, and Mauritania.
http://
www.thereligionofpeace.co...ackandProud.htm
Muslims know how to wage political jihad.
This war has so many fronts!
I am very surprised and dismayed, the Left Coast PRK wasn't the first Territory in the USSSA to place both a muslim and a different species in office. My vote would have been for the yellow dog.
"Will somebody please explain to me WHY any African American would ever want to be a Muslim? Do they not know that Muslims enslaved Africans for so many years that (according to what I have read) the Arab word for Black person is the same word they use for SLAVE?"
Excellent questions NJ.
And along with that one we could include why black people are so predominantly Democrat?
Liberal left wing policiies have done more to hurt balck people than actually help them.
Makes no sense to me.
Oops, that is "black" not "balck". My dislexia is showing.....
In response to "NJ GOP":
"Will somebody please explain to me WHY any African American would ever want to be a Muslim?"
Because the Qur'an has nothing like the Bible's Genesis Chapter 9 which says that all descendents of Ham (Africans are called "Hamites") will all be slaves due to Ham's sexual misbehavior towards his father, Noah. No, in Islam there is no such thing. Actually, some of the greatest of the Prophet Muhammad's (s) companions were Black Africans and he was active in freeing the slaves.
The slaves in Muslim history were actually WHITES from Circassia (the Caucasus). They are called "Sharkas" in Arabic and they were so well treated and well regarded that they eventually became the rulers of the Muslim world. Ever heard of the Mamluk Dynasty that defeated the Mongols and the Crusaders at the same time? Yup. That's them. "Mamluk" in Arabic means "slave". They were fair haired and blue eyed whites and their owners were dark skinned peoples.
NJ GOP further states:
"they not know that Muslims enslaved Africans for so many years that (according to what I have read) the Arab word for Black person is the same word they use for SLAVE?"
What on earth are you reading? Read a REAL history book and not GOP bloggers. The Arabic word used for Blacks in the time of Prophet Muhammad was "Habashi" from which comes the word "Abyssinian" which means ETHIOPIAN.
The Arabs actually FREED the Blacks from their stigma of slavery and Blacks became some of the highest authorities (both political and religious) in the entire Muslim world. The greatest Arabic grammarian in Islamic history was al-Jahiz who was a Black African. He authored the book "The superiority of the Blacks over the Whites". The single most authoritative Lexicon of Qur'anic Arabic is "Lisan al-`Arab" written by Ibn al-Mandhur who was, likewise, a Black African.
I don't expect you to know this stuff since you blindly follow the indoctrination of your party. Still, I implore you to learn REAL history. For more on Slavery and Islam see the following written by Bernard Lewis, who is often times critical of Islam
http://philomantis.wordpress.com...orical-inquiry/
It's sad and disgusting that a Black American is voted into Congress and you all are worried about his religious affiliation. If it were up to you all, this country would be an Evangelical theocracy.
And, to see how Muslims view Jesus (which is favorably) watch this documentary: http://video.google.com/
videopla...653194971017112
Favorably Halle?
As another good guy and reasonably good teacher? sure.
Halle, when do you plan to assimilate
Yet, again, we see those ignorant of Islam jumping forward to comment.
Boaz, Jesus Christ in Islam is the Messiah promised to Israel by God, born miraculously of a virgin, who worked great miracles with God's permission and who will return at the End Times to save humanity from the Anti-Christ.
That's a little bit more than just a "good guy and reasonably good teacher" wouldn't you say?
Please, guys, learn about Islam from reliable sources and not lynching literature.
Jesus Christ in my literature is One with God.
Promised not only to Israel, but all of mankind humble enough to accept Him as Savior.
It's not nice to quibble with the Father, He gonna smack you down for that.
ebonically speaking
Boaz,
You don't know what your literature says unless you are fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.
If you believe Christ is one in a divine trinity with God and the Holy Ghost, then in Islam you are designated in the Qur'an as a protected people along with the Jews. If a Muslim sees any of the protected peoples harmed then he must fight to the death to protect them and if he is killed protecting them for the sake of God then he is considered a martyr, the highest rank on the Day of Judgment.
Does the Bible allot the same kindness to other religions? Can you quote me a verse in the Bible, even one, that shows tolerance of other religions, much less protecting their adherents and securing their right to worship?
Shibli Zaman must fall into one of three categories:
1. ignoramus
2. practitioner of al-taqeyya & kitman
3. both.
Protected people were attacked before being 'protected'. They were protected primarily from continuation and finalization Islam's attack on them. They were protected only on condition of signing a treaty of surrender and paying extortion every year.
Islam does not consider the lives & property of Kuffar as sacred. I refer skeptics to the following texts:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#001.008.387
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#009.092.388
Review questions: What makes our lives and property sacred to Muslims? How do we protect ourselves from Muslims?
Ans.: submitting to Allah; becoming a Muslim in testimony & practice.
Jews & Christians were respected & protected, yeah, wrong. I refer you to the following texts:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...t.html#041.6985
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#004.053.392
Review questions: Who owns the earth? what Jews do to obtain safety? What is the last prerequisite for Ressurection Day?
Islamic law requires at least one military expedition against the Kuffar in every year, unless the forces of Islam are too week to attack.
TBC
CTD.
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/prh3...xts/
Sulami.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?
ID=14578
Reliance of the Traveler:
http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Isla...m/
Reliance.html
O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
TBC
CTD
The previously cited Fiqh is based on the recitation & sunnah, which form a congruent pattern. I will cite the most essential quotes. The rest can be found in Riyad us Saliheen Book11, Ch.234.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/v.../11/
chap234.htm
9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
http://www.qurancomplex.com/Qura...gama.asp?
nSora= 9&l=eng&nAya= 29# 9_ 29
That is how Hilali & Khan translated it. Now examine Rodwell's translation.
Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.
http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser...chstring=009:
29
TBC
CTD
But it doesn't mean that, oh no! Mistranslation! Misinterpretation! Yeah, wrong.
There is only one real expert in interpreting the Qur'an: Moe. Examine what he said.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
Allegorical? Metaphorical? Out of sequence? Anachronistic? Nope!
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'.
TBC
CTD
No, I have not exhausted my evidence. Yer patience may be exhausted, but not my evidence.
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat.
That is from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid= 9&tid= 20980
TBC
CTD
What was the son of Kathir writing about when he said Moe sent his intent around the region? Extortion letters!
I said that I had not exhausted my evidence, and, by deity, I was not dissembling. Lying ain't my style, I ain't Muslim.
LETTER TO KHUSRO PERWEZ, EMPEROR OF FARS
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
From Muhammad, Prophet of Allah to Kisra, King of Fars
May peace be on him who follows the guidance, believes in Allah and his Prophet. I testify that there:is none worthy of worship except Allah, who is alone and without an associate and Muhammad is His Servant and Prophet. Allah has made me a Prophet and sent me for the entire world, in order that I may infuse the fear of Allah in every living person. Accept Islam and be secure. If you refuse, the sins of all the Zoroastrians shall be your responsibility.
Seal: Allah's Prophet Muhammad
http://www.alquraan.net/letters/...ROR%20OF%
20FARS
QED
Shib Z
I don't advocate tolerance for other religions, don't need to, not asked to, not commanded to
Non-Christian? You're on the wrong path.
Following a 7th century child molester? You're definitely on the wrong path.
TBC displays the typical Evangelical Internet Crusader tactic: Inundate them with pages upon pages of nonsense. Even if its 100 pages of "My Little Pony" just make it too much for them to bother responding to. Then you'll hail supreme.
Nonetheless, I will respond because that cheat, though effective in many cases, won't be effective here. I will address his flagrant lies point for point and WITHOUT overbearing the reader. Learn from it, TBC.
Point #1:
"Shibli Zaman must fall into one of three categories: 1. ignoramus 2. practitioner of al-taqeyya & kitman 3. both."
To social retards, the motto of "your with me or against me" is a creed to base one's life upon. To normal human beings, though: People agree with you, and people disagree with you. You live with it and accept it like an adult. You don't start calling people names like a kindergartener throwing a temper tantrum.
You mention "al-taqeyya & kitman" yet you didn't mention what they are or a single instance of where Sunni Muslim sources advocate them. I'm a Sunni so you need to present Sunni sources to me just as I wouldn't present Catholic catechisms to a Southern Baptist. So, TBC, would you mind explaining what "al-taqeyya & kitman" are and where Sunni sources advocate them?
Point #2:
"Islam does not consider the lives & property of Kuffar as sacred"
This is ludicrous and false and history attests to the error of this statement:
"When given the choice between the Roman Catholic rule of Hungary and the Muslim rule of the Turks, the devotion of the Servians to the Greek Church LED THEM TO PREFER THE TOLERANCE OF THE MUHAMMADANS (MUSLIMS) TO THE UNCOMPROMISING PROSELYTISING SPIRIT O THE LATINS. An old legend thus represents their feelings at this time: The Turks and the Hungarians were at war; George Brankovitch sought out John Hunyady and asked him, "If you are victorious, what will you do?" "Establish the Roman Catholic faith," was the answer. Then he sought out the sultan and asked him, "If you come out victorious, what will you do with our religion?" "BY THE SIDE OF EVERY MOSQUE SHALL STAND A CHURCH, AND EVERY MAN SHALL BE FREE TO PRAY IN WHICHEVER HE CHOOSES."[Enrique Dupuy de Lome: Los Eslavos y Turquia (Madrid, 1877) pp. 17-18]
[The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, Thomas Walker Arnold, pp.166-167]
Here we see another typical characteristic of the Evangelica Internet Crusaders: Copy and Paste. They will rarely go off of their own knowledge, but will blindly cut and paste what they think suits their argument.
"I refer skeptics to the following texts:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ fund...tml#001.008.387
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ fund...tml#009.092.388"
Why didn't you just post the text? Afraid you'd be called out on it and asked to explain? This is the text of the first link (from a site with Khan & Hilali's translation which even Christian Arabs will attest to being a horrible translation):
"Allah's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."
Notice he says, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah". In the Prophet Muhammad's time both the Jews and the Christians of Arabia were calling God by the name "Allah" which is actually the very first name of God used in the Hebrew Bible.
If you say, "Well he meant Muslims only...because x, y and z" well then you're offering your own interpretation. The problem with you copy and paste freaks is that you don't realize that the Hadith ARE NOT THE WORDS OF GOD and they are subject to SEVERE scrutiny by Muslim scholars. One Hadith is not isolated, BUT EVERY AUTHENTICATED HADITH on a particular subject is compiled to derive the correct context. The great Hadith exegete of Eschalon, Ibn Hajar states:
"The meaning of 'people' in "fight the people" is the Meccan Polytheists who are not from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). Evidence of this is the parallel Hadith with the wording "I have been commandewd to fight the Meccan Polytheists.'"
Ibn Hajar wrote that in Mid 15th Century AD Egypt. The Muslims were a dominant power in the world and most certainly secure in their domains. There was no need for a Hadith exegete to be polemical in any way. This is just how we interpret.
Now if you WANT the Muslims to kill you, then that is a different story. We know that is what you want so you have justification for your wars in the Middle East. Yet, our religion says no such thing. In Islam we are supposed to PROTECT you. Who says? History:
When the Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain expelled all the non-Christians from Spain, where did the Jews go? The Ottoman Sultan established a homeland for them in Salonica, Greece and stated, "What a fool Ferdinand is for impoverishing his nation and enriching mine!" The Muslims saw taking in the Jews and ENRICHMENT! The fourth Prime Minister of Israel, Gold Meir, testified to this and Israel to this day looks favorably upon the Turks for their magnani
Point #4:
"Jews & Christians were respected & protected, yeah, wrong. I refer you to the following texts:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ fund...t.html#041.6985
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/ fund...tml#004.053.392"
Allow me to post the text of the link, again, from Khan & Hilali's atrocious translation:
"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews."
This is neither a command, nor an instruction. It is a PROPHECY of what will happen in the future. Let's see what the BIBLE prophecies about the End Times:
""And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. AND OUT OF HIS MOUTH GOETH A SHARP SWORD, THAT WITH IT HE SHOULD SMITE THE NATIONS: AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON: AND HE TREADETH THE WINEPRESS OF THE FIERCENESS AND WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD."
[Revelations 19:11-15]
Think I'm taking that out of context. Read the ENTIRETY of Chapter 19. It says Jesus will come and make war with the nations and KILL them. What is this business about a "winepress"? What does it mean? This:
"And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs."
[Revelations 14:20]
So, ultimately, if you want to claim that the history of Islam has some violence (indeed, it does, as does the history of all religions), you still have to contest with your own Bible which has passages where the most holy take sex slaves and slay entire nations.
I've asked it before and I'll ask again: CAN YOU FIND A SINGLE VERSE OF THE QUR'AN THAT COMPARES TO NUMBERS 31.
Until you can answer that, don't even bother complaining about Islam. You have your own child sex slavery verses to deal with.
Point #5:
"Islamic law requires at least one military expedition against the Kuffar in every year, unless the forces of Islam are too week to attack."
Where did you get that from? A bubble gum machine? Substantiate it or just stop lying!
Point #6:
"Reliance of the Traveler:
http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Isla...m/ Reliance.html
O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) )."
The Reliance of the Traveler (`Umdat as-Salik in Arabic) is a book of Legal Jurisprudence or "Fiqh" in Arabic. The books of Fiqh are collection of legal OPINIONS. This is that scholars opinion.
In Christianity you have the same thing. Allow me to share the opinions of , one of the Church Fathers:
"What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we do. Yet some of these are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease. I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once
More from Church Father John Chrysostom (whose name was left out of the previous post by accident):
"Do you not see how he entrusts to you the careful examination of your brothers? Do this in the case of Judaizers, too. When you observe someone Judaizing, take hold of him, show him what he is doing, so that you may not yourself be an accessory to the risk he runs."
More...
"Therefore, flee the gatherings and holy places of the Jews. Let no man venerate the synagogue because of the holy books; let him hate and avoid it because the Jews outrage and maltreat the holy ones, because they refuse to believe their words, because they accuse them of the ultimate impiety."
There's a LOT more where that came from. You know the old saying: "Don't cast stones from a glass house".
"No, I have not exhausted my evidence. Yer patience may be exhausted, but not my evidence."
You couldn't have made me laugh any harder. Your "evidence" could be refuted by a 9th grade World History student.
Conclusion:
1) If you're concerned about a Muslim in U.S. Congress then move to Serbia. This country insures freedom of religion for all.
2) If you want to complain about Islam having any violence in it's history you need to first look at your own Bible which has (all at the command of the Biblical God):
- Genocide. Killing of entire nations.
- Killing of livestock.
- Killing of women.
- Killing of children.
- Rape
- Sex Slavery
- CHILD Sex Slavery
There are TONS of examples of this in the Bible, but you need just ONE chapter:
Numbers 31.
Read it and until you can find a SINGLE verse of the Qur'an that says to kill an entire nation but to save its little virgin girls for sex, then you need NOT complain about Islam.
Thank you.
Al-Taqeyya is deliberate dissimulation: false speech designed to deceive.
Kitman is deception by concealment: carefully contrived partial revelation while keeping material facts secret.
Sahih Muslim
Chapter 25: FORBIDDANCE OF TELLING A LIE AND THE CASES IN WHICH TELLING OF LIE IS PERMISSIBLE
Book 032, Number 6303:
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).
From Jihad Watch
More from same source 11/21
As I told Hamid Mir in Las Vegas, this is in Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106. Don't believe me -- take it from Ibn Kathir, who is a mainstream Qur'an commentator. In his commentary on 3:28, Ibn Kathir says that it means that when Muslims "in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers," they may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyyah] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'"
Spencer referred to the tafsir of this
verse: 3:28 Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
The Tafsir is here:
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid= 3&tid= 8052
Read the entire Tafsir,or the surrounding context to http://www.qurancomplex.com/Qura...gama.asp?
nSora= 3&l=eng&nAya= 28# 3_ 28
For more detail, refer to:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/a...ah/en/
chap3.php
Islam does not regard our lives as sacred. The statement is absolutely true. Assertions to the contrary are pure fecal matter.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."[...].
If they do it our way; "then their blood and property will be sacred to us" . Clearly, our lives are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslim. No other interpretation is possible. Res ipsa loquitor.
The hadith is at:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#001.008.387
It is confirmed by Abu Dawud 14.2635
When they do that, their life and property are unlawful for us except what is due to them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...t.html#014.2635
Further confirmation:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#004.052.196
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#009.092.388
You save your life from Moe by submitting to Islam.
You have mixed up apples and oranges into one basket then claimed it's a peach cobbler.
Remember the ROOT of what you said. You claimed that I was probably doing "al-taqiyyah" or "kitman" because I was saying how Islam says to protect the People of the Book.
Then you offer ZERO references to so-called "kitman", but present evidence that shows Taqiyyah is used WHEN YOU FEAR PHYSICAL HARM OR DEATH! This is what the Tafsir says and I'll even include the Arabic so there can be no doubt:
وقوله تعالى: {إلا أن تتقوا منهم تقاة}، أي إلا من خاف في بعض البلدان والأوقات من شرهم، فله أن يتقيهم بظاهره لا بباطنه ونيته، كما قال البخاري عن أبي الدرداء إنه قال: " إنَّا لنكشر في وجوه أقوام وقلوبنا تلعنهم". وقال الثوري، قال ابن عباس: ليس التقية بالعمل إنما التقية باللسان
"And regarding the Lord's saying {..except if you indeed fear a danger from them} it means an exception for those who FEAR IN SOME OF THE LANDS AND TIMES FROM THEIR HARM. In that case it is permissible to put on a facade outwardly, but not inwardly, nor by true intention. Such as al-Bukhari who quoted from Abu al-Darda': 'Verily, to some people we had to smile, but inside we cursed them.' Al-Thawri stated: Ibn Abbas said, 'al-Taqiyyah is not by deed. It is by tongue only.'"
....
The dissembler resorts to diversion again. Sunnah does not need to be the word of Allah. It only needs to be believed and acted upon. The same goes for the Qur'an. The cited ahadith is congruent with 9:29. Moe acted upon it, attacking the local Jews & Christians as well as pagan Arab tribes in the region.
The same translator was commissioned by KSA to translate the Qur'an, I generally quote his version. Where ahadith are common to several collections, with different translators, they tend to match up quite well.
That is true of the multiple Qur'an translations as well. www.quranbrowser.com displays ten translations in parallel. The words differ; the meaning does not.
Arabs who studied the source documents in Arabic confirm the accuracy of the translations I use. I have no reason to distrust those gentlemen.
The same material can be verified by reading Riyad us Saliheen, Book 11, Ch. 234.
So, what does Ibn Hajar, the previously mentioned exegete of Bukhari, say about this statement of Abu al-Darda', "Verily, to some people we had to smile, but inside we cursed them."??
وظن بعضهم أن المداراة هي المداهنة فغلط، لأن المدارة مندوب إليها والمداهنة محرمة، والفرق أن المداهنة من الدهان وهو الذي يظهر على الشيء ويستر باطنه، وفسرها العلماء بأنه معاشرة الفاسق وإظهار الرضا بما هو فيه من غير إنكار عليه، والمداراة هي الرفق بالجاهل في التعليم وبالفاسق في النهي عن فعله، وترك الإغلاظ عليه حيث لا يظهر ما هو فيه، والإنكار عليه بلطف القول والفعل، ولا سيما إذا احتيج إلى تألفه ونحو ذلك.
"Some may think in error that being accommodating (al-Mudarat) is the same as flattering (al-Mudahinah). Being accommodating is permissible, but flattery is forbidden. The difference is that the word "al-Mudahinah" has its root in the word "Dihan" (paint) and that is to show something but to conceal what is inside. The Scholars have explained it thus: (Flattry is) to take association with an evil person and to disp
You're copying and pasting your previous posts without even addressing anything I've said.
Are you a bot?
You lead me to believe you don't have a mind of your own.
Now, Ben, why haven't you addressed anything I've brought up about Numbers 31?
Unless you can get past that ONE chapter of the Bible, you really can't wave a candle at Islam.
Hurry long...find me a verse in the Qur'an that compares to this:
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
BUT ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, THAT HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN BY LYING WITH HIM, KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES."
[Numbers 31:17-18]
Until you can do that. This discussion can be deemed closed.
So the Hebes had, or claimed to have divine mandate to eliminate specific tribes at specific times and places. Never were they under a divine mandate to conquer and subjugate the entire world. Once they conquered Caanan and the tribes who subsequently attacked them, their mandate to warfare was ended.
Islam's mandate to conquest is expressed in fight until loops. 8:39 is against pagans, and specifies as terminal condition the termination of resistance and a global monopoly for Allah. Abdullah Yusuf Ali says "altogether and everywhere". Read it and weep. http://www.altafsir.com/ViewTran...lay=yes&
SoraNo= 8&Ayah= 39&Language=2&TranslationBook=4
9:29 mandates fighting Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians & Sabeans until they were subjugated and pay extortion.
Why did Moe say he was ordered to fight the people? Why did he say he was commanded to fight with men? Why did he send out his army with orders to give those he encountered a choice between conversion, submission or death? Yeah, wrong!!! http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...t.html#019.4294
Why did Umar send the army to fight the pagans? http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#004.053.386
Take a close look at the context.
3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
3:29. Say (O Muhammad ): "Whether you hide what is in your breasts or reveal it, Allâh knows it, and He knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And Allâh is Able to do all things."
"This is why when this Ayah was revealed, it was hard on the Companions, since out of their strong faith and conviction, they were afraid that such reckoning would diminish their good deeds." http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid= 2&tid= 7545
From Reliance of the Traveler:
@R8.2: Permissible Lying
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
"He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.''
This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim's version recording that Umm Kulthum added,
"I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A:in smoothing over differences), ''...
When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. When for example one is concealing a muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and he then siezes it, one is financially liable (A:to the owner) to cover the article's cost. Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to; lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is religiously more precautionary (def:c6.5) in all such cases to employ words that give misleadng impression, meaning to intend by one's words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying (def:r10.2) white the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances.
`This is true of every expression connected with a legitimating desired end, whether one's own or another's. An example of a legitimating end of one's own is when an oppressor intending to appropriate one's property inquires about it, in which case one may deny it. Or if a ruler asks one about a wicked act one has committed that is solely between oneself and Allah Most High (N: i.e. it does not concern the rights of another), in which case one is entitled to disclaim it, such as by saying, 'I did not commit fornication,'or'I did not drink.' There are many well known hadiths in which those who admitted they deserved punishment were given prompting (A: by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ) to retract their confessions. An example of a legitimating desired end of another is when one is asked about another's secret and one disacknowledges it. And so on. One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the conse
LOL you keep pasting the same stuff over and over yet haven't found a single verse of the Qur'an that says anything like the Biblical Book of Numbers 31:17-18.
You'll just keep posting the same verses about fighting the Meccan Polytheists out of context.
Looks like the Crusader Bot crashed.
Remember, Obi Wan, NUMBERS 31. It doesn't matter that it was thousands of years ago. The Bible says GOD COMMANDED ISRAEL TO TAKE BABIES AS SEX SLAVES.
Best case scenario for you is that both our religions have violent histories. Leave it at that and stop making a fool of yourself.
Oh yeah and lying to save your life or to save someone's marriage is evil to you?
You haven't cited a SINGLE reference that says you can lie to infiltrate with harmful intent.
The quotes you copy and paste are disproving your own arguments!
The Crusader Bot "Ben" needs to reboot following some badly needed updates.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fund...tml#004.052.267
This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible...
Got a comprehension problem? That provision can stretch to accommodate any need.
3:28 is sufficiently explicit. It allows tricking Kuffar, deceiving them; letting them think you are a friend while you remain an enemy.
"War is deceit." should remove any residual doubt.
Shilby get real will ya? You can post until doomsday and you will never convince me or anyone else on this blog that following the teachings of Mohammed is in any way a rational decision. The man was either the greatest con-artist of all time or else he was hearing voices in his head and actually believed that his actions were instructions from god. I know this because I know the true God. That sounds like a bold statement but it's the truth. I pray to him and He answers me, and his Spirit lives within me. There is nothing that can separate me from Him.
I can completely understand why you want to believe what you do. You were probably taught from infancy -- but even in my own faith, there came a time where I had to know for myself whether what I was taught is true.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to risk the alienation from your family and your social circle by daring to consider any possibility that you have been lied to. But if you open your mind and ask the true God to reveal the truth to you, he will. The Bible says He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
I beg you to put my God to the test and diligently seek Him. But it takes great courage to do this; even for those who are raised Christians this is a difficult scripture. But I promise you, if you sincerely and diligently seek him you will find him.
I came across this testimony on line, but there are many other stories like this one.
http://www.hissheep.org/israeli/
..._christian.html
Please read it and think about it.
NJ,
That may be the best and most heart felt comment in the history of Do The Right Thing!
Bless you my dear friend!
Ultimately,
1) You can NEVER find a single verse in the Qur'an that even remotely compares to the barbarity of God's order to slaughter an entire nation and to enslave their baby girls for sex as found in Numbers 31. I've asked several times and you all failed.
2) You can NEVER find a SINGLE verse in the Bible that calls for the protection of other religions, as the Qur'an calls for the protection of the Jews and Christians who pay their taxes. To complain about the Jizya tax is ridiculous because every immigrant in this country has to pay taxes or be deported or go to JAIL.
The best case scenario for all of you is that both our religions have violence in their histories, just as ALL religions do. Even the Buddhists in their polemic that they are the most peaceful religion ignore that the position of the Dalai Lama was established by the Mongols who slaughtered half of Asia.
Before Jesus was taken by the Romans he assembled his Disciples for battle telling them to sell their shirts if they could not afford to buy a sword. Regardless, of how you interpret this the fact that he ARMED his Disciples is INDISPUTABLE.
There's not a religion on earth that doesn't have a violent history. Anyone who says so is a liar.
The bottom line is that you're all casting stones from glass houses due to your own fears, insecurities, prejudices and bigotry.
The ad hominem attcks on Shibli Zaman, the tuqoque arguments from Ben and ridiculous straw men and red herrings typify extremist Christian tactics. Do you guys realize personal abuse is not evidence? Is this what Jesus Christ taught you guys?
Or are these deflection antics the best you can muster? Be man enough to address the guy's points, otherwise, your babble discredits you with each post.
He has put forward very clear points, and you go off on irrelevant tangents.
The reason for this is your concept of God is a myth so in order to rationalise your dismal failures in explaining basic mathematics (3=1...?), you start attacking points that have no relevance.
What woeful representatives you are to your faith and doctrine.
Sammer, Shilby's "points" are so long and so full of falsehoods that it honestly would take quite a while to debate each and every claim.
I have not gotten a response to my post where I mention the testimony of just one Muslim who became a Christian. I know that you think some of the posts are "deflection antics" but the truth is we don't need antics since we serve the true and living God. The Bible is an amazing document, and I hope you will take time to read and study it.
But I warn you, it takes an enormous amount of courage to seek the truth because if you TRULY seek, you start out running the risk of finding it. And once you find it, you must choose to accept it or reject it. When a person gets to this level there's no returning to ignorance...there's only the DECISION of how to handle what you have learned.
This is NOT a slam on you, or Islam or your upbringing. It is a sincere wish that you find the truth, and that you handle the truth wisely once you find it.
"Sammer, Shilby's "points" are so long and so full of falsehoods that it honestly would take quite a while to debate each and every claim."
You didn't have to address every claim. It would have been useful to address just a single ONE. This is what I call the lazy way out. Rather than actually tackle the argument, you dimiss it as falsehood. That's your perogative, however mere assertions are not evidence in themslves and totally unconvincing.
"I have not gotten a response to my post where I mention the testimony of just one Muslim who became a Christian."
That's because it's not even worth responding to. Throughout history, people have switched faiths. I don't beleive this is the discussion at hand. If you really want to go down that path, I can refer you to dozens upon dozens if not HUNDREDS of Christians, including former pastors and ministers from all denominations who converted to Islam. This however is irrelevant.
"I know that you think some of the posts are "deflection antics" but the truth is we don't need antics since we serve the true and living God."
Okay, but you see, Jesus Christ tells us clearly states who the only true God really is. Here, let me expand a little:
"And this is life eternal, that they may know thee (Father), THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has SENT" - John 17:3
Jesus Christ went out of his way to state The Father is the only TRUE God. So unless you are serving this only TRUE God, you are not following Christ's words. If The Father is the only TRUE God, then any other "god" is false.
I appreciate your well wishes for me finding the truth. My experiences with Christians are not so positive. They go into blatant denial when they come up against questions they cannot answer. The concept of the Trinity is a prime example.
What I usually encounter is they will quote slabs of text and totally ignore my points. All that does is illustrate the inconsistency in the text! Not to mention the inevitable...
"We don't know everything about God, if we did, we would be God" or the classic...
"It's a mystery, one just needs to accept".
Perhaps in other matters of faith, I may accept but when I'm told to blindly accept absurdities for the concept of God, no reasonable mind will find this plausible. So you must hold yourself to your own standards in finding the truth.
The message to all God's prophets was the exclusive worship of One God. Nothing more. This is crystal clear in the OT, the NT and in the Qu'ran.
Muslims and their apologists can not face the facts: Islam was born in blood. While relatively weak, Moe preached tolerance and forbearance. When he acquired growing strength, he began preaching retaliation. As his army grew, he began preaching aggression.
The transitions are clear in the Sira. But the Qur'an shows us how evil Moe was. 8:12 incites terrorism, 8:39 declares perpetual war on pagans and atheists. 8:67 sets up genocide as prerequisite to ransoming prisoners for profit. It also establishes genocide as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. 9:29 declares perpetual war on Jews & Christians. 9:35 curses us.
Moe's sunnah complements the Qur'an with multitudinous examples of his lust for blood.
In accusing me of Tu quoque, a new low is reached. The accusations against Christianity are the Tu quoque. They shout "you're one, too", acknowledging Islam's blood lust in the process. It is a diversion, not a defense.
Next they'll engage in denial, claiming that the books don't say that. But Ibn Kathir, Al-Misri, and jurists like Al-Shafi'i and Al-Ghazali confirm the truth.
Islam is a murderous lie from the father of lies and murder.
Ben you illustrate my point perfectly. I ask you to address Zaman's points, give a few questions of my own and here's your reply:
"Muslims and their apologists can not face the facts: Islam was born in blood..."
LOL - what does this have to do with the discussion? You are letting your fervish emotions get the better of you which sadly, is exactly what I predicted in my previous post. Care to actually answer our questions?
"The transitions are clear in the Sira. But the Qur'an shows us how evil Moe was. 8:12 incites terrorism, 8:39 declares perpetual war on pagans and atheists. 8:67 sets up genocide as prerequisite to ransoming prisoners for profit."
Another straw man which has already been addressed. Now ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. You do yourself and your faith no favors with your childish antics.
"It also establishes genocide as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. 9:29 declares perpetual war on Jews & Christians. 9:35 curses us. "
Dude, I can't help but think you are almost too afraid to engage in an intelligent debate about GOD. If you continue your copy and paste babble, they won't even be worth responding to.
"In accusing me of Tu quoque, a new low is reached. The accusations against Christianity are the Tu quoque. They shout "you're one, too", acknowledging Islam's blood lust in the process. It is a diversion, not a defense."
Let me try to put it into more elementary English. You are avoiding our questions. You could not produce the evidence demanded from your own book to back up your claims.
If you want to discuss blood and religion, lets put Christianity at the very top, starting with Paul, the author of over half of the NT.
The OT is riddled with verses of annihilation of entire people, including babies and even livestock. Orders are given to decimate every soul. Not a single verse like this is in the Qu'ran. We can also talk about The Inquisition and The Iberian and Pyrenees Crusades of Western Europe if blood is so important to you.
Final request: answer our questions or this debate is over.
"Islam is a murderous lie from the father of lies and murder."
I think the South Park website is a more appropriate place for a Christian like yourself to hang out.
This comment thread commenced with questioning why Blacks would want to be associated with Islam, which captivated their ancestors and sold them into slavery.
The answer to that question is fairly complex, there are several influences.
The most important of those influences is ignorance.
Islam's doctrines are established by the Qur'an. They are clarified and exemplified by Moe's Sira & Sunnah. They culminate in Fiqh.
At my web site, readers can find links to those documents and to tafsir which explain the plain meaning of the Qur'an.
What the ancient Hebrews wrote in their scripture and did on the battlefield is totally irrelevant to discussion of the mercenary and martial nature of Islam.
The teaching and practice of Jesus is likewise irrelevant.
What Moe said (Qur'an) and what he did (Hadith) define Islam and set the standard for Muslims to emulate in all places, at all times.
If you can read this comment thread, you can visit www.quranbrowser.com and read the Qur'an in ten parallel translations. You can search for the ayat numbers I cited, find them, read them and the surrounding context.
At www.qtafsir.com, you can enter those numbers into a search engine and read the tafsir topics associated with them.
At http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/
viewto...939ccfbaf282aa5
you can read significant quotes from Islamic jurisprudence. That Fiqh is a direct result of what Moe said and did. Al-Taubah 29 is the basis of Reliance of the Traveler, Book O Chapter 8 Section 8 which says "The Caliph makes war upon Jews and Christians"... The meaning of that passage becomes clear when you read similar passages from the Hedaya, Al-Ghazali & Al-Shafi'i.
No amount of denial, spinning, tangential diversion, slithering or tap dancing will change the objective factual reality which Muslims and useful idiots who serve them deny.
Islam is a mercenary & martial institution, founded by a warlord for the purpose of motivating men to go to war for his enrichment and empowerment.
Christians are not engaged in terrorism on a global scope and scale. Muslims are.
Jews are not obligated by their God to conquer the world. Muslims are. With the exception of Caanan, the Hebrew conquests were defensive, not offensive. Islam's conquests were offensive with one exception. Rational persons will recognize the difference. You do not.
Ben, go play elsewhere dude, this debate is over.
Ben
It is very possible this thread is pointless, ONLY enquiring minds want to know. Samar and the rest appear interested only in obfuscation and don't seem willing or able to meet the questions head on.
Enquiring minds: the sort of thing never found residing in a liberal brain cavity
"What the ancient Hebrews wrote in their scripture and did on the battlefield is totally irrelevant to discussion of the mercenary and martial nature of Islam."
This is a common duck, cover and run strategy of the Evangelical Crusdaers.
Numbers 31 is NOT an event that the Hebrews did out of their own whim! According to the Bible THE GENOCIDE, RAPE AND PILLAGE OF MIDIAN WAS THE ORDER AND COMMAND OF GOD.
"AND THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING, AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OF THE MIDIANITES: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, ARM SOME OF YOURSELVES UNTO THE WAR, AND LET THEM GO AGAINST THE MIDIANITES, AND AVENGE THE LORD OF MIDIAN."
[Numbers 31:1-3]
This genocide, slaughter, rape and child sex slavery was the order and command of GOD HIMSELF according to the Bible.
Furthermore, to say this was an act of the Hebrews themselves is ludicrous because the Hebrews displayed compassion and Moses REPRIMANDED them for it!
"And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. AND MOSES WAS WROTH (ANGRY!) with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. AND MOSES SAID UNTO THEM, HAVE YE SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. NOW THEREFORE KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN THAT HATH KNOWN MAN BY LYING WITH HIM. BUT ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, THAT HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN BY LYING WITH HIM, KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES."
[Numbers 31:13-18]
So the Hebrews appear to have felt mercy and spared the women and children. This made Moses FURIOUS and he commanded that they all be MASSACRED except for the little girls who could be kept for SEX. The word in Hebrew used for those little girls here is "Taftaf" which comes from the sound "taf...taf" that little girls make when they skip.
This was the SAME GOD of Moses who supposedly incarnated himself as Jesus according to Christianity. SO ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANITY, JESUS CHRIST COMMANDED THE MASSACRE, GENOCIDE AND RAPE OF MIDIAN'S MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
Now, I ask you again:
PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE VERSE OF THE QUR'AN THAT COMPARES EVEN REMOTELY TO NUMBERS 31 IN BARBARITY.
Until you can show us ANYTHING in the Qur'an that compares to this clear example of the Biblical God COMMANDING the Slaughter of an entire nation and the enslaving of its virgin girls for sex then YOU CAN NOT EVEN DARE COMPLAIN ABOUT ISLAM.
You can never do it, and you have all displayed that quite well here.
Thank you.
Ben, you can keep coming and getting a bat on the head or you can just quit.
I'd recommend you sit the bench.
I don't understand your desire to Bat Ben on the head but whatever.
Muslims tend to get very angry when their leader's morality is questioned, as if there is something to be embarrassed about. You can jump up and down all day long about "Numbers 31" as if that somehow justifies the murders committed by Osama or Mohmammad or that father of those two teenage girls in Dallas, TX. It is a disappointment that you are more interested in scoring points than in seeking and finding truth.
I have found the truth. I know that bothers you -- you (or shilby?) somehow twisted my example of the convert into yet another "points" system. But the truth is the truth ... and honestly, I found the testimony of the Muslim who chose to follow Jesus Christ to be a pretty compelling story.
Have you ever (be honest) asked God to reveal himself to you? I mean sincerely without all the religious "baggage"? I have done that. And it's not that easy really, which is why I said in my earlier post to Shilby that it takes courage.
NJ GOP, when you an explain the Trinity to your own mind, perhaps we can explore the possibility of you attempting to explain it to us.
All the best.
From one of Sammer or Shilby's posts:
"Before Jesus was taken by the Romans he assembled his Disciples for battle telling them to sell their shirts if they could not afford to buy a sword. Regardless, of how you interpret this the fact that he ARMED his Disciples is INDISPUTABLE."
Did you make this up yourself or is this what they teach you at the Mosque?
How interesting that you ignored my question. I hope someday you can answer it.
I don't think the trinity is that difficult to accept. I worship one God manifested in 3 distinct persons. The scriptures are clear that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.
For a more exhaustive explanation try this link:
http://www.equip.org/site/
c.muI1...the_Trinity.htm
NJ GOP said:
"Did you make this up yourself or is this what they teach you at the Mosque?"
No, sir, it is was they DON'T teach you in Church....more like hide from you.
"And He said to them, 'When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?' So they said, 'Nothing.' Then He said to them, 'BUT NOW, HE WHO HAS A MONEY BAG, LET HIM TAKE IT, AND LIKEWISE A KNAPSACK; AND HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT AND BUY ONE. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end.' SO THEY SAID, 'LORD, LOOK,HERE ARE TWO SWORDS.' And He said to them, 'IT IS ENOUGH.'"
[Luke 21:38]
So not only do you not know anything about Islam, you don't know anything about Christianity either. Pity that a Muslim has to teach you your own religion.
Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him. When He came to the place, He said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation." And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and prayed, saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done." Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. When He rose up from prayer, and had come to His disciples, He found them sleeping from sorrow. Then He said to them, "Why do you sleep? Rise and pray, lest you enter into temptation."
And while He was still speaking, behold, a multitude; and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near to Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, "Permit even this." And He touched his ear and healed him.
Cont'd
So what happened is that Jesus assembled his disciples for defense. The problem is that while Jesus was ardently begging God to save him, his disciples fell asleep!
So when the Romans seized Jesus, the disciples attacked, yet knowing that it would be a massacre, Jesus instructed them to cease.
So, NJ GOP, spend some time reading the Bible and you won't need a Muslim to teach it to you.
Also, stop being such paranoid and suspicious twits. Sammer and I are two different people. Why would I post as two people? Wouldn't I just call a friend and have him post too? Are you seriously that socially isolated that this appears abnormal to you?!
NJ GOP, stop with the ridiculous weepy Lakewood Church garbage. Talk about actual facts and not insipid emotional poppycock like "Did you reeeeeeeeeeally ask God to reveal himself to you? I mean for REAAAALLL???!"
Now, you claim that the Prophet Muhammad was violent, that Islam is violent and Muslims are violent. You seek to substantiate that by quoting a few chopped up verses taken from the Qur'an out of context.
Just for fun: Let me accept your evidence at face value.
NOW, answer this question: Did YOUR GOD *COMMAND* Moses to slaughter an entire nation, men, women, children, babies, livestock, etc because they propagated the worship of another God?
Please answer with just "Yes" or "No".
If your answer is "Yes", then your ENTIRE PREMISE of rejecting Islam's validity based on what you deem to be a violent history in the religion is rendered VOID.
If your answer is "No", then you're in denial and I suggest you flip open to Numbers 31 and snap out of it. Your paintings of Jesus make him look like a hippy but, trust me, according to the Book of Revelation he's coming back a warrior strapped to KILL until the horses are in blood to the bridle.
NJ GOP, I suggest you cease with the "God revealing Himself" to you episodes and try to answer the questions put to you.
Sammer / Teacher, - you are smelling a lot like Raoul and if you want to continue posting under alias names, I would suggest you knock off the personal attacks. If you want to debate - go for it, if not I will ban your IP and we will go on without you.
CP
Shibli,
Very interesting that you quote scripture, which is good (unless of course your are pulling one or two out and taking them out of context - but you wouldn't do that I'm sure) but then you put your spin on it (which I know you do).
Your take on Jesus and the Disciples is probably the most absurb thing that you have said in the entire thread (well, several others rank up there with it).
There is no way to debate with someone who will make things up and use them as fact.
No Ed, he's (or she's) not me. You REALLY gotta get over your paranois about me. I've been attempting a truce with you in case you haven't noticed since we're approaching one of the holiest of days for us. However, my patience isn't unlimited. Please stop blaming me for all of the crackpots that show up over here. You are the cause of them, not me. I have MORE important things to do than to debate the bible with people who are clueless regarding God's true nature and His real purpose for His children.
Ok raoul, for the sake of truce and in the spirit of the season, I will leave this post and I expect you to keep your word!
CP
"Sammer / Teacher, - you are smelling a lot like Raoul and if you want to continue posting under alias names, I would suggest you knock off the personal attacks. If you want to debate - go for it, if not I will ban your IP and we will go on without you."
How very Christian of you to falsely accuse me of being someone else. Why don't you first check both our IP's before such accusations.
Secondly, I didn't personally attack anyone. Very cheap shot.
"There is no way to debate with someone who will make things up and use them as fact."
All I see in his posts are quotes from the Bible. Saying they are made up isn't a very convincing counter-argument.
Shilby/Sammer:
I answered your question directly. I guess I hit a nerve since you react so strongly to my posts. My only intent was to try to get you to think.
Your relationship with God is between you and Him. I don't need to know whether you truly seek God or not. I do need to communicate the truth to you. Nothing more.
By the way -- you are so hung up on the whole "Numbers" thing -- I'm curious as to why.
Does the book of Numbers justify Muslim violence for you? Or do you think that the book of Numbers is a lie? I don't get why it is a problem for you.
At any rate, I have not done any exhaustive study on the topic, but I think I am correct that these people (who were conquered) were Baal worshippers, where one of their practices was to sacrifice newborns by burning them alive. In fact, I believe archaeologists uncovered mass graves of infants that had so many bodies that the babies were layered over time due to the huge number of them. As far as I know, these babies were bred for the sole purpose of live sacrifices -- and the mode of murder was to start the fire and place the live baby in the red-hot arms of the Baal idol.
My God, you people have some SERIOUS paranoia issues, but that is typical of people involved in cults.
Cyber Pasteur said:
"Your take on Jesus and the Disciples is probably the most absurb thing that you have said in the entire thread (well, several others rank up there with it).
There is no way to debate with someone who will make things up and use them as fact."
Did I make this up, sir:
"And He said to them, 'When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?' So they said, 'Nothing.' Then He said to them, 'BUT NOW, HE WHO HAS A MONEY BAG, LET HIM TAKE IT, AND LIKEWISE A KNAPSACK; AND HE WHO HAS NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT AND BUY ONE. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end.' SO THEY SAID, 'LORD, LOOK,HERE ARE TWO SWORDS.' And He said to them, 'IT IS ENOUGH.'"
[Luke 21:38]
To say that Christ ordered his disciples VERY EXPLICITLY to arm themselves is not "spin". It is fact.
NJ GOP said:
"
By the way -- you are so hung up on the whole "Numbers" thing -- I'm curious as to why.
Does the book of Numbers justify Muslim violence for you? Or do you think that the book of Numbers is a lie? I don't get why it is a problem for you."
Dear Lord, you can't see the obvious. Let me quote myself AGAIN:
"NOW, answer this question: Did YOUR GOD *COMMAND* Moses to slaughter an entire nation, men, women, children, babies, livestock, etc because they propagated the worship of another God?
Please answer with just "Yes" or "No".
If your answer is "Yes", then your ENTIRE PREMISE of rejecting Islam's validity based on what you deem to be a violent history in the religion is rendered VOID."
Further, NJ GOP said:
"At any rate, I have not done any exhaustive study on the topic, but I think I am correct that these people (who were conquered) were Baal worshippers, where one of their practices was to sacrifice newborns by burning them alive. In fact, I believe archaeologists uncovered mass graves of infants that had so many bodies that the babies were layered over time due to the huge number of them. As far as I know, these babies were bred for the sole purpose of live sacrifices -- and the mode of murder was to start the fire and place the live baby in the red-hot arms of the Baal idol."
So let me get this straight: Because the Midianites were SUPPOSEDLY sacrificing babies alive and burning them alive....God ordered that the Hebrews should murder those babies (unless their baby girls, then use them for sex) INSTEAD of the Midianites? I know you conveniently like to forget, but the Hebrew soldiers had initially SPARED the women and children, but Moses was furious at them for this and ordered that they MASSACRE all the women and children, but to save the female children for sex.
Talk about from the frying pan into the fire!
Sammer/Teacher/Shilby -- you said: "If your answer is "Yes", then your ENTIRE PREMISE of rejecting Islam's validity based on what you deem to be a violent history in the religion is rendered VOID."
My premise for rejecting Islam is that Islam is a false religion, that worships a false God, introduced by a false prophet.
I'm sincerely sorry if that offends you, but the truth is the truth.
Shilbi -- have you actually read the Book of Numbers?
I have read many articles that discuss how obsessed Muslim men are with sex and rape. This is not in the text that you are referencing, but I'm not surprised you would add that to it, since you are in error (or are flatly lying) about what other scriptures say as well.
I've answered your questions -- you have not answered mine.
I'm done arguing with you.
NJ GOP answered our questions in his dreams. Not a single question was answered. Not a single argument was refuted. Just decoy tactics which Christian extremists have become wonderful at.
"My premise for rejecting Islam is that Islam is a false religion, that worships a false God, introduced by a false prophet."
Here is his attempt to change the topic again. The game's up. Your Bible is filled with verses ordering the wholesale slaughter of people and to take up arms.
YOU CANNOT DENY IT.
Sammer = spammer.
The contents of the Bible are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Christians & Jews are not engaged in terrorist, genocidal aggression on a global scope. Only Islam is doing that.
Neither the old nor new testaments contain open ended commands to engage in aggression, terrorism or genocide without chronological or geographic limits. The Qur'an does, and those commands are confirmed by authentic Hadith. Sharia is derived primarily from those two sources, and it says "The Caliph makes war on Jews and Christians". Al-Ghazali and Al-Shafi'i ruled that it had to be done at least once in every year.
You can not disprove these facts. All you can do is distract, deceive and attack the messenger. Your case is meretricious. Islam is morally indefensible, a twisted lie from start to finish.
Ben said:
"The contents of the Bible are entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand."
Aah, of course. When you spew a lot of "Your momma" jokes it doesn't help when your mother is a prostitute. You'd love the Bible's long entries of genocide and murder to be irrelevant to the topic, but they are ABSOLUTELY relevant.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
If you want to charge Islam with being violent, then you must first deal with the violent history of your OWN religion.
THE GOD OF THE BIBLE, WHO TO YOU IS JESUS, COMMANDED THE GENOCIDE OF A NATION BECAUSE THEY WORSHIPPED ANOTHER GOD.
How on earth can you criticize ANYONE for being violent coming from THAT position?
Why is this something so impossible for you people to fathom? Why? Because it is the death knell of an argument your bigotry finds so much comfort it. You don't want us to take away your "Blankey".
Ben said:
"Christians & Jews are not engaged in terrorist, genocidal aggression on a global scope. Only Islam is doing that."
Are you JOKING? Christendom has wrought havoc and endless warfare upon the entire planet long before the era of modern terrorism from the Muslim world.
Have you ever heard of the CRUSADES?
Have you ever heard of the British Empire?
Have you ever heard of the Mongol massacre of Asia? It was all encouraged by Hulagu Khan's Christian mother.
Israeli Zionism was a terrorist movement under the British Mandate of Palestine.
The Tamil Tigers are a Hindu terrorist organization in India.
The Khalistan movement was a Sikh terrorist organization in India.
The IRA was a very religious oriented Christian terrorist group.
Let's not even get started on the Christian clergy of Rawanda who assisted in the massacres.
I could go on much further, but the point has been made.
Ben said:
"Neither the old nor new testaments contain open ended commands to engage in aggression, terrorism or genocide without chronological or geographic limits. The Qur'an does, and those commands are confirmed by authentic Hadith."
Quote me a SINGLE verse from the Qur'an that IN ITS CONTEXT tells me, an American Muslim, to wage war upon my non-Muslim neighbors. You can do no such thing.
Again, for the millionth time:
IF YOUR BIBLE SAYS GOD COMMANDED THE HEBREWS TO SLAUGHTER MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN AND TO ENSLAVE LITTLE GIRLS FOR SEX THEN YOU CAN NOT CALL ANY OTHER RELIGION ON PLANET EARTH VIOLENT.
"Deaf, dumb and blind, they will not find the path."
Now to summarize the challenges you will endlessly evade:
1) FIND A SINGLE VERSE IN THE QUR'AN THAT COMPARES EVEN REMOTELY TO NUMBERS 31.
2) FIND A SINGLE VERSE IN THE QUR'AN THAT INSTRUCTS AMERICAN MUSLIMS TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THEIR NON-MUSLIM NEIGHBORS.
Good luck lol...
?Ben said:
"Neither the old nor new testaments contain open ended commands to engage in aggression, terrorism or genocide without chronological or geographic limits. The Qur'an does, and those commands are confirmed by authentic Hadith."
Quote me a SINGLE verse from the Qur'an that IN ITS CONTEXT tells me, an American Muslim, to wage war upon my non-Muslim neighbors. You can do no such thing.>
That damned fool has slipped over the edge of sanity. Sorry, I do not suffer fools gladly. This will be blogged, with links to the source.
I understand why Dean is pissed, but unlike Dean, I do not hold it in, I let it flow. The schmuck is going to drown this time.
Shibli Zaman - what does Numbers 31 have to do with Jesus Christ of the New Testament?
The Old testament was a precursor to its own fulfillment in the New Testament. The Old Testament was under the edict of the Levitical laws. The New Testament embodied the essence of Jesus Christ who said He was the fulfillment of the Old. He denounced violence of any kind. Any comments by Him regarding violent acts such as 'plucking out your own eye if it offends' or 'taking up the sword' were nothing more than allegorical lessons to impress upon the people something He wanted to teach.
You cannot argue from the Old Testament, ie: Numbers, to criticize true Christianity of the 1st century. It makes no sense.
"What I purpose, that I perform". Rebuttal of the idiot, with full documentation, uttered & published at Freedom Ain't Free, A Newt One & advertised at Real Clear Politics. Your votes will be appreciated.
http://snooper.wordpress.com/200...-crypt-crapped/
I see draoula the ignorant Canadian troll is revealing its complete and total stupidity. I didn't expect otherwise.
As for Islam, the cult of rape, murder, pedophilia, torture and slavery, I say with all guttural contempt for such a vile and horrific political "religion" - screw Islam and all components thereof.
"violent acts such as 'plucking out your own eye if it offends' or 'taking up the sword' were nothing more than allegorical lessons to impress upon the people something He wanted to teach"
Allegorical? I don't think so - the verses were explicitly talking about his disciples being physically armed with SWORDS. Nothing allegorical about it.
Snooper and Ben,
it is pointless to try to teach the unteachable. They arm themselves with lies not to promote Islam, but to try to drag Christianity and Judaism down to the level of Islam.
I don't know if they do this to justify the acts of their bloodthirsy leaders or if they are simply afraid that if they examine the truth, they may have to consider the possiblity their lives will be forever changed.
I hope it's fear that motivates them and here's why. If they know the truth and consciously reject it, I think they may be beyond hope. If they are simply duped by the violent and corrupt Muslim leadership then perhaps in time they will see.
For Easter, I encourage anyone reading this thread to go to www.biblegateway.com and read the book of John. Warning Label: The contents of the Book of John could change your life.
NJ GOP, spare us the hot air preaching. When you cannot rebutt points intelligently, you like many Christian extremists, start the TV Fainting Hallelujah antics.
The book attributed to John is the same one I quoted earlier from and you conveniently ignored.
Interesting discussion the Pastor has allowed to continue; and, it is sounding a lot like this passage:
"And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?"
Ben said:
"Christians & Jews are not engaged in terrorist, genocidal aggression on a global scope. Only Islam is doing that,"
That depends on where one is sitting. If you are a Palestinian or a Muslim in the Middle East, your view would be very different, especially when Bush said, "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."
And, to portray people committing violence, who are Muslim, as being no different than the blanket charge that 'only Islam is engaged in terrorist, genocidal aggression on a global scope' is purposefully wrong.
Wow Halle, you honestly see the war on terror as an act of terrorist, genocidal agression?
I know you hate Bush and all that, but your comment is a bit irresponsible, to say the least.
I suppose FDR's involvement in WW2 was terroristic and genocidal as well.
Lest people become confused by your reply:
1) I didn't say the GWOT was "as an act of terrorist, genocidal agression." (Besides, you can't have a war on a tactic.)
2) I don't hate Bush. My disagreement and opposition to his policies is not personal. Life is too short to hate; and, Jesus frowns on it, too.
3) I don't share your view of calling FDR a terrorist or his policies genocidal.
Sammer, please stop pretending to be an idiot.
If I wanted to ignore the Book of John, why would I draw your attention to it?
Not that I expect an answer -- but seriously, I really do hope you read it -- all of it.
Ben said:
" "What I purpose, that I perform". Rebuttal of the idiot, with full documentation, uttered & published at Freedom Ain't Free, A Newt One & advertised at Real Clear Politics. Your votes will be appreciated.
http://snooper.wordpress.com/200...-crypt-crapped/
"
I really hope everyone does go there and reads what a poor display of manners this "Christian" has....as well as my refutations of his lies.
'Allegorical? I don't think so - the verses were explicitly talking about his disciples being physically armed with SWORDS. Nothing allegorical about it.' by Sammer
Jesus' main purpose was to show us God's true nature - that's why God sent his only begotten Son. To show us the human nature of God since we were created in His image. Along with the main purpose came many teachings by Jesus to impress upon his followers various things. You take allegorical statements and translate them 'literally'. This is the SAME error that atheists commit. I suppose all of Jesus' parables are to be taken 'literally' as well? I believe the answer is obvious. I don't wish to preach to you HOWEVER, in order to understand the New Testament one must have the Holy Spirit to guide him/her. I know this may sound foreign to you and I understand. Let me explain another way - a very short time before I came into the Light (some call it 'being born again'), I opened up a bible in a book store. Everything seemed to be foreign to me no matter which part I glanced at. Once I came to know God I immediately bought a bible, cracked it open at the gospel of John (as NJGOP referenced and, I might add, is an excellent idea to understand Jesus' nature among his followers). I began reading and EVERYTHING made all of the sense in the world! Like I said, I know this may not be relevant to your way but it is very pertinent to my life.
"Sammer, please stop pretending to be an idiot.If I wanted to ignore the Book of John, why would I draw your attention to it?Not that I expect an answer -- but seriously, I really do hope you read it -- all of it."
I have read the entire Bible cover to cover several times. You are ignoring my post re John 17:3. and my subsequent questions.
Still waiting!
Same tactic, when no answer is forthcoming I am told I dont have the Spirit. Well, since you apparently have It, perhaps you can explain it.
The statement above re swords is NOT allegorical, it is crystal clear he is referring to REAL swords, like Aragorn used in the LOTR series.
And by the way, the term begotten son is wrong on two fronts: it is an interpolation slipped into your book and others were referred to as God's first borns.
Edited By Siteowner
You refute nothing; you offer only shibboleths to divert attention from the mercenary & martial nature of Moe's murder cult which holds you in its thrall.
You can not contest the clear and obvious meaning of Allah's damnable commands to conquest, genocide & terror as confirmed by Moe's sunnah and the murder cult's canon of JurisImprudence.
You can't do it; you won't attempt it. You ain't worth spitting at or pissing on. I will not waste precious time reading more of your excrement.
Edited By Siteowner
Translation:
"MOMMY!!! HELP!"
Shibli Zaman | Homepage | 03.20.08 - 9:23 pm | #
Translation:
Shib Z still refuses to refute the primary issue.
Moe's Murder Cult is alive and well and is still promoting murder as a means of religious subjugation.
Shib:
go home to Moe, he has 72 Virginians waitng for you, and they are pissed!
Edited By Siteowner
Edited By Siteowner
OK, so we have gone back and forth for nearly two weeks and we have not made any progress in either direction.
I have allowed this to go on way longer than I would normally do thinking that maybe the dialouge would make a difference.
I should have known better. Ben has taught nearly a college level history class right here in this thread, and for those with open minds there was learning to be done.
This is not an open forum, this is my blog with my rules that I have bended to try to see what would happen.
Therefore, comments will go back to being moderated, and anyone trying to defend Islam will not have their comments posted and if I so decide - I will ban your IP and move on.
Thanks to those defended the American way - and we'll keep on fighting until there is no more fight left.
Never, ever underestimate the resolove of the American fighting men and women --- big, big mistake!
.
Edited By Siteowner
Sammer you are a delusional reprobate with an arrogant deception that slithers out of your mouth like poop through a goose.
You may be able to tongue lash us in your total ignorance but your idiotic questions and accusations have been answered time and time again on this blog and others as well.
Do get over yourself before you are consumed by your concomitant misery.
My advice to you is pray that the God of Abraham, not your phony pagan idol, will forgive your hate. Otherwise we will be watching you roast in hell with your pedophile prophet from the mansions of Heaven...the real Heaven....not your pornographic illusion.
Shibli Zaman you are a waste of human flesh.
You've been outed and skewered by Ben yet in your arrogant ignorance you fail to recognize when you have been defeated.
Perhaps this dissertation might refresh you ridiculous statements; http://answering-islam.org/Respo...n/
etymology.htm
May the God of Abraham have mercy on your soul.
CP, before you completely moderate, I would like to step up here and do something quite unusual for "our crowd".
In two spots here raoul has made very cogent arguments, quite on topic and quite relevant. Also, very respectful and not at all full of "snark".
Now, while we have all had issues with raoul in the past, including myself to no small degree, I must state raoul has 1) kept his word with me since Christmas (and I thank him for that) and 2) kind of, I guess, plead his case that he did make very relevant, on topic points and the "trolls" in this post proved themselves incapable of answering anything relevant to the thread--from Ben, NJ GOP, Raoul, anyone.
Like I said, kind of unusual for "our crowd", but I'm trying to be fair here and point out there was indeed relevance and truth to what he pointed out. I think we're just so used to seeing his name we often don't read what he's posted and leap before looking--I know I've been guilty of that in the past myself.
Just sayin'....
Ha! Silence the other party then declare victory.
I left this part to let you know that yes you have been silenced on this blog. You have had your say for way too long and as I said, this is not an open forum. Unfortunately, we know that victory is not won for the short term, but victory comes because of what Jesus Christ did and what we celebrate this Sunday, and that is the Resurrection! That is the only true victory we will have while here on earth! --- CP
Edited By Siteowner
Edited By Siteowner
Miss Beth,
Actually raoul had nothing to do with this round of moderation. You are correct (IMHO) with your comments about raoul and as long as the comments stay positive and constructive, I plan to allow the posts to stay.
CP
"Ha! Silence the other party then declare victory."
The victory, if you want to call it that, occurred long before you were "silenced" Shibli.
Ben merely made public what is already contained in your "book".
The words of your own prophet and your vile book defeated you from the outset.
I would admonish you to repent and renounce Islam lest you lose your soul to a deception.
I see this again and again. Just silence anyone that speaks against your views and then claim you are superior. This action of silencing is only a strong indicator of fear and insecurity.
Ben and Dean, you guys have attempted to quote material that is extremely out of context to prove a point.
Not even a chance to rebut the material was given to me, instead, personal attack after personal attack followed.
Disgraecul really.
*** Say what you like, but Ben and Dean have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and the only reason this wasn't totally deleted was that you didn't make it too personal, and you didn't promote Islam ---- Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
The Koran has neither context nor chronology. It is a collection of kutbah fragments codified from memory and assembled in order of length.
Go to Islam net: http://www.islaam.net/main/hadit...ukhari&
recalc=1
Search Bukhari for was revealed. You will get more than 200 hits. Read a few to see the circumstances surrounding Moe's revelations. If you read far enough, you will begin to comprehend the concept of situational scripture.
To close the lesson, read this ahadith very carefully. Remember that the narrator is Moe's child bride.
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:
Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
You have a blog where your thoughts and ideas can be posted freely. This is no longer the place for that. Besides you just continue to repeat things over and over that I have so kindly left in the thread, so you have not been silenced you said your peace and I have cut you off!
Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
This is not the place for you to promote Islam! You can continue to post and I will continue to remove.
Edited By Siteowner
I told you that this was no longer a forum for those who do not believe in Christian values, and conservative principles. Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
Neither do I copy and paste you fool.
You have refuted nothing and only shown Muslim arrogance.
In our world today, Muslim arrogance and the resulting domineering attitudes are characterized byt the oppression and discrimination of non-Muslims. Muslim minorities in larger societies are distinguished by varying degrees of insolent, petty annoyances, disagreements, and even armed rebellion.
Few Muslims are uncomfortable with this blatant double standard, in which Islam either plays the victim or unapologetically victimizes those who disagree with them.
Islam is a supremacist ideology where the role of non-believers is subordinate to Muslims. Those who resist Islam are to be belittled and humiliated, forced to acknowledge their so called inferior status.
You either convert to Islam or suffer the consequences including subjugation of ones own beliefs.
Your argument using the Bible is ridiculous and pathetic.
The differences between your Qu'ran and the Bible are many.
Most notably the Bible is descriptive and deals more with history, while the Qu'ran is prescriptive calling believers to undermine non-believers with whatever force is necessary to make the infidel submit.
You cannot prove otherwise without deleting the hate verses from your vile book or disavowng the words from your false prophet.
What is it exactly you are attempting to prove here?
Islam is not a religion, neither is it a religion of peace.
It is full of hate and violence perpetuated by Muslim apologists like you.
Your prophet is a false prophet who surreptitiously promoted a pagan idol to deity status.
"Islam is a caustic blend of paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist."
Quoted from the Prophet of Doom.
For a more in depth reading you can visit; http://www.prophetofdoom.net/
Pro...Dark_Past.Islam
And Sammer, I never use Google for my research. Perhaps you do since you make reference to it and would like to shed a disparaging light on us here. Nice try but you fail...AGAIN.
The words from your own book defeat you before you even type the first word.
You cannot make tame a book filled with violence and hate as the Qu'ran surely is.
And don't forget the distinction between the Bible, a descriptive work, and the Quran, a prescriptive work.
You may ramble on here ad nauseum but all you do is show your true ignorance and project your own corrupt arrogant values on those you delusionally believe lack knoledge of what Islam truly is.
We know who you are, what you are, and what you represent. Your words are nothing short of vile delusion flowing out of the mouths of pure evil.
I will not further waste my time debating you, for all you can bring to this blog are deceptions and untruths, which is insulting to those of us who know what Islam is....and isn't.
In reality you only waste our time. So spare us your long ago rebutted arguments.
'None of you dared to even TOUCH the subject of Numbers 31 in which your god, whom you believe to be Jesus Christ' by Shibli Zaman
Oh PULLEEZZZEE with the numbers 31 already! 3 quick points of refutation:
1. What about the hundreds of other chapters and thousands of verses in the ENTIRE bible? You pick a gnat but ignore the entire bible.
2. Jesus is the Son of God. He is part of the Trinity which remains a mystery for those who are blind.
3. The God of the old testament which was bound under the rather harsh Levitical Laws sent His Son to fulfill ALL laws with only one - the law of love, ie: love your neighbor as yourself.
You know something? I have tried to be very tolerant of the Islamic religion but if you are an example of what Islam really is, I am going to have to re-think my views.
Sadly, Raoul, this is what we deal with all the time from the representatives of islam--and is why we are rather intolerant and have been for some time.
I will admit I had no real knowledge of islam prior to 9/11--and still don't have as much knowledge as I'd like. I don't have time for the research necessary and is why I rely on Ben and Dean for the educational aspect of it.
I also was not familiar with Numbers 31 prior to this thread--I'm not as familiar with my Bible as I would like to be either, and will freely admit it. However, after it was repeatedly harped upon, I went and read several different versions laying around the house and online. I have pocket editions of the Bible, Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles.
Nowhere did I see the virgin females being kept solely for sex, for child sex, for child sex slaves, etc., as has been repeatedly stated. It says keep for yourself--not keep for child sex slaves. And, if I read and understood it correctly, a portion of those children were dedicated to God Himself, who most definitely did not want child sex slaves. islam seems to have sex as one of its overriding themes and mandates, no matter how degrading. Christian emphasis on sex, on the other hand, emphasizes the fullness of the human condition between married couples, the transformation of two into one, towards the betterment of both.
Raoul, you are correct in stating, at least in my understanding and what I have been taught throughout my [Catholic] life, that Jesus did indeed fulfill all previous laws with only one, that being the law of Love. Thus, He became the embodiment of the New Covenant. I also fully believe in the triune God--it really isn't difficult at all as some would believe it to be.
Miss Beth,
Thanks and regarding you saying you're not as familar with the bible as you should be - welcome to the club! While I've gone through the NT countless times (excluding Revelations which I've stumbled through once or twice), I've ignored alot of the OT because, quite frankly, it was written for the Israelites under the Levitical law.
I, too, don't know much about Islam or the Koran but from what I can discern from what Dean, Ben, and others have written, the entire Koran in various parts urges violence, war, etc. Assuming I'm correct, that is what separates that written work with our own, the bible because with our bible, once you get to the NT, you find Jesus and the revelation of God's true nature as well as purpose for all of us.
Have a blessed Easter - in fact, all of you have one!
Thank you, Raoul--you and your family as well.
Excellent points raoul! And thank you.
May the spirit of Easter bring joy to you and yours.
God bless you all.
Same old song and dance, heard it many times before - so if you want to help keep the numbers going up on this site, feel free. I will also feel free to continue to remove said song and dance.
Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
It's not nice to make fun of Christians, and it won't be tolerated on this site!
Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
"2. Jesus is the Son of God. He is part of the Trinity which remains a mystery for those who are blind."
If Jesus is the son of God, and also God, that means he is his own Father. He will never be ONE in your mind. Never. When I say Holy Ghost, you don't imagine Jesus. When I say Father, the Holy Ghist doesn't come to mind. They are THREE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE entities which you keep insisting are one, which they are not.
"3. The God of the old testament which was bound under the rather harsh Levitical Laws sent His Son to fulfill ALL laws with only one - the law of love, ie: love your neighbor as yourself."
Given you just stated Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and also God, how does that make sense?
"2. Jesus is the Son of God. He is part of the Trinity which remains a mystery for those who are blind."
Correvtion, it remains a mystery to anyone with common sense. Cyber Pastor doesnt understand it either. I have debated dozens of pastors and each has told me in the end, they do not know how to epxlain it logically because if they did they would be God.
**** And if that be the case, there is no need to debate here - Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
Yawn. You really are pathetic Sammer.
Oh and when you're finished "polishing up", don't forget to cut and paste what you find. LOL.(*)
Your Muslim arrogance is misplaced and will only serve the ruination your soul.
As a Christian I would admonish you to repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour.
Belief in the God of Abraham is a package. Take it and be assured of eternity with Him or refuse it and remain outside in misery eternally. The choice is clear, either you have the Son or you have nothing.
What does it take for you to get a hint!
Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
Dean, thanks for more personal attacks. The God of Abraham was not Jesus Christ. The God of Jesus Christ is the Father referenced in John 17:3 and John 20:17 and this is the one I worship. You would do well to heed Christ's advice and worship THE ONLY TRUE GOD.
Dean:
Call a tow truck, sammer is wrecked.
Hmmm...then I guess God didn't call down from the heavens at Jesus' baptism and say This is My Son and I am well pleased in Him this day--just because God is the Father means Jesus as His Son is not divine? Or When Jesus promised one who was not Him would come to be with the apostles is not Divine either (Holy Spirit?).
Too much evidence for THE Triune God to even waste time arguing about it. God is God the Father; God IS Jesus the Son; God IS the Holy Spirit--three in one and one as three.
As far as exactly what is in the Bible--I believe there is a passage that Jesus performed many other miracles and deeds too numerous to mention--just because it isn't spelled out in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen, as the line itself states.
How appropriate a muslim is discussing Jesus' Divinity on this most holy of nights, the night before the greatest of days and the complete fulfillment of God's promise to His children.
From Hilali & Khan; read carefully and discover that everything beyond the first ayat quoted is just piling on.
Allah sez that his revelation to Moe confirms the Torah & Gospel.
2:40. O Children of Israel! Remember My Favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill (your obligations to) My Covenant (with you) so that I fulfill (My Obligations to) your covenant (with Me), and fear none but Me.
2:41. And believe in what I have sent down (this Qur'ân), confirming that which is with you, [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], and be not the first to disbelieve therein, and buy not with My Verses [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] a small price (i.e. getting a small gain by selling My Verses), and fear Me and Me Alone. (Tafsir At-Tabarî, Vol. I, Page 253).
2:89. And when there came to them (the Jews), a Book (this Qur'ân) from Allâh confirming what is with them [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)], although aforetime they had invoked Allâh (for coming of Muhammad Peace be upon him ) in order to gain victory over those who disbelieved, then when there came to them that which they had recognised, they disbelieved in it. So let the Curse of Allâh be on the disbelievers.
2:97. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ): "Whoever is an enemy to Jibrael (Gabriel) (let him die in his fury), for indeed he has brought it (this Qur'ân) down to your heart by Allâh's Permission, confirming what came before it [i.e. the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] and guidance and glad tidings for the believers.
2:101. And when there came to them a Messenger from Allâh (i.e. Muhammad Peace be upon him ) confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the Scripture threw away the Book of Allâh behind their backs as if they did not know!
3:3. It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'ân) to you (Muhammad ) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel).
TBC
CTD
3:50. And I have come confirming that which was before me of the Taurât (Torah), and to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord. So fear Allâh and obey me.
3:81. And (remember) when Allâh took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: "Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah (understanding of the Laws of Allâh, etc.), and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger (Muhammad ) confirming what is with you; you must, then, believe in him and help him." Allâh said: "Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant (which I conclude with you)?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this)."
4:47. O you who have been given the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Believe in what We have revealed (to Muhammad ) confirming what is (already) with you, before We efface faces (by making them like the back of necks; without nose, mouth, eyes, etc.) and turn them hindwards, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbathbreakers. And the Commandment of Allâh is always executed.
5:46. And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) , confirming the Taurât (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurât (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).
5:48. And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures) . So judge between them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allâh willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allâh; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.
6:92. And this (the Qur'ân) is a blessed Book which We have sent down, confirming (the revelations) which came before it, ...
35:31. And what We have inspired in you (O Muhammad ), of the Book (the Qur'ân), it is the (very) truth [that you (Muhammad ) and your followers must act on its instructions], confirming that which was (revealed) before it. ...
46:12. And before this was the Scripture of Mûsa (Moses) as a guide and a mercy. And this is a confirming Book (the Qur'ân) in the Arabic language, to warn those who do wrong, and as glad tidings to the Muhsinûn (good-doers - see V.2:112).
46:30. They said: "O our people! Verily! We have heard a Book (this Qur'ân) sent down after Mûsa (Moses), confirming what came before it, it guides to the truth and to a Straight Path (i.e. Islâm).
Thus does Allah testify that his Koran confirms the Hebrew &
CTD
22:52. Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before you, but; when he did recite the revelation or narrated or spoke, Shaitân (Satan) threw (some falsehood) in it. But Allâh abolishes that which Shaitân (Satan) throws in. Then Allâh establishes His Revelations. And Allâh is All-Knower, All-Wise:
22:53. That He (Allâh) may make what is thrown in by Shaitân (Satan) a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy and disbelief) and whose hearts are hardened. And certainly, the Zalimûn (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.) are in an opposition far-off (from the truth against Allâh's Messenger and the believers).
Note that 22:52 is all inclusive because it excludes revelational purity. It declares that Satan threw falsehood into every revelation.
It must, therefore include the Koran. When it conflicts with the Gospel, one of them must be polluted with Satan's error.
Unfortunately for Islam, I previously demonstrated the fact that it claims to confirm the Torah & Gospels.
Muslims are unable to detect the evident cognitive dissonance which proves Allah's claims to be false; issued by a worshiper of a vain idol.
3:75. Among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is he who, if entrusted with a Cantar (a great amount of wealth, etc.), will readily pay it back; and among them there is he who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless you constantly stand demanding, because they say: "There is no blame on us to betray and take the properties of the illiterates (Arabs)." But they tell a lie against Allâh while they know it.
3:76. Yes, whoever fulfils his pledge and fears Allâh much; verily, then Allâh loves those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).
3:77. Verily, those who purchase a small gain at the cost of Allâh's Covenant and their oaths, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter (Paradise). Neither will Allâh speak to them, nor look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them, and they shall have a painful torment.
3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allâh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.
3:79. It is not (possible) for any human being to whom Allâh has given the Book and Al-Hukma (the knowledge and understanding of the laws of religion, etc.) and Prophethood to say to the people: "Be my worshippers rather than Allâh's." On the contrary (he would say): "Be you Rabbaniyun (learned men of religion who practise what they know and also preach others), because you are teaching the Book, and you are studying it."
Re-read 3:78. "among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, " sticks out like a sore toe. The book i
CTD
Ibn Kathir says "Previous books Attest to the Truth of the Qur'an". That is the title of the tafsir from which the next quote is excerpted.
(Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written of with them in the Tawrah and the Injil.)(7:157) They are as certain of this as they are about who their children are, yet they hide it and distort it. They did not believe in it despite its clear evidence.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid= 10&tid= 23298
2:211. Ask the Children of Israel how many clear Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) We gave them. And whoever changes Allâh's Favour after it had come to him, [e.g. renounces the Religion of Allâh (Islâm) and accepts Kufr (disbelief),] then surely, Allâh is Severe in punishment.
Now I will show you that Allah told Moe that he should confirm his crap with the readers of the Torah. If the Torah is distorted, then that exercise would be a total waste.
10:94. So if you (O Muhammad ) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it) .
Ben - that is the oldest and one of the most laughable arguments you can put up. The Injeel and Torah referred to were the ones given to Moses and Jesus Christ respectively. Moses didn't write the first five books of the Old Testament.
"And Moses WAS 120 years old when he DIED: Deut 34:7 - Who wrote that..Moses!?
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the one referred to, not accounts of people that wrote stuff 80-100 years after Christ.
Sorry Cyber Pastor, I didn't know quoting the Bible was offensive to you. My apologies.
You know I always find it remarkably hypocritical when a Muslim apologist proposes to tell me I don't know the Bible when it is so readily apparent the hypocrite knows so little of his own book.
They always attack with the same old tired line about the Bible being corrupted yet when asked to produce the uncorrupted version so that Christians can mend their ways they seem unable to do so.
On what basis do you claim the Bible is corrupted?
Do you have secretly hidden the true uncorrupted version?
And if so then why not show it to us?
What proof do you have?
And by having this "uncorrupted" version of the Bible, by which you make your assertions, wouldn't it be logical for you Muslims to produce it thereby throwing the Christian world into turmoil?
Put up or shut up you fools. And I would suggest you read your own vile book of corruption and violence before you attempt to scold Christians for believing in the Bible.
Miss Beth: Jesus Christ stated he does not know when the Day of Judgement is. That's in Mark 13:32.
How can the Allmighty be ignorant of the Last Hour?
There's no evience of the triune God from the mouth of Jesus. Yet he did say this:
"And this is life eternal, that thay may beleive in THEE (Father) - THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent".
That is the most crystal clear evidence from the man himself there is only one true God and that is the Father.
"God is God the Father; God IS Jesus the Son; God IS the Holy Spirit--three in one and one as three."
Yet "God the Son" said all power was GIVEN to him and he by himself could do NOTHING , John 5:30. Hardly the qualities of the creator of the universe now is it?
Miracles by the way are not a criteria of divinity as it is accepted among Muslims he performed miracles as did other prophets.
Dean, I shall address your argument with evidence from your own book, and hopefully, you will learn on Easter Sunday to speak with more manners and Christ like behaviour. You do your faith and upbringing no favors with your abusive posts.
"They always attack with the same old tired line about the Bible being corrupted yet when asked to produce the uncorrupted version so that Christians can mend their ways they seem unable to do so"
Well that's the whole point. If we had an uncorrupted version, we wouldn't have the Qu'ran. The whole reason it came was previous scriptures were tampered with. I am not saying everything in the current day Bible is 100% wrong. I am not saying there is NO truth in your Bible. I am saying AS A WHOLE, not every word in there is the word of God. That's what I am going to demonstrate.
"On what basis do you claim the Bible is corrupted?"
Well for a start, obver 60% of the Bible you hold in your hand is anonymously written. Nobody even knows the author of over half your book. I wouldn't sign a check off to an anonymous person. Neither will I base my salvation on an anonymous document. That's the first thing.
Secondly, go to 1 John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in Heaven, The Father, The Word & The Holy Ghost and these three are one"
The only explicit verse on the Trinity in your Bible is an admitted fabrication by your Bible scholars:
"This verse is NOT FOUND in the earliest manuscripts" - footnote in the NIV.
If it was not found in the earliest manuscripts, what is it doing in your book? An admitted interpolation.
But it's not just one verse. Here are chunks of it missing:
Mark 16:9-20 is misisng from one of my Bibles but mysteriously appears again in another with another footnote:
"Not found in the earliest manuscripts."
And the Bible is CLEAR about those who add a single LETTER thats not the word of God, what their fate is. I'm sure you know what I am referring to.
I also mentioned Deut 34:7 supposedly attributed to Moses. Clearly, Moses didn't write it.
So Dean, if you can find these anonymous authors that would be a great start. Then let me know why your Bible scholars have inserted spurious verses leaving the average reader unaware these are interpolations.
Happy Easter.
Dean, here's a reference you can check out:
"Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (NOT FOUND IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY)
http://www.biblegateway.com/pass...er=5&
version=31
You make the outlandish claim that '60% of the bible was written by unknown authors'?? Care to cite YOUR sources? If my faulty memory serves me correctly, there are only 1 or 2 books in the OT that the Nicean council couldn't assign a clear author to and only 1 book in the NT (Hebrews) with an unknown author. However, some commentaries suggest that Barnabas, who accompanied Paul as described in Acts may have been its author.
And, in another statement you suggest many of the books in the bible, particularly the NT ones ought to be questioned because of being written 80-120 years after the events took place? Some facts to refute you:
1. According to most critical bible scholars, the oldest book in the NT was probably Revelation written by John a mere 60 or so years after Jesus' ascension to heaven. John, as you know, was an EYE witness to events surrounding Jesus. The Gospel of Mark was probably the earliest book written, a mere 30-40 years (perhaps sooner according to some) after Jesus departed. My point? Quite simply in comparison to history and historical writings, the books of the NT can be taken as historical FACT. If you discount the NT based on things being written decades later, you are logically compelled to discount MOST if not ALL of other historical events penned by people even CENTURIES after they occurred. Did Socrates really live? Prove it. Plato confirmed his existence? Who can prove Plato existed? What about Alexander the Great? No eyewitnesses wrote anything about him - the things written about him were done many more years later than those of the bible.
2. Regarding the OT - the events and stories contained in the OT were orally handed down, generation to generation, until they could be put onto the parchments. This is completely acceptable according to historical experts since MOST if not ALL early cultures did likewise. Our own Native American traditions and stories were done in similar manner.
3. Certain non-theists have set out to disprove things mentioned in the bible only to be convinced, after journeying through the areas mentioned, that they were absolute truths. Example - historian by the name of Ramsey duplicated Luke's travels with Paul to disprove the book of Acts. After travelling through same areas and duplicating what Luke described, Ramsey came away as completely convinced the entire book of Acts was true.
4. It has been argued, quite correctly, that there are MORE historical proofs for what has been described in both testaments of our bible than most of the other historical events. In addition, the bible has been under the most severe examination and critical analysis than any other work because of its nature.
In other words, you can flippantly state incorrect assumptions about the bible since you are obviously ignorant of both its historicity and more importantly, it spiritual message to believers.
Raoul, thanks for your reply.
"You make the outlandish claim that '60% of the bible was written by unknown authors'?? Care to cite YOUR sources?"
Sure, there are many references that clearly state the authors are either unknown, "probably written by", "likely written by" or "attributed to" such and such. Perhaps a more accurate claim would be 'over 60% of the authors are either unknown, doubtful or at best 'attributed to'.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/f...aq/
authors.html
The point here is there is SERIOUS DOUBT on who the true authors are. This may not pose any problem for some, but for me, it is a serious breach of claims to authenticity.
I am not going to quarrel about how many years the Gospels were writen after Christ. Whether it's 80 years, 100 years or 40 years - this is debatable among scholars. The key point I am making is the OVERALL ACCURACY of something penned decades or centuries after an event, would naturally not be as accurate as one penned during the actual event. Would you agree?
Meaning, the closer one is to the source, the more accurate one's testimony will be. And by your own admission, it was at least 40 years afterwards.
Your post was missing the point. I stated, while there are truths in the Bible, as A WHOLE, it is not 100% accurate and has serious flaws on all fronts beginning with its authorship.
I have not even gotten into the serious contradictions between the Gospels themsleves all reporting on the exact same events. This is a normal occurence considering you have 4 different accounts, all reported years apart by men who never walked, prayed or spoke with Jesus.
Paul who wrote over half of the NT, never met Jesus ONCE in his life. (The vision on the road to Damascus doesn't count).
That's like someone telling you their holy book contains the wriitngs of..not their prophet..but of a man who wrote ABOUT the prophet and never met that prophet ONCE in his lifetime.
How readily would you accept such a premise from a faith other than your own?
In summary:
1) The Bible's authors are either unknown, doubtful or at best - guessed at by scholars. Moses didn't write the first 5 books attributed to him.
2) The 4 Gospels were not written during Christ's lifetime.
3) Paul who authored most of the NT never met Christ in his life.
I don't think any fair minded person would dispute these facts. As I said, these may not concern you, but for many, they provide too much room for doubt and conjecture.
Excellent points raoul!
Once again Sammer you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the Bible. Your loss.
I asked for the uncorrupted version of the Bible that you attempt to disparage Christians with. Produce it.
Please stop insulting my intelligence.
Your pitiful claims have absolutely no bearing on the truth of the Bible.
Perhaps the last statement, "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols", is one you should pay attention to since your allah is nothing more than a pagan idol promoted to deity staus by your false prophet. Reference; http://www.biblebelievers.org.au....au/
moongod.htm and http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm .
And more for your study; http://www.inthenameofallah.org/...he%
20Quran.html
http://www.thereligionofpeace.co...ges/
History.htm
All except the last link referenced in this article; http://dotherightthing-cyberpast...ey-
same_21.html
One more reference for you Sammer; http://www.answering-islam.de/
Ma..._deductions.htm
I checked out your source and am astounded at your interpretation of what they say over there! Yes, they qualify their remarks by saying 'probably' and 'was likely', etc. This means 'most likely' as opposed to what you just claim regarding 'serious doubt'. I'm beginning to seriously doubt whether you have a cohesive command of the English language. I'm not doing an ad hominem, merely pointing out the obious. Your source SUBSTANTIATES what I said earlier! It does NOT refute it as you suggest.
You say you won't quarrel over when the gospels were written - 40 years or 120. Well my friend, 120 is THREE times 40. The closer you get to an event, via historical analysis, the MORE likely the event is correct. Therefore, 40 years is a blink of an eye in historical terms. Right now as we speak the NY Times book section has a review of a book written about WWWII which ended 63 years ago. According to your mindset, since it was over 6 decades ago, the war probably didn't happen. [g]
Regarding differences in the 4 gospel accounts. You are beginning to sound like the atheists I debated years ago - same tired argument. I shall tell you what I told them. To a logical/rational mind, if the gospels agreed PERFECTLY with every event described, I would NOT believe the accounts! It would have smacked of duplicity or even worse. The fact that they differ somewhat tells me they were described by DIFFERENT people writing to DIFFERENT groups. Matthew - for the Jews, Mark - for the Romans, Luke - for the gentiles, and my favorite, John - for everyone.
Common sense prevails here.
And once more au contraire - Paul's encounter DOES in fact count because if it doesn't then Mohammed's vision in 610 AD in which he was taken on a journey to Jerusalem and then through the heavens to Allah doesn't count either does it? [g]
Your summary merits no comment since I believe I refuted it in toto. Except to say, once more, it is completely irrelevant that the gospels weren't written during Christ's actual human life. I have pointed out, numerous times, that this is not necessary or a story to be true. Initially the story of His life was transmitted orally to the people as I stated earlier in another post regarding other issues.
I see several contradictions myself here.
Raoul, your comments on the Nicene council are correct as usual.
Personally, and this is just me, as a Catholic, we accept the whole Bible, not the Bible after the Reformation. There are seven books in the Catholic Bible not in the post-Reformation Bible.
So, this comment:
"And the Bible is CLEAR about those who add a single LETTER thats not the word of God, what their fate is. I'm sure you know what I am referring to."
is incomplete--it refers to those who subtract from the Bible as well. To use the NIV as your source, particularly in discussion with a Catholic, is purposely obtuse and disingenuous. As such, it refutes several of your claims right off the bat.
Second, Deuteronomy was indeed written by Moses. A simple verse at the end does not negate his authorship, but is merely the completion of the book, as a footnote so to speak and was of course written by someone there to show there would be no more of said book as Moses had passed on.
As to the amount of years from the time the authors walked and lived with Jesus, even today people wait long periods between writing their own autobiographies. Why this is difficult to understand is beyond me.
Ever played the game "telephone"? Several people sit in a circle and one whispers something to one person and it goes around the circle. It's rare the original message comes back intact. Thus it is with the Gospels. Four people, with different eyes, life experiences and priorities are going to write about the same happenings from their own perspectives and it's only logical they won't exactly match.
While disclaiming Jesus' Divinity, you also proclaim it by stating the Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the Word incarnate. That lesson is so basic our youngest know that.
As to miracles, I find this statement particularly misleading:
"Miracles by the way are not a criteria of divinity as it is accepted among Muslims he performed miracles as did other prophets."
Is that why there are no miracles in islam? God understood the people needed miracles--and do to this day--to understand His true nature of being the great I Am. Miracles are accepted as commonplace in Christianity as yet another way God speaks with us, lets us know He is indeed there and is always with us. Miracles save people's lives by bolstering their faith.
Love does not feed off anger and hate and like all human emotions will fade with time. It needs bolstering now and then to bring home the message. Hate and anger feed off themselves and have no redeeming factors.
And today is the most miraculous day of all--the second being the Virgin birth of the Word, aka Jesus.
' Thus it is with the Gospels. Four people, with different eyes, life experiences and priorities are going to write about the same happenings from their own perspectives and it's only logical they won't exactly match. '
Nothing can be added to what you just said! You've summed up what I was trying to express...
Dean, Dean Dean...
"I asked for the uncorrupted version of the Bible that you attempt to disparage Christians with. Produce it."
I clearly stated in my previous post -we do not have the uncorrupted version, otherwise we wouldn't need the Qu'ran. What I did prove beyond a shadow of doubt, which you FAILED TO ADDRESS/IGNORED was the Bible you are holding in your hand is corrupted from day one. You add verses, you subtract. That was my point and I showed you exactly where. Now instead of addressing my points, you insist I produce the ORIGINAL Bible, when you know very well it doesn't exist!
"Please stop insulting my intelligence. Your pitiful claims have absolutely no bearing on the truth of the Bible.This is mere polemic rhetoric and has nothing to do with the discussion. Perhaps the last statement, "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols", is one you should pay attention to since your allah is nothing more than a pagan idol promoted to deity staus by your false prophet. "
More diversion tactics. When you cannot rebutt my arguments on 1 John 5:7 or Mark 16:9-20, you go ahead and create an argument that didn't exist then attack it in an attempt to draw the reader away from the original discussion. Nice try but I am still waiting for you to address my points and not your incessant abuse and childish diversion antics.
Good luck.
"I checked out your source and am astounded at your interpretation of what they say over there! Yes, they qualify their remarks by saying 'probably' and 'was likely', etc. This means 'most likely' as opposed to what you just claim regarding 'serious doubt'."
Oh really? Okay explain this:
"The writers of these first five books ARE NOT KNOWN"
"Im beginning to seriously doubt whether you have a cohesive command of the English language. "
Now here's an irony if I ever saw one. So 'NOT KNOWN" according to you, means 'most likely'? Who are you kidding. It is crystal clear.
And yet again:
"The author of Judges is NOT KNOWN for sure.."
Again:
"The writer of Ruth is ALSO UNKNOWN..."
Are you inventing words now? UNKNOWN means "most likely"?
"And once more au contraire - Paul's encounter DOES in fact count because if it doesn't then Mohammed's vision in 610 AD in which he was taken on a journey to Jerusalem and then through the heavens to Allah doesn't count either does it? [g]"
You know very well I am not allowed to discuss Islam on here but your example is flawed. The Night Journey was an actual event, not a dream which incidentally, the entire book of Revelation was.
1) Paul never met Jesus yet authored over half of the NT
2) I proved your Bible has verses added and subtracted by the two examples above which all of you conveniently ignored. I even referenced it for you at Biblegateway.com
3) The vast majority of your Bible is authored by either unknowns, probably's, likelys and maybe's. There is no certainty.
Now you say it is ok with you if the Gospels were written 40 years after Jesus. Answer me this, would you feel it would be MORE AUTHENTIC had they been written at the time of Christ, straight from his mouth, by Paul if he was his right hand man, right there with him?
Don't kid yourself.
"Regarding differences in the 4 gospel accounts. You are beginning to sound like the atheists I debated years ago - same tired argument. I shall tell you what I told them. To a logical/rational mind, if the gospels agreed PERFECTLY with every event described, I would NOT believe the accounts! It would have smacked of duplicity or even worse. The fact that they differ somewhat tells me they were described by DIFFERENT people writing to DIFFERENT groups. Matthew - for the Jews, Mark - for the Romans, Luke - for the gentiles, and my favorite, John - for everyone.
Common sense prevails here. "
No, this is misleading. I am not referring to differences in accounts. I am referring to MASSIVE CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS. The same people saw the same thing and contradicted one another in their reporting. This is not a matter of two people saying they saw a black and white cat. This is a matter of one seeing a cat, the other seeing a giraffe.
If you hold the Bible was inspired by God, then this is inconsistent with his qualities.
Miss Beth:
"is incomplete--it refers to those who subtract from the Bible as well. To use the NIV as your source, particularly in discussion with a Catholic, is purposely obtuse and disingenuous. As such, it refutes several of your claims right off the bat."
Well what you are saying is as a Catholic, you ACCEPT people adding to/subtracting from your holy book? If you don't then there was no need to nitpick my comment.
"Second, Deuteronomy was indeed written by Moses. A simple verse at the end does not negate his authorship, but is merely the completion of the book, as a footnote so to speak and was of course written by someone there to show there would be no more of said book as Moses had passed on."
Ok so you admit this verse was not written by Moses, but by "someone" (who?). The link I provided states:
http://www.bibleprobe.org/bibauth.html
"The writers of these first five books are NOT KNOWN (There are those that believe Adam wrote the first four chapters of Genesis but there is nothing to substantiate this.) However, it is understood that Moses compiled these first five books."
This refutes your claim. My point stands, none of you are CERTAIN, 100% who wrote what you are reading. If there is any doubt to the author, you cannot attribute it to God.
"As to the amount of years from the time the authors walked and lived with Jesus, even today people wait long periods between writing their own autobiographies. Why this is difficult to understand is beyond me."
If we had The Gospel According To Jesus Christ, that would be a different story. We don't. We have very little of Jesus Christ's actual words. Less than 10% of the NT contains the actual words of Christ. Most of what you read and follow was written by the former bounty hunter Paul who NEVER MET, PRAYED OR SPOKE with Jesus Christ.
"Ever played the game "telephone"? Several people sit in a circle and one whispers something to one person and it goes around the circle. It's rare the original message comes back intact. Thus it is with the Gospels. "
You have just admitted the original message of the Gospels is not intact 
"While disclaiming Jesus' Divinity, you also proclaim it by stating the Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the Word incarnate. That lesson is so basic our youngest know that."
I did no such thing. I quoted 1 John 5:7 and proved it was a fabricated verse, deviously inserted in your book. The only verse on the trinity in your Bible is an admitted fabrication.
"Is that why there are no miracles in islam? God understood the people needed miracles--and do to this day--to understand His true nature of being the great I Am."
I am not allowed to discuss Islam here but miracles are laced throughout Islam's prophets including Jesus Christ.
Even as a Christian you cannot say one who performs miracles must be divine. You beleive Moses parted the Red Sea, yeah?
Also, every single miracle Jesus pe
Every single miracle Jesus performed in the Gospels - EVERY SINGLE ONE he did with the permission of God. When he raised Lazarus, when he cast out the demons from the pigs, when he healed, when he did anything, it was all with his Father's authority and permission.
Plus, the Bible warns you of false prophets performing miracles and wonders "even to deceive the very elect". So by your own Bible's standards, miracles alone ARE NOT sufficient evidence of divinity.
Moses parted the Red Sea with God's help.
You have yet to address the occasion of Jesus' baptism and God speaking, "This is my Son and I am well pleased with Him". You persist in your falsehood of Jesus being merely a prophet and ignore the fact of God acknowledging Him as His Son completely.
No Catholic accepts additions or subtractions to the Canon set down in the 5th Century. That is a false assumption and statement on your part.
I guess since you state things have to be written down immediately upon their happening, there is no point in history books, autobiographies, or anything else not written at the exact moment it happened. This is a completely ludicrous remark and not worth the time it takes to refute it. Raoul pointed out a current best seller written regarding WWII, but based on your stand, WWII never happened because this book was written 63 years after the fact. This alone belies your argument of if it's not written down NOW as it happens, then it didn't happen.
The miracles of Christianity are well documented; we don't require each worker to be "divine" but we acknowledge the miracles themselves come from God. Jesus worked so many at His Father's bidding to help the people understand. This does not subtract from His divinity in any way, particularly in light of His baptism and His Father's words.
You can continue your spin all you like--however, those of us who believe in the one TRUE GOD OF ISRAEL AND ABRAHAM will not be swayed by someone who follows a false prophet bent on the destruction of the people of the Book.
"Moses parted the Red Sea with God's help."
So did Christ, see my previous posts.
"You have yet to address the occasion of Jesus' baptism and God speaking, "This is my Son and I am well pleased with Him"."
What is so relevant about this? Not sure what you're getting at.
"You persist in your falsehood of Jesus being merely a prophet and ignore the fact of God acknowledging Him as His Son completely."
His Son or as God or both? The word son was used for several people in the Bible including but not limited to: David, Abraham, Ephraim and Jeremiah.
Now you are insisting in your own falsehood by ignoring my original questions:
1) If Jesus is divine, why does he not know the Day of Judgement (Mark 13:32). God is supposed to be all-knowing.
2) If he is divine, why does he call another being, the ONLY TRUE GOD? (John 17:3)
If you claim there is only ONE God, there is NO LOGICAL explanation for him to tell you The Father is the only true God other than...the Father is the only true God!
"I guess since you state things have to be written down immediately upon their happening, there is no point in history books, autobiographies, or anything else not written at the exact moment it happened. This is a completely ludicrous remark and not worth the time it takes to refute it. "
It is only ridiculous you have not understood my point. History books, autobigraphies and anything else are not perfect. They are not supposed to be 100% correct. God's word IS.
Get it?
"The miracles of Christianity are well documented; we don't require each worker to be "divine" but we acknowledge the miracles themselves come from God. Jesus worked so many at His Father's bidding to help the people understand. This does not subtract from His divinity in any way, particularly in light of His baptism and His Father's words"
Why would God be baptised?
I agree Jesus performed miracles not to prove he was God, but to prove he was FROM God.
"You can continue your spin all you like--however, those of us who believe in the one TRUE GOD OF ISRAEL AND ABRAHAM will not be swayed by someone who follows a false prophet bent on the destruction of the people of the Book."
This is pure emotion getting in the way of reason and sound judgement. The true God of Israel and Abraham told you he is ONE and to worship No God besides Him. That is throughout the entire OT as I'm sure you are aware.
When you see this terminology:
(NOT FOUND IN ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPT BEFORE THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY)
you are seeing the amazing accuracy of the scriptures. There are thousands of copies of the new testament dating back to within a hundred (or less in some cases) of the time of the apostles. Archaeologists have found copies of New Testament books in Egypt that matched word for word with documents found in Israel and other parts of the world.
In the unusual circumstance where copies were not matching up, our modern Bibles note the difference, which is the wording you see at the beginning of my post.
I hope this helps you understand. You need to look at these things factually, like an archaeologist, not through the emotional Islamic lens you have you are used to.
I know that you want to believe the Bible is false, which is why I doubt you have the courage to read "The Case For Christ" or any other factual information, but for anyone else interested, that book is an excellent read.
Also, I'm surprised that Sammer is slamming the Bible as falsehood based on one or two sentences, when among Muslim scholars it seems to be widely accepted that the Islamic Hadiths are pretty much all lies.
By the way Sammer, did you ever get around to reading the book of John?
HAPPY RESURRECTION DAY TO ALL!!!
My o my.
Firstly I already told you I read the Book attributed to John, as well as the entire Bible, cover to cover many many times.
Secondly, hadith is not in question here even though your assertions are false, illustrating your ignorance in the science of hadith.
Now you are trying to convince me when the Bible scholars tell us a verse is not in the most ancient manuscripts, it really means "whoa dude, look how authentic the Bible is"
No, it means what it says - NOT FOUND = interpolation. It's a fabricated verse.
"In the unusual circumstance where copies were not matching up, our modern Bibles note the difference, which is the wording you see at the beginning of my post."
What I quoted were small examples proving what you have in the Bible is not 100% authentic, not 100% certain of it's authorship and adding/deleting has been going on to your book since 1611.
Now as a Catholic, you beleive in 7 EXTRA BOOKS Protstants don't accept. That's hardly a minor question of this verse or that now, is it?
This has dragged on long enough folks. Thanks for the discussions.
I would say, sammer, your vast ignorance of the Bible has been completely exposed with this one line:
"Now as a Catholic, you beleive in 7 EXTRA BOOKS Protstants don't accept. That's hardly a minor question of this verse or that now, is it?
Sammer | 03.23.08 - 8:49 pm | # "
NJ isn't the Catholic, I am, so there's your first mistake in this particular yawn-a-thon.
Second, any true scholar of the Bible, any reader of the Bible, any person connected spiritually with the Bible and blessed with the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible knows this--something you glossed over earlier.
The Canon of the Bible was set in the FIFTH CENTURY. It was set by Catholics as the Protestant Reformation was in the far distant future. Without the original Canon as set forth by the Catholics, Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, would not have had any books at all to excise.
And before you go off on a tangent regarding the Reformation, the necessity of it due to the Church corruption at the time (something Catholics acknowledge), I don't even want to hear it, nor does anyone else. We are all aware of our ancient history regarding Christianity and the excesses of the Church in THE PAST.
Bottom line, the Triune God exists and your attempt to spin it away has failed miserably. Christianity, as any TRUE FAITH, has gone through its growing pangs and endures. We are not stuck in a 7th century belief promulgated by a misogynistic pedophile, which advocates violence, hatred and war. We don't continue in our 7th century ways. Christ is enduring and sustaining. islam is not. Christ didn't discriminate between men and women as islam does. Christ didn't preach child abuse as islam does. Christ centered on LIFE EVERLASTING, renewal, reconciliation, all are welcome to participate and joy, not death and destruction.
Christ didn't preach bodily mutilation as punishment, but used His parables allegorically.
Christianity is life; islam is death.
Miss Beth:
I would hardly call it ignorance of the Bible because I confused you and another blogger. Anyway...
"Second, any true scholar of the Bible, any reader of the Bible, any person connected spiritually with the Bible and blessed with the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible knows this--something you glossed over earlier"
Well, since you apparently have the Holy Spirit, I would like to request for the 4th time now you address my questions.
My post had nothing to do with The Reformation or Canon.
"Bottom line, the Triune God exists and your attempt to spin it away has failed miserably."
Well, this is not evidence. Let me remind you of the questions you have so far deliberately avoided:
1) If Jesus Christ is God, why does he have no knowledge of the Day of Judgement (Mark 13:32)?
2) Why does "God" call His Father "The ONLY true God?" (John 17:3)?
Does that make sense? No it does not.
"Christianity, as any TRUE FAITH, has gone through its growing pangs and endures. We are not stuck in a 7th century belief promulgated by a misogynistic pedophile, which advocates violence, hatred and war. We don't continue in our 7th century ways. Christ is enduring and sustaining. islam is not. Christ didn't discriminate between men and women as islam does. Christ didn't preach child abuse as islam does. Christ centered on LIFE EVERLASTING, renewal, reconciliation, all are welcome to participate and joy, not death and destruction."
This emotional outburst does your credibility no good. Instead of answering the questions put to you, you create and attack irrelevant material in an attempt to flee the issue of Christ's divinity.
If you simply state you do not know, it would reflect much better on you and the faith you claim to represent.
Stating differences in a religion and a violent societal ideology is not an emotional outburst.
You have been shown repeatedly and your questions have been answered repeatedly. You have chosen to ignore that which you have been given.
Enjoy your own personal hell with your false prophet.
Miss Beth, I am sorry your emotions have completely engulfed you and impeded your ability to reason.
My questions still remain unanswered and you know it. Please at least try to answer questions 1 and 2.
No need to get abusive either, this just proves further you are afraid to engage your mind. You claim to have the Holy Spirit, yet abuse and insults spew from your mouth.
PLEASE answer the questions. If not...
Good luck to you
Oh, and when you recognize the miracle of the crucifixion and resurrection, we may have something further to speak about. As such, as far as your denigration of the Son of god, the Word incarnate, born of a Virgin at the behest of God, your purposeful obtuseness regarding the age of the Bible, the Canon as set forth, your comments on Catholics here ("Now as a Catholic, you beleive in 7 EXTRA BOOKS Protstants don't accept. That's hardly a minor question of this verse or that now, is it?") and lack of knowledge of the origins of the two separate Bibles, your attempted twist of God speaking in praise of His Son at His baptism (as God's Son He is Divine--you keep missing that part--as Divine He is also God), the twist of Numbers 31, everything you have attempted to spin with Christianity as being the one, true faith, then we might have something to discuss.
As it stands, you are apostate and infidel to the one True God, the Triune God, the God of the Book and in league with the satanic forces of allah and mohammed. You are also an excellent representative of the inherent arrogance and feigned superiority over those who believe in the truth, possibly by your fear of facing the truth.
Your cult is a dead end and is in fact nothing more than a cult.
You've been given answers and shown the way. Choosing not to take the way is your perogative, of course, but you will only have yourself to blame for the consequences.
Miss Beth, have you considered anger management ?
Poor Miss Beth, cannot answer a SINGLE question I posed to you so you throw a tantrum. How old are you again maam?
O well, I better go before you burst a blood vessel.
Miss Beth said:
"Your cult is a dead end and is in fact nothing more than a cult."
In the fantasy world of Evangelical Crusaders maybe...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/sto...p?
story_id=3835
Now cry some more lol. This discussion was over a long time ago. Time to jump this sinking ship. To quote Ghostbusters, "We came, we saw, we..."
If the Way is in fact a 'cult' as you put it, it is one of the BIGGEST ones in the history of mankind because there have been millions of people in numerous generations as part of the Way.
Like everything else both of you have posited, your knowledge regarding cults is equally lacking in merit. One of most prevalent signs of a cult is the lack of universality regarding it. IE: a localized belief structure of some kind. One sign of a cult is an off the wall doctrine that usually flies in the face of sound biblical doctrine.
You have proven nothing but you did accomplish something I never thought I'd see. You actually united Christians from opposite sides of the political world to oppose your hatred of our Way. And I can sincerely thank you for that because it was actually a miracle of sorts during one of the holiest times for us. Thank you!
r.
Shilbi and Sammer, you say you are going away, yet you post and post and post.
Clearly you have not convinced yourselves that you have "won" anything.
If nothing else, your contributions have helped me to realize that there are many Muslims who need enlightenment. Thanks for your encouragement.
Islam, while revolving around a central standard, actually has many schismatic sects which vary in weird ways from various tenets.
One of the hallmarks of a cult is dictating marriage arrangements. Moe used to do that. Novelty is another; after 1398 years, it sure ain't novel anymore!
One thing Islam clearly ain't: a legitimate religion.
*yawn*
Arranging marriages means you're involved in a cult? Was Judaism a cult in the time of Moses?
"And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjathsepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter to wife. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife."
[Joshua 15:16-17]
You probably don't know who Caleb is since you barely know the Bible. Caleb was a Hebrew in the time of Moses made famous due to his devotion to God and to Moses.
This is not an isolated incident. I can give you MANY other examples. You think the ancient Israelites dated and went to movies together and then after messing around for 5 years decided to get married?
So answer me: Was Judaism a cult?
Ben, do you want me to resume destroying your blog entries on your site? Keep it up and I'll refute every single one of your blog entries and leave you left with two choices:
1) Delete the refutations, thereby, admitting that you believe a lie.
2) Leave them and look like an illiterate bigot.
...or of course, you could stop. This WHOLE thing started because you tools wanted to insult Islam. You ended up with a lot more than you could chew from just 2 people. Imagine if I called more. You'd probably become Buddhists in your confusion.
Note that in NONE of my posts have I insulted Judaism or Christianity, but only the nut jobs like you all who go to extremes in your religion. That is because I have no need to insult another religion because I am an AMERICAN unlike all of you.
Now learn to live in a democratic and pluralistic society of many religions or move to a remote island off the coast of Scandinavia. In America we have freedom of religion and if a Muslim becomes a member of Congress you need to leave your KKK hoods at home and accept it.
The pot calls the kettle black. What's black is the innermost core of Islam: Moe's soul.
When it is claimed that a man who said "my provision is placed under the shade of my spear" and "I have been made victorious with terror" has founded a "great religion", the claim is obviously false and malicious.
Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence disproves the outrageous assertion.
All of your tactics fall flat before the incontestible facts: the testimony of Moe & his demon.
I, for one, will not be silenced!!
Your pathetic attempts at defending the indefensible only prove one thing: your status as a damned fool.
I have to laugh at the comment:
"Now learn to live in a democratic and pluralistic society of many religions..."
It is plainly stated by Muslims that only one religion will ever be tolerated. Quite honestly, I don't care if Muslims worship a bag of potato chips as long as they don't go around killing people and blaming crunchy snacks for telling them to do so.
(Aside of course from the fact that a life that rejects Christ is hopelessly lost for eternity)
So your accusation of us wanting to insult Islam means that you completely miss the point of anything we are trying to tell you. You worship a false God whom you think wants us all dead -- and you strive to model your life after a vile and despicable leader who has been (hate to be blunt) spending the last millenia + face to face with Satan himself.
I'm truly (not kidding) sorry to put it that way... but it is why I constantly beg you to re-think your belief system.
Hell is real.
All you guys have done is insult Islam. When we ask you questions too difficult for you about Christ from your own book, or about your own book, you go right back to insulting Islam when the going gets tough.
It's a quality among firebrand Christians I've witnessed throughout my life.
When all else fails, insult the guy and his religion, tell them they don't have Jesus and they are damned to Hell and pray to God (all 3 of them!) they don't notice our escape plan.
Quite bizarre behaviour from people who claim they have the Holy Spirit. Apparently, the only thing the Holy Spirit has motivated you to excel at is foul, street language.
Islam has no redeeming qualities. It is hate filled and commands violence.
We don't need to defend Christianity to the likes of you.
It isn't Christians going around blowing innocent people up, or cutting heads off. And it doesn't seem to matter if it's your own people that die either.
Fact is Islam is a vile hateful evil that you can neither defend nor promote and still be considered credible.
There is not one thing about Islam that appeals to me....nothing it has to offer would make me renounce the true God...not even the death threats I've received from your so called "peaceful bretheren over the past 4 years.
By threatening Ben with the destruction of his blog entries you have stepped over the line Shibli.
You're all done Shibli.
The trouble with these people, Dean, is they are the ones looking like intolerant bigots and that's why we leave their nonsense up--to expose them for who and what they are. They can't answer a thing relevant to anything remotely approaching sanity, spin constantly, and when questions are answered, they continue to set up straw men to knock down with their vitriol. they make sweeping generalizations and laughingly, arrogantly, proclaim their superiority.
They will truly sow what they reap, and they have been shown many times, by many people the error of their ways. Like you always say, you can lead that horse to water but you can't make it drink.
There is not one thing I would accept about their dead god and their false beliefs--not one. As has so aptly been proven, theirs is a culture of death and dying while we celebrate life.
Wasn't it Indira Ghandi who said there can only be peace when they love their children more than they love killing? Or something to that effect? We cherish our children--they kill theirs and train them for death from birth. They truly are no better than the worshippers of Baal and the Carthaginians.
No, Miss Beth, it wasn't Ghandi; it was a teacher named Golda Meyer.
Thank you Ben--for some reason, her name flew completely out of my head, although her wisdom stuck. Nice catch and I appreciate it.
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
I don't recall anyone over here defending any of the violence described in the Old testament. But I do recall citing the New testament as the Way for Christian believers since it is the revelation of Jesus Christ. And I also recall you avoiding what was posited related therein. So stop with the childish taunts and jibes. You are hardly creating any sympathy and/or support for your religion. In fact, as stated before, you only reinforce what these folks have been claiming regarding your religion.
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
Quite right Raoul...we have all stated repeatedly the NT was the fulfillment of God's revelation of His true nature of love and redemption--and it has been ignored. What you said in particular about not concentrating as much on the OT because of its primary purpose and instead concentrating on the NT as the message to live by said it best.
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
The same as there will be no further promotion of Islam, there will also be no Christian bashing on this site. Future attempts to do either will result in your IP being banned.
Edited By Siteowner
Here is a fundamental truth: The only peace that Islam recognizes is peace under the domination of Islam. Nothing else!
A moderate Moslem is one who sends others to blow themselves up.
There are 164 jihad verses in the koran. Some are quite graphic.
For reference go here; http://www.answeringislam.info/
Q...d_passages.html
There are few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they are humiliated, convert, or are killed.
The verses in the koran are open ended and not embedded within historical context. Nearly all of the OT verses are.
The proclivity toward violence and Muhammad's own martial tradition have resulted in a trail of blood and bodies throughout world history.
You contunually compare Biblical verses of violence to your own book which renders your arguments hypothetical and moot.
Take the verses of violence out of context from the Bible and perhaps you have something worth debating. But the vast majority of Biblical verses of violence are contained within the context of history.
The koran, as stated above, is open ended, some consider it a "living" document, prescriptive in it's command to subdue the infidel.
Go here and read what ex-Muslims have to say to say about your prophet and book; http://www.apostatesofislam.com/...m.com/
islam.htm. There are many others
Your arguments bear false witness and deception. No amount of human logic will displace the hate Muslims harbor for nonbelievers.
OK, nice change in tactics. You stop (almost) promoting Islam and begin to attack Christianity.
Same as before, not here on my watch, on our blog!!!
I will edit your comments for now, but if it continues, I will block you IP addresses.
Cyber Pastor
Nice one pastor, silence us and allow your poodles to attack Islam. Disgraceful examples of Christians you are.
I will leave this comment since it is your last. You have now been officially flushed. Cyber Pastor
Edited By Siteowner
The FITNA movie is up on Spree's site here:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....m-
released.html
very powerful 15+ minutes illustrating exactly what has been said by those of us who understand the bloodthirty arrogance of islam.
"Nice one pastor, silence us and allow your poodles to attack Islam."
The web seems to be full of those "attack poodles". LOL. Watch out for those ankle biters Sammer......good riddance.....
Weren't poodles originally bred as hunting dogs?
Good question Miss B. You may be right on.
Commenting by HaloScan
