Don't Islamic Terrorist clearly show that their religion is a false and cultic?

[Jude3b]

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?

Lastly, what will be the future of the Muslim people and this religion that is so intolerant that it will for the most part not even allow any other point of view or allow Christian missionaries to operate in most of their countries. If they keep on killing and murdering - won't the entire world have to rise up against them eventually and wipe them out - to neutralize them - before they try to kill everyone off, who is not a Muslim or refuses to become one?

[soulflame]

Christian's should still love them. Doesn't mean though that they should be tolerant. There is a difference between love and tolerance. And yes, they need to realize that most terrorism are from the Muslims. And yes the Christians commited the crusades...but....they were wrong with the attitude and what they did during the crusades.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=soulflame]Christian's should still love them. Doesn't mean though that they should be tolerant. There is a difference between love and tolerance. And yes, they need to realize that most terrorism are from the Muslims. And yes the Christians commited the crusades...but....they were wrong with the attitude and what they did during the crusades.[/QUOT

Dear Soulflame:

I agree we should still love them. But you know, Christians were supposed to love "Hitler" also. But what if know one had ever stood up to Hitler and stopped him?

It was Roman Catholics that commited the crusades. It is debatable how many, if any of them were Christians.

[HRG_new]

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Averaged over time, yes. Non-Muslims were tolerated in Muslim countries long before Christian nations tolerated non-Christians.

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

Those are no more the actions of Islam than the Inquisition, witch-hunting, the massacre of all Saxons which would not convert or the killing of abortion doctors are the actions of Christianity.

[Solly]

It was Roman Catholics that commited the crusades. It is debatable how many, if any of them were Christians.

And Cromwell and his Protestant army slaughtered the Irish.
If the errors of Christians does not invalidate our religion, then it's possible that the same applies to other religions too. Islam is going through culture shock at the moment, moving from the 7th century to the 21st without the intervening centuries to sooth the pain. Violent fundamentalism is as much a reaction to that fact as RW Christian terrorism is to the loss of its cultural hegemony, be it actions against abortion clinics, or incidents like Waco. That is why I despair of the milito-macho posturing of the American administration: We fight the fire, while we're feeding the flames [Rush].

[Jude3b]

Averaged over time, yes. Non-Muslims were tolerated in Muslim countries long before Christian nations tolerated non-Christians.

Those are no more the actions of Islam than the Inquisition, witch-hunting, the massacre of all Saxons which would not convert or the killing of abortion doctors are the actions of Christianity.

First, can you tell me what Christian nations you are referring to that never tolerated non-Christians? Now, I am already aware that under Roman Catholicism - other religions were sometimes not tolerated. But that was Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. What I am asking you to provide - is the names of the "CHRISTIAN NATIONS" that would not tolerate non-Christians and perhaps in historical time when this took place. Please do not refer to a purely Luteran or Anglican (Religious) nation. Please provide the names of CHRISTIAN NATIONS and when this took place. You know, perhaps a nation like the United States used to be - before it became so secular as it is today.

Concerning your second point. Are you saying that the religion of Islam is really "A religion of Peace" - despite the verses in the Glorious Koran that tell them to "slay the infidel" etc.???

[Jude3b]

And Cromwell and his Protestant army slaughtered the Irish.
If the errors of Christians does not invalidate our religion, then it's possible that the same applies to other religions too. Islam is going through culture shock at the moment, moving from the 7th century to the 21st without the intervening centuries to sooth the pain. Violent fundamentalism is as much a reaction to that fact as RW Christian terrorism is to the loss of its cultural hegemony, be it actions against abortion clinics, or incidents like Waco. That is why I despair of the milito-macho posturing of the American administration: We fight the fire, while we're feeding the flames [Rush].

Dear Solly:

That is an interesting comment.

Please tell me - how do you think the nations of the world should deal with Islamic terrorists?

I already know that as a Christian, we should befriend them, love them, pray for them and share the good news of the gospel with them.

How should the American administration or the Russian administration or the Philippine administration, etc. deal with murdering Islamic terrorists?

If you were the President of Russia right now, how would you deal with the terrorists who just killed all those innocent children and others at the school?

[EvoUK]

First, can you tell me what Christian nations you are referring to that never tolerated non-Christians? Now, I am already aware that under Roman Catholicism - other religions were sometimes not tolerated. But that was Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. What I am asking you to provide - is the names of the "CHRISTIAN NATIONS" that would not tolerate non-Christians and perhaps in historical time when this took place. Please do not refer to a purely Luteran or Anglican (Religious) nation. Please provide the names of CHRISTIAN NATIONS and when this took place. You know, perhaps a nation like the United States used to be - before it became so secular as it is today.
:lol: :rofl: :ahem: :lmbo: :haha:


This area is for theist discussions only.

[Solly]

First, can you tell me what Christian nations you are referring to that never tolerated non-Christians? Now, I am already aware that under Roman Catholicism - other religions were sometimes not tolerated. But that was Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. What I am asking you to provide - is the names of the "CHRISTIAN NATIONS" that would not tolerate non-Christians and perhaps in historical time when this took place. Please do not refer to a purely Luteran or Anglican (Religious) nation. Please provide the names of CHRISTIAN NATIONS and when this took place. You know, perhaps a nation like the United States used to be - before it became so secular as it is today.

What Evo said.

Jude, your CHRISTIAN NATION America persecuted Christians in its beginnings, specifically Baptists and Quakers cf Roger Williams and Obadiah Holmes for two examples. It decimated the indigenous population, in the process violating their right to practice their own religions and even outlawed the Sun Dance; it enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans, in the process violating their rights to practice their own religions. It persecuted Marxist Communists in teh 20th century as well.

[Solly]

Dear Solly:

That is an interesting comment.

Which you never dealt with, and then changed the goalposts on. You made the comment that CHRISTIANS don't do these things, we are squeaky clean.

[Jude3b]

What Evo said.

Jude, your CHRISTIAN NATION America persecuted Christians in its beginnings, specifically Baptists and Quakers cf Roger Williams and Obadiah Holmes for two examples. It decimated the indigenous population, in the process violating their right to practice their own religions and even outlawed the Sun Dance; it enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans, in the process violating their rights to practice their own religions. It persecuted Marxist Communists in teh 20th century as well.

Frist - The United States became a nation in 1776 - and while many referred to it as a "Christian Nation" at that time - nevertheless - it was founded as a Republic with some Christian and Jewish influences. It never has been a theocracy.

Second- Please tell me about the persecuations that you are aware of that were enacted by the United States government (a secular government) upon specific Christians? I'd like to know more also about your intimation that "Baptists and Quakers cf Roger Williams and Obadiah Holmes for two examples" is all about. I am not familiar with what you are talking about.

While the Southern Part of the United States - did have slavery - I fail to see what Christianity had to do with that? Secular states that made up part of the United States - does not in any way make them a "Christian nation."

Americans had wars with Indians. Again, I fail to see how you can blame Christianity for some of the bad things that happen in wars - in the history of the United States? Please explain your point more clearly.

Lastly, you say the United States persecuted Marxists. What on earth has that got to do with Christianity?

[Jude3b]

Which you never dealt with, and then changed the goalposts on. You made the comment that CHRISTIANS don't do these things, we are squeaky clean.

Dear Solly:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were asking me a question. What exactly is your question of me?

Do you care to answer my questions, in response to your statements about how terrible the United States is to you?

[BlackOpal12]

Frist - The United States became a nation in 1776 - and while many referred to it as a "Christian Nation" at that time - nevertheless - it was founded as a Republic with some Christian and Jewish influences. It never has been a theocracy.

So, in that case, this statement

Please provide the names of CHRISTIAN NATIONS and when this took place. You know, perhaps a nation like the United States used to be - before it became so secular as it is today.

was just an outright, boldfaced lie?

Jude3b, as much as we here at TWeb appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule of harraunging the Catholics and depricating anyone else who doesn't happen to live inside your skin, maybe you should go back to making fun of the Pope now. You seem to be better at it (which is not really a compliment, considering how godawful you are at this).

Stop wasting our time, Jude.

[EvoUK]

Well, at least the Infidels find this thread quite amusing- I posted it over there. So I suppose it wasn't all bad.

This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists, though exceptions may be granted within the moderator's discretion that keep to the spirit of the comparative religions department. And this post does not meet those criteria.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

[Solly]

Well, at least the Infidels find this thread quite amusing- I posted it over there. So I suppose it wasn't all bad.


Evo, I'm a tidy librarian at heart, so please accept this tidy avatar replacement.

Note, the background is transparent, not black

[soulflame]

[QUOTE=soulflame]Christian's should still love them. Doesn't mean though that they should be tolerant. There is a difference between love and tolerance. And yes, they need to realize that most terrorism are from the Muslims. And yes the Christians commited the crusades...but....they were wrong with the attitude and what they did during the crusades.[/QUOT

Dear Soulflame:

I agree we should still love them. But you know, Christians were supposed to love "Hitler" also. But what if know one had ever stood up to Hitler and stopped him?

It was Roman Catholics that commited the crusades. It is debatable how many, if any of them were Christians.
You can still defend yourself with loving them.... Just because you fight someone doesn't mean you hate them. If you fight with your wife, does it mean that you hate her? No....granted that's and extremely dumbed down version of what you offered..but it still works... I forgot that about the crusades. I agree with you.. Sorry if I sounded harsh in what I just said above.

[Jude3b]

You can still defend yourself with loving them.... Just because you fight someone doesn't mean you hate them. If you fight with your wife, does it mean that you hate her? No....granted that's and extremely dumbed down version of what you offered..but it still works... I forgot that about the crusades. I agree with you.. Sorry if I sounded harsh in what I just said above.

Dear soulflame:

That is a good point. I did not take your statement as harsh.

[HRG_new]

First, can you tell me what Christian nations you are referring to that never tolerated non-Christians? Now, I am already aware that under Roman Catholicism - other religions were sometimes not tolerated. But that was Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. What I am asking you to provide - is the names of the "CHRISTIAN NATIONS" that would not tolerate non-Christians and perhaps in historical time when this took place. Please do not refer to a purely Luteran or Anglican (Religious) nation. Please provide the names of CHRISTIAN NATIONS and when this took place.

Ridiculous. Roman Catholicism is the original Christianity; other versions have split off it later. This is a plain historical truth which negates your "True Scotsman" techniques. I might equally claim that al-Andalus was the only ISLAMIC NATION which ever existed.

BTW, the early US was a deistic country. Some Christian settlements (e.g. Massachusetts Bay) did not tolerate other versions of Christianity either.

I expect that you'll tell us next that Mass. was settled by Hindus :tongue:


Concerning your second point. Are you saying that the religion of Islam is really "A religion of Peace" - despite the verses in the Glorious Koran that tell them to "slay the infidel" etc.???

Remember "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword" and "If your eye troubles you, rip it out" ? The latter was used as the battle cry during the Huguenot massacres.

BTW, the Qu'ran also says "In religious matters, no force should be applied".

[Mimi]

And of course Christians don't do bad things in the name of God....:doh:

It is the humans that make a religion look bad, NOT the religion in itself. Loving a human being and respecting them has nothing to do with religion......I do not care what religion my friends and family are. THAT is their own choice!

[kofh2u]

Remember "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword"

.


"but A sword," I believe... "two swords are enough" I believe.

But they are quite different from the swordvof Islamic proseltyzing or death.

Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars, (the sevenfold
spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego):...
...and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of
rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual knowledge).


Rev. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword,...

...(undeniable interpretation), that with it he should smite (the secular and religious communities): and he shall rule them with a rod of iron (of undeniable scriptural interpretation): and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, (the Reality of the Universal Force which has long awaited this evolution into sanity)

[Jude3b]

Ridiculous. Roman Catholicism is the original Christianity; other versions have split off it later. This is a plain historical truth which negates your "True Scotsman" techniques. I might equally claim that al-Andalus was the only ISLAMIC NATION which ever existed.

BTW, the early US was a deistic country. Some Christian settlements (e.g. Massachusetts Bay) did not tolerate other versions of Christianity either.

I expect that you'll tell us next that Mass. was settled by Hindus :tongue:


Remember "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword" and "If your eye troubles you, rip it out" ? The latter was used as the battle cry during the Huguenot massacres.

BTW, the Qu'ran also says "In religious matters, no force should be applied".

Dear HRG_new:

Thank you for your comment. It appears to be that we are somewhat off the actual topic. Nevertheless, I will attempt to respond to your post.

I do not agree with your statement that Roman Catholicism is the "original Christianity."

The New Testament sets forth the truth respecting the church as clearly as it does any other subject. The introduction to the early history of the church is found in the words of Jesus, "I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Christ is the "Rock" that the church of God - the Body of Christ - the church we read about in the New Testament and that Peter received a "revelation" about. We know that the New Testament church was "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" (of the church of God - the body of Christ).

Jesus said, "I will build my church." He did exactly that. Everytime someone comes to faith in Christ - they are added to His church (Acts 2:47).
They are not added to the Roman Catholic religion or to any other so-called Christian religion. Please do not confuse religion with Christianity. A true believer in Christ is a Christian. A Roman Catholic - unless they have truly belived on and fully trusted in Christ alone to be a Christian - is only a religious person that belongs to Roman Catholicism. True believers might attend a so-called Christian church - be that Baptist, Methodist, Roman Catholic, whatever, but they are added to the body of Christ - the church of God, only because of their faith in Christ.

This original church of God - the New Testament church of God, started when men and women began to believe on Christ and to trust Him and Him alone for their salvation. On the day of Pentecost (40 days after Christ ascended into Heaven) - it really began to grow.

Paul distincly states that the "house of God.... is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15); while Peter just as distinclty affirms that it is a spiritual institution, composed of spiritual people: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (I Peter 2:5).

You see, the original church was and still is the very body of Christ. It is not Roman Catholicism, nor is it any of the other denominations and/or sects that have broken away from or started up in spite of or because of Romanism.
"And hath put all things under his (Christ's) feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23). Christ is the head of this body. "And he is the head of the body, the church... that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). "For his body's sake, which is the church" (verse 24). Christ is the head of but one body. "There is one body" (Eph. 4:4).
The body of which Christ is the head is not Roman Catholicism or the Lutheran Religion, or any other religion. It is "the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

This is the only church taught in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The universal body of true believers constitutes the church of God, for which Christ died. You cannot have salvation, can not be a member of Christ, without being a member of the body of Christ; for "now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (I Cor. 12:18). Inversely, it is impossible to be a member of the body of Christ without being a member of Christ himself.

May I ask you a question. Are you a member of the church of God - the body of Christ? Put another way, are you a believer, a Chrstian? Are you saved and would you go to heaven, if you passed away today? If not, you certainly can be. You can read all about our wonderful Savior and Lord - in the New Testament of the Bible. In it you wii also find the faith you need to believe on Christ and be saved, if your not already. I hope to see you in Heaven.

I hope I am not confusing you. But, true history combined with a true understanding of the Word of God - will show that what I have written above is the truth.

Roman Catholicism did not really exist before 270 A.D. and really did not become the Religion that we know today until about 600 A.D..

[soulflame]

I'm starting to realize that there is a difference between Truth and religion and most, not all, most, of Christianity. Christianity used to give way to the Truth, but it seems to be pleasing the world now more then God. However, even today, Christianity is the only thing that comes close to the Truth, so I guess I am one.

[kofh2u]

I'm starting to realize that there is a difference between Truth and religion and most, not all, most, of Christianity. Christianity used to give way to the Truth, but it seems to be pleasing the world now more then God. However, even today, Christianity is the only thing that comes close to the Truth, so I guess I am one.



Keep the faith, brother, that in the Word is power and truth. Forget the inconsistencies of a Christian church growing in seven stages over two millennia. Scriptures accounts for these things. Neither crimes in the name of Christianity nor shortcomings in the sevenchurch ages, whether Cstholic or Protestant, matter. F]That faith in the Word will make it all clear is all that is asked.

Rev. 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira, (in the time
of Universal Catholicism) write; These things saith the Son of God, (the first evolved conscious Conscience), who hath his eyes (to sees the seven Subconscious Freudian apparati which are) like unto a flame of fire, (immaterial psychic forces), and his feet are like fine brass (which has been moulded in the furnace of Evolution);

Rev. 2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and
thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.

[Jude3b]

I'm starting to realize that there is a difference between Truth and religion and most, not all, most, of Christianity. Christianity used to give way to the Truth, but it seems to be pleasing the world now more then God. However, even today, Christianity is the only thing that comes close to the Truth, so I guess I am one.

Dear soulflame:

Glad to welcome you to the body of Christ. Don't guess though, "make your calling and election sure" - When you get a chance - take a look at
I John 5:13.

God Bless you real good!

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi all,

Where does the source for the Terrorists' inspiration and emulation come from, it is really from thier own Quran, as proven in the following verses:


"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)

"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)

"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)

"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! :ahem:

Rgds, Dan Zebiri.

[kofh2u]

Hi all,

Where does the source for the Terrorists' inspiration and emulation come from, it is really from thier own Quran, as proven in the following verses:


"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)

"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)

"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)

"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)

"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)

"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! :ahem:

Rgds, Dan Zebiri.


Rev. 6:4 And there went out another horse, (632-34 AD) that was red (WITH SACRED WRITINGS): and power was given to him that sat thereon, (ABU BAKR), to take peace from the earth, (included the whole Arabian peninsula, Palestinia (!), and Syria, Egypt and Libya, parts of Spain, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Mesopotamia, and substantial parts of Armenia and Persia, the Iraq of today, Babylonia, or Iraq), and that they should kill one another (Arab killing Arab): and there was given unto him a great sword (THE KORAN).

[Snarf]

You see, the original church was and still is the very body of Christ. It is not Roman Catholicism, nor is it any of the other denominations and/or sects that have broken away from or started up in spite of or because of Romanism.
"And hath put all things under his (Christ's) feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23). Christ is the head of this body. "And he is the head of the body, the church... that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). "For his body's sake, which is the church" (verse 24). Christ is the head of but one body. "There is one body" (Eph. 4:4).
The body of which Christ is the head is not Roman Catholicism or the Lutheran Religion, or any other religion. It is "the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

This is the only church taught in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The universal body of true believers constitutes the church of God, for which Christ died. You cannot have salvation, can not be a member of Christ, without being a member of the body of Christ; for "now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (I Cor. 12:18). Inversely, it is impossible to be a member of the body of Christ without being a member of Christ himself.

May I ask you a question. Are you a member of the church of God - the body of Christ? Put another way, are you a believer, a Chrstian? Are you saved and would you go to heaven, if you passed away today? If not, you certainly can be. You can read all about our wonderful Savior and Lord - in the New Testament of the Bible. In it you wii also find the faith you need to believe on Christ and be saved, if your not already. I hope to see you in Heaven.

I hope I am not confusing you. But, true history combined with a true understanding of the Word of God - will show that what I have written above is the truth.

Roman Catholicism did not really exist before 270 A.D. and really did not become the Religion that we know today until about 600 A.D..

Point of logic here. In order to be Roman Catholic (like I am), the first and foremost thing one is to believe is "I believe in God, the Father the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord..."
In order to be a member of any other orthodox Christian Church, one is asked to profess a belief in Jesus as God. In short, if one is a member of a church, then one must by definition accept the deity of Jesus. You make it sound as if being a member of a church and belief in Jesus are two separate things. They are not, one is not allowed to be a member of any church without professing faith in Christ. Since being a member of a church requires that one have saving faith, then being a member of a church means that one is saved, because to be a member one has to believe in Jesus. One cannot be Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc. without having this saving faith.
All of the denominations put together, because they consist people who believe in Jesus, form a physical manifestation of the body of Christ. They are not the only believers, but they are part of Christ's body all the same.
There is no Catholic religion, Lutheran religion, Presbyterian religion, etc., all are human organizations dedicated to serving Christ, i.e. the Christian religion (and yes Christianity is a religion; I don't know why such a term is so objectionable to many Christians.) "Relationship" is popular, maybe because it sounds nicer but Muslims have a relationship with Allah, parents have a relationship with their children, and a dog owner has a relationship with their dog,etc. "Relationship" is a very broad word which does not define the bond between Christians and Jesus.
Catholics are saved because their participation in the Catholic church has brought them to belief in Jesus, and the same in other churches. Why separate participation in organized religion with salvation? Can a Christian exist well in isolation?

[Jude3b]

Point of logic here. In order to be Roman Catholic (like I am), the first and foremost thing one is to believe is "I believe in God, the Father the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord..."
In order to be a member of any other orthodox Christian Church, one is asked to profess a belief in Jesus as God. In short, if one is a member of a church, then one must by definition accept the deity of Jesus. You make it sound as if being a member of a church and belief in Jesus are two separate things. They are not, one is not allowed to be a member of any church without professing faith in Christ. Since being a member of a church requires that one have saving faith, then being a member of a church means that one is saved, because to be a member one has to believe in Jesus. One cannot be Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc. without having this saving faith.
All of the denominations put together, because they consist people who believe in Jesus, form a physical manifestation of the body of Christ. They are not the only believers, but they are part of Christ's body all the same.
There is no Catholic religion, Lutheran religion, Presbyterian religion, etc., all are human organizations dedicated to serving Christ, i.e. the Christian religion (and yes Christianity is a religion; I don't know why such a term is so objectionable to many Christians.) "Relationship" is popular, maybe because it sounds nicer but Muslims have a relationship with Allah, parents have a relationship with their children, and a dog owner has a relationship with their dog,etc. "Relationship" is a very broad word which does not define the bond between Christians and Jesus.
Catholics are saved because their participation in the Catholic church has brought them to belief in Jesus, and the same in other churches. Why separate participation in organized religion with salvation? Can a Christian exist well in isolation?

Dear Snarf:

You make some very interesting statements. Thank you for your post. Please may I ask you a few questions in relationship to your post above? If yes, please tell when and how did you come to belive in God and in Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Savior? If yes, if you died today are you sure that you would go to heaven? Why or Why not?

You ask me, "why separate participation in organized religion with salvation? Can a Christian exist well in isolation?

First, if you are willing and able, I need you to provide me with your definition of the church? How does that compare with a biblical definition of the church? Second, do you know the difference between the church of God - the body of Christ and a sect?

Concerning the visibility of the church of God - the body of Christ: It is my opinion that many men who are blinded to the truth and can see nothing but human churches, denominations or sects, generally state that the church of God - the body of Christ is invisible and that therefore it was necessary to have sectarian organizations in order to make it visible before the world. Do you feel that way?

I want to give you an opportunity to answer the questions above. I will close this post with a simple statement. Where was the church of God - the body of Christ, during the early centuries before the rise of human ecclesiasticism? Paul said, "I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13). Was he chasing a ghost or shadow, or was there a real, living, visible church of God that he was opposing? The answer is clear to all. He addressed his Corinthian Epistles "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth," and he asked them, "Despise ye the church of God?" (I Cor. 1:2; 11:22; 2 Cor. 1:1).

[kofh2u]

Point of logic here. In order to be Roman Catholic (like I am), the first and foremost thing one is to believe is "I believe in God, the Father the Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord..."
In order to be a member of any other orthodox Christian Church, one is asked to profess a belief in Jesus as God. In short, if one is a member of a church, then one must by definition accept the deity of Jesus. You make it sound as if being a member of a church and belief in Jesus are two separate things. They are not, one is not allowed to be a member of any church without professing faith in Christ. Since being a member of a church requires that one have saving faith, then being a member of a church means that one is saved, because to be a member one has to believe in Jesus. One cannot be Roman Catholic, Baptist, etc. without having this saving faith.
All of the denominations put together, because they consist people who believe in Jesus, form a physical manifestation of the body of Christ. They are not the only believers, but they are part of Christ's body all the same.
There is no Catholic religion, Lutheran religion, Presbyterian religion, etc., all are human organizations dedicated to serving Christ, i.e. the Christian religion (and yes Christianity is a religion; I don't know why such a term is so objectionable to many Christians.) "Relationship" is popular, maybe because it sounds nicer but Muslims have a relationship with Allah, parents have a relationship with their children, and a dog owner has a relationship with their dog,etc. "Relationship" is a very broad word which does not define the bond between Christians and Jesus.
Catholics are saved because their participation in the Catholic church has brought them to belief in Jesus, and the same in other churches. Why separate participation in organized religion with salvation? Can a Christian exist well in isolation?


"All of the denominations put together, because they consist people who believe in Jesus, form a physical manifestation of the body of Christ."

THEN WHY DO WE NOT HAVE PEACE FROM THIS MESSIAH IN THE HOLY LAND OF HIS FATHER?

sa. 60:1 Arise, (O'Israel), shine; for thy enlightenment is come, and
the glory of the LORD, (the meaning of Hebrew scripture), is risen upon thee.

Isa. 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth (for 1000 years), and (a Dark Age), the gross darkness of the people: but the LORD, (the Word), shall arise upon thee thereafter, and his glory shall be seen in the enlightenment upon thee.

Isa. 60:3 And the Gentiles (of Christianity) shall come to thy
enlightenment (O'Israel), and kings (of political rule) to the brightness of thy (nation's) rising.

Isa. 60:4 Lift up thine eyes you people of Israel round about, and
see: all, (the two billion Christian), they gather themselves together,
they come to thee (in the Promised Land): thy sons (of the Diaspora) shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side (from 1948 forever).

Isa. 60:5 Then, thereafter, thou shalt see (these hoards of Christianity, and ye O'Israel), flow together (with them), and thine
heart shall fear (the truth of Christ in your conversion), and be enlarged (in understanding of scripture); because the abundance of the sea (of unconscious realizations) shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles, (now Christians, two billions in number), shall come unto thee.

Isa. 60:6 The multitude of (their) camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah (Jordan of today) ; all they from Sheba shall come (to pilgrimage in the Holy Land): they shall bring gold and incense (and economic prosperity); and they shall show forth the praises of the LORD.

Isa. 60:7 All the flocks (of the Palestinian immigrants from Gaza) of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of (the West Bank) Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory, (the House of Israel and the House of Judah).

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), and as the doves (of peace) to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:9 Surely the isles (of the New World) shall wait for me, and
the ships of Tarshish first (from Western Europe), to bring thy sons (of Abraham) from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD, (Christ) thy God, (the Word of scripture), and to the Holy One of Israel, (Jesus), because he hath glorified thee (in Christianity).

Isa. 60:10 And the sons of strangers (from the Americas) shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister peace unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee (in Holocaust), but in my favour (restoring my chosen to Israel) have I had mercy on thee.

Isa. 60:11 Therefore thy gates, (O'Promised Land), shall be open
continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring
(as tourists) unto thee the forces of the (rich Christian) Gentiles, and
that their kings may be brought (supporting your sovereignty).

Isa. 60:12 For the nation and (religious) kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

Isa. 60:13 The glory (of Golan Heights) of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree (of the West Bank), the pine tree (in Ramallah), and the box (in Gaza) together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary, (the Holy Land); and I will make the place of my feet, (Jerusalem), glorious.

Isa. 60:14 The sons also of them (in Germany and Western Europe, in Russia, too) that afflicted thee (O' Israel), shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee, (the Holy People of scripture),shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee (Hebrew) Christian, The city (of the New Jerusalem) of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel, (The Promised Land).

Isa. 60:15 Whereas thou, (Israel), hast been forsaken and hated, so
that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations (in the spiritual fulfillment of scripture).

Isa. 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Christian Gentiles,
and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD, (the almighty Power of the Universe), am thy Saviour and (Christ) thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob (David, the root and lion of Judah).

Isa. 60:17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring
silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy
officers peace (officers throughout the Promised Land), and thine exactors (of taxes) righteousness (in economic productivity throughout Israel).

Isa. 60:18 Violence (of Terrorism) shall no more be heard in thy land,
wasting by armies nor destruction with extortionistic bombings within
thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Jewish Salvation, and thy
gates Christian Praise.

Isa. 60:19 The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD, (Jesus),
shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God, (the rational
Universe), thy glory.

Isa. 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy (New) moon withdraw itself (in that day when electricity will light the land): for the LORD, (Jesus), shall be thine everlasting light, (drawing unending pilgrims day and night to thee), and the (2000 years of) days of thymourning shall be ended.

Isa. 60:21 Thy (Jewish) people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the (Promised) land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work (and prophesied miracle) of my hands, that I, (the Word) may be glorified.

Isa. 60:22 A little one shall become a thousand (in 1948), and a small one a strong nation (by 2004): I the LORD will hasten it in his time.

Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I, (the Word of the scriptures), come quickly (for a congregation of two billion Christians awaits the Revelation); and my reward (of Peace in the Holy Land) is with me, to give (love, charity, to neighbor and enemy alike) every man according as his work, (neighbor or Islamic enemy), shall be.

[Snarf]

"All of the denominations put together, because they consist people who believe in Jesus, form a physical manifestation of the body of Christ."

THEN WHY DO WE NOT HAVE PEACE FROM THIS MESSIAH IN THE HOLY LAND OF HIS FATHER?



But we do have peace, relatively speaking. And I said that we were a physical manifestation of Jesus, not to be confused with His actual body.

[kofh2u]

You ask me, "why separate participation in organized religion with salvation? Can a Christian exist well in isolation?

First, if you are willing and able, I need you to provide me with your definition of the church?
How does that compare with a biblical definition of the church?


Second, do you know the difference between the church of God - the body of Christ and a sect?

Concerning the visibility of the church of God - the body of Christ: ...make it visible before the world. Do you feel that way?



Then, Jude, is your "true church" the body of Christ?

Will it provide 144,000 possible martrys to fulfill the spirit of prophecy?

Isa. 66:5 Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, (the Jews), that cast you out (of the synagogues) for my name’s sake, said, "Let the LORD be glorified:" but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

Isa. 66:6 A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

Isa. 66:7 Before (Israeli Statehood) she travailed, she brought forth; before (sovereign nationality) her pain came (in Holocaust), she was delivered of a (Christian) man child.

[Jude3b]

WHAT CAN BE PLAINER?

All the truly saved are members of the body of Christ, his church; for the Spirit inducts us into one; yea, "now hath God set the members every one of them in the body" (I Cor. 12:13,18). On the other hand, all who are Christ rejecters are still in their sins and are outside the body of Christ, hence no part of the church of God. "There is one body" (Eph. 4:4); we are "called in one body by the cross" (Eph. 2:16) - and this one body is the church of God (Eph. 1:20-22; Col. 1:18, 24). Hence there is but one divine church. It is both inclusive and exclusive; for it includes all the saved, and excludes all the unsaved.

[Snarf]

Dear Snarf:

You make some very interesting statements. Thank you for your post. Please may I ask you a few questions in relationship to your post above? If yes, please tell when and how did you come to belive in God and in Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ your personal Lord and Savior? If yes, if you died today are you sure that you would go to heaven? Why or Why not?

Thank you for the compliment. To answer:
1)I came to believe in Jesus 20 years ago.
2)Yes He is my Lord and Savior
3)Yes I believe that I would go to heaven


You ask me, "why separate participation in organized religion with salvation? Can a Christian exist well in isolation?

First, if you are willing and able, I need you to provide me with your definition of the church? How does that compare with a biblical definition of the church? Second, do you know the difference between the church of God - the body of Christ and a sect?

Since the Bible doesn't give a definition for a church in the way a dictionary does, I divine the meaning of the word from the context. Often, "church" refers to an organized gathering of people who worship Jesus (e.g. the church in Galatia, and the church in Smyrna). A church by no means implies perfection (like Laodicea). Since there are mentions of the church in a specific locale, then "church" can refer to a local body of worshipers. However, since local bodies of believers all worship Jesus, it can also be said that all of the individual groups together form a larger body of believers who believe the same, and this can also be referred to as the "church," and i think that general references to the "church" in the bible take this meaning; i.e. a local body of worshipers are physically a part of and the local organization of a much larger whole. Since Paul mentions evildoers among the people in churches, we can assume that not everyone in churches is pure, and there may be those who don't really believe, even though they profess to be believers (maybe out of peer pressure, who knows).

The dictionary definitions for sect (the bible doesn't use this word, so I go by the dictionary)
1)A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2)A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3)A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

Granted, words like "orthodox" and "Christian" are somewhat relative, neither is defined by the Bible specifically. I use "orthodox" to refer to the belief system of the great majority of those who call themselves Christians; the belief that Jesus is Lord and one is saved by believing that He died for the sins of the world. In that sense, the orthodox Christian church is made up of those who believe this. That is the basic definition of one who is Christian (John 3:16). Sects of the orthodox Christian church are subdivisions;,e.g. denominations. There can be sects who have reinterpreted the Bible to be different from what orthodoxy teaches (e.g. Mormons), in the continuum of sect and religion they can either be seen as widely divergent sects or new religions. Neither word describes whether one is "true" or not; truth of a revelation is highly subjective. As a Christian, I simply cannot prove that my religion is the true one, or that another is false; religion is not mathematics.



Concerning the visibility of the church of God - the body of Christ: It is my opinion that many men who are blinded to the truth and can see nothing but human churches, denominations or sects, generally state that the church of God - the body of Christ is invisible and that therefore it was necessary to have sectarian organizations in order to make it visible before the world. Do you feel that way?

I think I understand you, although the concept of "truth" and the person of Jesus, at this point in time, are invisible. I take it by the word "see" you are speaking either figuratively, or with the mind's eye, please correct me if i am wrong. However, I do not agree that sectarian organizations are necessary in order to make jesus visible to the world, I believe that they are necessary because Christians are humans, and are therefore social, and live better when they can be with other Christians. Speaking more metaphorically, seeing loving Christians interacting is seeing Christ alive.

I want to give you an opportunity to answer the questions above. I will close this post with a simple statement. Where was the church of God - the body of Christ, during the early centuries before the rise of human ecclesiasticism? Paul said, "I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it" (Gal. 1:13). Was he chasing a ghost or shadow, or was there a real, living, visible church of God that he was opposing? The answer is clear to all. He addressed his Corinthian Epistles "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth," and he asked them, "Despise ye the church of God?" (I Cor. 1:2; 11:22; 2 Cor. 1:1).

He attacked a real, living, and visible church.
Does this help?
Bye

[Dan Zebiri]

People,

The relevant Topic in THIS Trhead is : Don't Islamic Terrorist clearly show that their religion is a false and cultic? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=728258#post728258) - see Above!

I have also shown you the relevant verses FROM the Quran about how it really approves and endorses violent attacks and warring upon the non-Muslims by Muslims if non-Muslims choose not to accept Islam!

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)
"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)
"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)
"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)
"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! :ahem:

How can Islam be truly a peaceful religion if the Quran itself enjoins such violence and terrorism?

I am still looking for an answer from some Muslim about this! Do not try to be funny and try to side track from the real issue! :ahem:

Regards, Dan Zebiri.

[Snarf]

People,

The relevant Topic in THIS Trhead is : Don't Islamic Terrorist clearly show that their religion is a false and cultic? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=728258#post728258) - see Above!

I have also shown you the relevant verses FROM the Quran about how it really approves and endorses violent attacks and warring upon the non-Muslims by Muslims if non-Muslims choose not to accept Islam!

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)
"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)
"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)
"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)
"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! :ahem:

How can Islam be truly a peaceful religion if the Quran itself enjoins such violence and terrorism?

I am still looking for an answer from some Muslim about this! Do not try to be funny and try to side track from the real issue! :ahem:

Regards, Dan Zebiri.

Dan,

There's lots of verses in the Bible, which is revered by Christians and Jews, in which God tells His followers to slay infidels, stone homosexuals, stone adulterers, etc. Do you believe that those verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are from God? If so, then aren't Christianity and Judaism violent? Consider also that Christians have, collectively, killed more people in the name of our religion than all other religions combined. Isn't your God a God of war and violence?

If you disagree, then don't you think that maybe your view of the Koran might be just as erroneous as the above assessment? While you are openly asking for a reply from a Muslim, you are doing so on a Christian website in which there may be few Muslims. Have you considered going to a Muslim organization and asking people there your question?
Snarf

[Maimonides]

And Cromwell and his Protestant army slaughtered the Irish.
If the errors of Christians does not invalidate our religion, then it's possible that the same applies to other religions too. Islam is going through culture shock at the moment, moving from the 7th century to the 21st without the intervening centuries to sooth the pain. Violent fundamentalism is as much a reaction to that fact as RW Christian terrorism is to the loss of its cultural hegemony, be it actions against abortion clinics, or incidents like Waco. That is why I despair of the milito-macho posturing of the American administration: We fight the fire, while we're feeding the flames [Rush].
At last, the enlightened view! As an aficionado of all things Middle Eastern I find the rivalry between the Christian and Muslim branches of the Abrahamic faith disturbing, moreover when Christians fail to acknowledge the horrendous suffering that Christian theology has licensed, even encouraged. The Crusades are easy for Protestants to brush aside as devilish Catholic popery, but what about the extermination of the Native Americans (yes, in America, not merely Latin America), not to mention slavery? Frankly the cliched excuses of "Oh, that was the Roman Catholic Church" or "the U.S. South" (slavery) simply do not cut it for me. Let us be honest with ourselves: the RCC was the preferred brand of Christianity in the West for centuries (and remains so for much of the world). It has its own dark history, yes, as does Protestantism.

Protestants sought to break away, and imposed their wonderful new religion on others- witness Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England and Winthrop's New England- incidentally America has a long and dishonourable tradition of anti-Roman Catholicism. Of course the "Praying Indians" in colonial America couldn't fight against their (Protestant) brothers-in-Christ; one wonders, Were they supposed to accede meekly to the destruction of their culture?

Islam, for all that it has shortcomings, granted dhimma (tolerance) to Christians, Jews, Mandaeans, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and Hindus. There were episodes of anti-Christian or anti-Jewish persecution or discrimination in Islamic history, yes, but in general these paled against the atrocities of the Crusades, and the much later atrocities of "New World" exploitation by the (Christian, Catholic and Protestant) Europeans.

[Jude3b]

At last, the enlightened view! As an aficionado of all things Middle Eastern I find the rivalry between the Christian and Muslim branches of the Abrahamic faith disturbing, moreover when Christians fail to acknowledge the horrendous suffering that Christian theology has licensed, even encouraged. The Crusades are easy for Protestants to brush aside as devilish Catholic popery, but what about the extermination of the Native Americans (yes, in America, not merely Latin America), not to mention slavery? Frankly the cliched excuses of "Oh, that was the Roman Catholic Church" or "the U.S. South" (slavery) simply do not cut it for me. Let us be honest with ourselves: the RCC was the preferred brand of Christianity in the West for centuries (and remains so for much of the world). It has its own dark history, yes, as does Protestantism.

Protestants sought to break away, and imposed their wonderful new religion on others- witness Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England and Winthrop's New England- incidentally America has a long and dishonourable tradition of anti-Roman Catholicism. Of course the "Praying Indians" in colonial America couldn't fight against their (Protestant) brothers-in-Christ; one wonders, Were they supposed to accede meekly to the destruction of their culture?

Islam, for all that it has shortcomings, granted dhimma (tolerance) to Christians, Jews, Mandaeans, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and Hindus. There were episodes of anti-Christian or anti-Jewish persecution or discrimination in Islamic history, yes, but in general these paled against the atrocities of the Crusades, and the much later atrocities of "New World" exploitation by the (Christian, Catholic and Protestant) Europeans.

What a bunch of junk. Islam is not tolerant of anything. Try practicing Evangelical Christianity in Saudi Arabia!

[bigsplit]

What a bunch of junk. Islam is not tolerant of anything. Try practicing Evangelical Christianity in Saudi Arabia!


Jude,

I know you do not like it and neither do I, but the fact is from a truely Christian point of view our (US) capitalist impericist government is evil and corrupt. We have allowed it to become that way. Think of this situation like this.....what if Brittany Spears french kissed Madonna on TV in the 1940s, what would be the reaction...Go back further the the early 1900s, what would be the reaction of the people if this were blasted into their homes....would they call this evil...

In most of the Islamic World this is evil and intolerable. They do not wish their daughters to run around in mini skirts and tank tops. They do not want high abortion rates and sex out of weddlock...all of which were at one time strong american values as well. But not anymore.

We have our military in Saudi Arabia and our "perverted culture" is invading theirs. We support the state of Isreal (which over 50% are declared Atheist...what makes them Jewish...most are Russian). They see us as the devil bringing evil into their culture. Many of them are willing to die to stop us and have no tolerance for our post 1960's culture.

Whether they are right or wrong for acting this way is subjective. In an Old Testament way they are...In a New Testament Way they are not.

We have problems in our own country...Blind patriotism is sad...sinful really (my kingdom is not of this world...and man cant serve two masters, kingdom and mamon). Many Christians support War...no christian should ever do that..we should be willing to die before we kill...why? Because if we are truely Christians we know that our lives are eternal and physical death is not worth killing to prevent, what good is it if a man saves his life but loses his soul. So in this world there is a lot worth dying for but nothing worth killing for. But the love of our houses and cars and lifestyles. Our need for oil and resources from others, often causes us to stick our noses where they do not belong, and committ...well....murder-no other way to put it.

We have some fighting to do, but it is not with guns...but by the light of the truth of Jesus Christ which is the sword of God. Our fight is not only with terrorists and those who are blind, but with many "christians" who love this world enough to murder. We cant do it with Armies or politics...it has to be done one individual at a time through example, the light (gospel) and sacrifice (our lives if we have too).


So we need to lose the nationalism and the self preservation....We are as responsible or more so for the tragic situation of this world as the terrorist are. In Iraq for example...how many fathers, brothers, cousins and Uncles do you think we (US) killed in the first Gulf War? Think those people like us? They do not accept compassion of forgiveness and turn the other cheek of Christianity...Unfortunately, most "Christians" don't either.

Just something to think about.

[kofh2u]

People,

The relevant Topic in THIS Trhead is : Don't Islamic Terrorist clearly show that their religion is a false and cultic? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=728258#post728258) - see Above!

I have also shown you the relevant verses FROM the Quran about how it really approves and endorses violent attacks and warring upon the non-Muslims by Muslims if non-Muslims choose not to accept Islam!

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)
"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)
"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)
"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)
"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! :ahem:

How can Islam be truly a peaceful religion if the Quran itself enjoins such violence and terrorism?

I am still looking for an answer from some Muslim about this! Do not try to be funny and try to side track from the real issue! :ahem:

Regards, Dan Zebiri.


I think direct questions such as yours are essential to world peace.

The future portents a discussion with the Islamic community. The prediction of the prophets indicate that now is the moment.

Rev. 16:12 And the sixth angel (an intuitive prediction within my
mind), poured out his vial (of intuitions) upon the great river of
Islam, Euphrates; and the waters (of that people's theology) thereof was dried up (and ready for the fire of Christian baptism), that the way of conversion (to Christ) of the (Mullah) kings of the (middle) east might be prepared.

[Maimonides]

First, can you tell me what Christian nations you are referring to that never tolerated non-Christians? Now, I am already aware that under Roman Catholicism - other religions were sometimes not tolerated. But that was Roman Catholicism, not Christianity. What I am asking you to provide - is the names of the "CHRISTIAN NATIONS" that would not tolerate non-Christians and perhaps in historical time when this took place. Please do not refer to a purely Luteran or Anglican (Religious) nation. Please provide the names of CHRISTIAN NATIONS and when this took place. You know, perhaps a nation like the United States used to be - before it became so secular as it is today.

Concerning your second point. Are you saying that the religion of Islam is really "A religion of Peace" - despite the verses in the Glorious Koran that tell them to "slay the infidel" etc.???Please! This is almost too much. The entire history of Christianity is laced with intolerance! And YES, I am referring to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and denominationist Protestants. Jude, an honest question: who are the true xians? Only those who agree with you? Christianity has undergone paradigm shift after paradigm shift; modern fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism (non-denominational) being a more recent permutation. So, everybody went to hell all those intervening centuries until the "true" faith emerged from "papalism" and "Cromwellianism"? What about all those outside the church?

As to secularism, I for one find it an enlightened breath of fresh air. After the horrors of the (Christian) religious wars in the 16th-17th centuries, some Westerners (like Rousseau, Voltaire) at last ushered in the Enlightenment and the Secular West. The benisons of Western Civilization are mixed, granted, and certainly it isn't superior to other civilizations, but for the first time in human history religion isn't in charge!

As to Islam, in his day Muhammad was an enlightened liberal striving for positive societal change. He remains one of my archetypal historical heroes, whatever his failings.

[Jude3b]

Please! This is almost too much. The entire history of Christianity is laced with intolerance! And YES, I am referring to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and denominationist Protestants. Jude, an honest question: who are the true xians? Only those who agree with you? Christianity has undergone paradigm shift after paradigm shift; modern fundamentalist evangelical Protestantism (non-denominational) being a more recent permutation. So, everybody went to hell all those intervening centuries until the "true" faith emerged from "papalism" and "Cromwellianism"? What about all those outside the church?

As to secularism, I for one find it an enlightened breath of fresh air. After the horrors of the (Christian) religious wars in the 16th-17th centuries, some Westerners (like Rousseau, Voltaire) at last ushered in the Enlightenment and the Secular West. The benisons of Western Civilization are mixed, granted, and certainly it isn't superior to other civilizations, but for the first time in human history religion isn't in charge!

As to Islam, in his day Muhammad was an enlightened liberal striving for positive societal change. He remains one of my archetypal historical heroes, whatever his failings.

Dear Maimonides:

We obviously define a "Christian" differently. Just to clarify. I define a Christian as someone who has received the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior (been born-again or saved) and is living their life to His glory and for His glory. Some people who have attended denominational - so-called "Christian" religions are also Christians and some or not. It depends on whether or not they have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. This has been true since Christ came to earth and men started to believe On Him as Messiah.

If men and women are just "religious" - they are no different than Muhammad was or any other religious person. Mankind cannot "earn" heaven - which is what the religious person is attempting to do. True Christianity - has God doing the saving - and His children partake of that Salvation by grace through faith in the finished and complete work that Jesus Christ - the Lord and Savior accomplished on the cross of Calvary. That is what the Bible teaches and I believe it.

Please tell me what it is about Muhammad that make him your hero?

Thank you.

[Dan Zebiri]

Reply to you snarf,

Dan,

There's lots of verses in the Bible, which is revered by Christians and Jews, in which God tells His followers to slay infidels, stone homosexuals, stone adulterers, etc. Do you believe that those verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are from God? If so, then aren't Christianity and Judaism violent? Consider also that Christians have, collectively, killed more people in the name of our religion than all other religions combined. Isn't your God a God of war and violence?

If you disagree, then don't you think that maybe your view of the Koran might be just as erroneous as the above assessment? While you are openly asking for a reply from a Muslim, you are doing so on a Christian website in which there may be few Muslims. Have you considered going to a Muslim organization and asking people there your question?
Snarf

Snarf and all,

Oh Yes, I quite disagree...:smile: Firstly, your insinuation above that the 'Bible verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (plus other Old Testament references) "show that 'your God is a god of violence'" :ahem: really reflects a defective and erroneous interpretation of Biblical Christianity.

After the coming of Jesus Christ, ALL the injunctions of the Law - of which the first five Books of the OT signify-including Leviticus and Deuteronomy, plus all the other OT injunctions to 'kill the enemies of God's people' have already been fulfilled or met and set aside by Jesus Christ, as clearly set forth in Romans 10:4 in the Christian Bible - "For Christ is the END of the law.." That is, He has set aside the 'violent injunctions' by His coming.

Then, Jesus himself clearly stated in John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my Kingdom not from hence."

Hence, Jesus Christ Himself in the Christian Bible, has already set aside' and abrogated; since His first Coming, the need for violence and violent action by His followers, the Christians.

Thus, all those 'violent injunctions' you allude to in the OT (old Testament) have already really been dealt with and abrogated by the coming and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Further, Christ Jesus brought a new teaching for all His true disciples that was based on LOVE. This is underscored again by one of His closest disciples, the Apostle John, who enjoins: in 1 John 4:8 - He that loves not knowes not God; for God is love.

And in 1 John 4:16 - And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him. No, the Christian GOD is NOT a God of war and violence!

The kind of teaching enunciated by Jesus Christ is IN STARK CONTRAST with what the Quran and Islam teaches.

Let the Muslim scholars and divines speak up fopr themselves..:


One of Islam's classical reference books, written by a recognized Muslim scholar, deals in great detail with the subject. The title of the book is "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) by Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every chapter in the Quran and points in full detail to every verse that has been canceled and what verse replaced it. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. An example of the abrogation: there are 124 verses that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced by this one single verse: "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for - ie.Ambush them in every stratagem of war....." Surah 9:5 (emphasis added).

In other words, the exact OPPOSITE IS TRUE in Islam! The so-called gentle verses in the Quran have ALL BEEN CANCELED OR ABROGATED BY THESE SWORD VERSES..ie.Surah 9 v.5 and 29. The sword verses enjoin :
(1) Fighting and Slaying,
(2) Seizing Pagans (Unbelievers of Islam),
(3) Beleaguring them and
(4) Ambushing them! (See above quranic verse).

The Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim himself states that these sword verses have themselves abrogated 124 OTHER 'gentle or peaceful' Quranic Verses!

What I have just shown is that, it is in the very nature of Islam itself to be violent and aggressive. It enjoins violent expansion of the rule and territorries of Islam and Islamic lands.

The last word on the issue itself in the Quran, requires and calls for such violence in spreading Islam, in fact Muslim scholars themselves admit and teach, that the violent, aggressive and terroristic verses (Sword Verses) of the Quran abrogate the so-called peaceful, gentle ones!

This is the very and exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus Christ and Christianity teaches in reality.

So, snarf, you just got to check your facts properly and more accurately for your own sake!

Rgds, Dan.

[Snarf]

Dear Maimonides:

We obviously define a "Christian" differently. Just to clarify. I define a Christian as someone who has received the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior (been born-again or saved) and is living their life to His glory and for His glory. Some people who have attended denominational - so-called "Christian" religions are also Christians and some or not. It depends on whether or not they have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. This has been true since Christ came to earth and men started to believe On Him as Messiah.

If men and women are just "religious" - they are no different than Muhammad was or any other religious person. Mankind cannot "earn" heaven - which is what the religious person is attempting to do. True Christianity - has God doing the saving - and His children partake of that Salvation by grace through faith in the finished and complete work that Jesus Christ - the Lord and Savior accomplished on the cross of Calvary. That is what the Bible teaches and I believe it.

Please tell me what it is about Muhammad that make him your hero?

Thank you.

But how do you know that all those Christians, e.g. in Cromwellian England and Catholicism of the Middle Ages, also didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus? They said their prayers, they went to church, and followed God's teachings as they understood them too (well, as best they could, considering the lack of literacy). A personal relationship with Jesus cannot be seen by someone else, much less someone who lived 400 years later; a personal relationship might be demonstrated by actions and words, but since it is doubtful that you have personal knowledge of someone who was Catholic living in 16th century Spain, you have no basis on which the judge if someone else has a personal relationship with Jesus or not.

I agree with your definition of a Christian, but what I don't understand is not considering a country ruled by Catholics, Lutherans, or Anglicans, etc. to be a Christian nation, when these are Christian organizations no less Christian than an evangelican nondenominational church. Is it just the name that causes you to deny the Christ-centeredness of a church?

I also don't understand why you think that "religious" people are trying to earn their way into Heaven-this is not what Luther and Calvin taught. You after all are a "religious" person, you are believing in God, attend church, and you pray. You believe that you are saved by grace from God. So do most people who go to an Episcopal church, or a Methodist church, etc. So why do you believe yourself saved, and not give someone the benefit of the doubt who faithfully attends a denominational church? Do you believe that only people that you have personally interviewed and answered the questions correctly are saved?

[Snarf]

Reply to you snarf,



Snarf and all,

Oh Yes, I quite disagree...:smile: Firstly, your insinuation above that the 'Bible verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (plus other Old Testament references) "show that 'your God is a god of violence'" :ahem: really reflects a defective and erroneous interpretation of Biblical Christianity.

After the coming of Jesus Christ, ALL the injunctions of the Law - of which the first five Books of the OT signify-including Leviticus and Deuteronomy, plus all the other OT injunctions to 'kill the enemies of God's people' have already been fulfilled or met and set aside by Jesus Christ, as clearly set forth in Romans 10:4 in the Christian Bible - "For Christ is the END of the law.." That is, He has set aside the 'violent injunctions' by His coming.

Then, Jesus himself clearly stated in John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my Kingdom not from hence."

Hence, Jesus Christ Himself in the Christian Bible, has already set aside' and abrogated; since His first Coming, the need for violence and violent action by His followers, the Christians.

Thus, all those 'violent injunctions' you allude to in the OT (old Testament) have already really been dealt with and abrogated by the coming and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Further, Christ Jesus brought a new teaching for all His true disciples that was based on LOVE. This is underscored again by one of His closest disciples, the Apostle John, who enjoins: in 1 John 4:8 - He that loves not knowes not God; for God is love.

And in 1 John 4:16 - And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him. No, the Christian GOD is NOT a God of war and violence!

The kind of teaching enunciated by Jesus Christ is IN STARK CONTRAST with what the Quran and Islam teaches.

Let the Muslim scholars and divines speak up fopr themselves..:


One of Islam's classical reference books, written by a recognized Muslim scholar, deals in great detail with the subject. The title of the book is "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) by Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every chapter in the Quran and points in full detail to every verse that has been canceled and what verse replaced it. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. An example of the abrogation: there are 124 verses that call for tolerance and patience which have been canceled and replaced by this one single verse: "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for - ie.Ambush them in every stratagem of war....." Surah 9:5 (emphasis added).

In other words, the exact OPPOSITE IS TRUE in Islam! The so-called gentle verses in the Quran have ALL BEEN CANCELED OR ABROGATED BY THESE SWORD VERSES..ie.Surah 9 v.5 and 29. The sword verses enjoin :
(1) Fighting and Slaying,
(2) Seizing Pagans (Unbelievers of Islam),
(3) Beleaguring them and
(4) Ambushing them! (See above quranic verse).

The Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim himself states that these sword verses have themselves abrogated 124 OTHER 'gentle or peaceful' Quranic Verses!

What I have just shown is that, it is in the very nature of Islam itself to be violent and aggressive. It enjoins violent expansion of the rule and territorries of Islam and Islamic lands.

The last word on the issue itself in the Quran, requires and calls for such violence in spreading Islam, in fact Muslim scholars themselves admit and teach, that the violent, aggressive and terroristic verses (Sword Verses) of the Quran abrogate the so-called peaceful, gentle ones!

This is the very and exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus Christ and Christianity teaches in reality.

So, snarf, you just got to check your facts properly and more accurately for your own sake!

Rgds, Dan.

Actually, my insinuation was meant to be an inaccuracy (please forgive me if I offended you). But Jesus said
"18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "

Do you believe that the Ten Commandments have been invalidated because of Jesus's coming? (I'm guessing not). If the Ten Commandments are valid, then why not all the rest of the commandments in the O.T?

[Maimonides]

What a bunch of junk. Islam is not tolerant of anything. Try practicing Evangelical Christianity in Saudi Arabia!Tolerant? Neither are you, seemingly. Go dust off that history book; go to the library if you have to, wrap your brain around this one: Muhammad tolerated the Jews and the Christians! That later leaders in the ummah (that's Arabic, means the community of Islamic believers worldwide), have been grossly intolerant I never meant to deny! Obviously you missed that: re-read my post, and you'll find I said I admired the enlightened prophet Muhammad! It was Omar II (in the early eighth century, almost a hundred years after Muhammad), who decided to construe some of Muhammad's words to fit his agenda and expel xians and Jews from the Arabian Peninsula. The origin of my handle, Rabbi Moses ibn Maimon (a Sephardic Jew from Arabic Spain), or Maimonides, grew up in Cairo because his parents fled from Cordoba after the intolerant Almoravids took power in al-Andalus (that's what the Arabs called Spain).

Now, if Muhammad had wanted the Christians and Jews out of Arabia, wouldn't he have implemented that in his lifetime? Yet instead he insisted that all rightly-guided (rashidun if my Arabic serves me aright), religions were on the right track (that includes Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc).

Incidentally, let me make one more key point: Saudi Arabia is a recent political construct dominated by a fundamentalist (i.e. conservative, something the Blessed Prophet was not) sect of Islam called the Wahhabis. Of course they don't allow other faiths! I'm not justifying their decision, it just goes to show how the most noble, esoteric truths of any religion can be distorted to fit an execrable agenda. This is sadly true of both Islam and Christianity.

[Maimonides]

Dear Maimonides:

We obviously define a "Christian" differently. Just to clarify. I define a Christian as someone who has received the Lord Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior (been born-again or saved) and is living their life to His glory and for His glory. Some people who have attended denominational - so-called "Christian" religions are also Christians and some or not. It depends on whether or not they have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. This has been true since Christ came to earth and men started to believe On Him as Messiah.

If men and women are just "religious" - they are no different than Muhammad was or any other religious person. Mankind cannot "earn" heaven - which is what the religious person is attempting to do. True Christianity - has God doing the saving - and His children partake of that Salvation by grace through faith in the finished and complete work that Jesus Christ - the Lord and Savior accomplished on the cross of Calvary. That is what the Bible teaches and I believe it.

Please tell me what it is about Muhammad that make him your hero?

Thank you.
Dear Jude,
Let us start from the start. I wonder how much you think you know about my definition of Christian... let me clarify as that seems to be entirely proper and warranted.

A Christian (as I understand it from the Christian New Testament and my own experience), is one who believes on Christ for salvation, understand as a ransoming from sins by His sacrifice on the crucifix, and of course the logical aftermath: the Resurrection.

As to the dichotomy of faith/works: I would have to say that this has always wonted clarification in my mind (and frankly, the word of fundamentalist clergy I no longer implicitly trust), but I suppose that inner faith should result in changed, right actions, although sadly this is not so due to humanity's fallen condition, or so the argument goes.

Historically, Christianity has undergone many paradigm shifts: the Christological debates in the fourth-sixth centuries, the rise of the papacy, the East/West schism, the Reformation, etc. Different Christians have placed different emphasis on different matters: to Catholics the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and saints are venerated (as I understand it, though never of course worshipped), to Protestants this is heresy (or at least bad), and more emphasis is generally placed on individual action (i.e. no confessionals, less formal baptisms, pastors instead of priests etc. etc.) Let me cut this short and get to the point: Christianity has changed, and it can be thus difficult to establish a concrete picture of what a "Christian" looks like.

I consider myself a Christian. I believe in Jesus as my personal saviour (from sin), and consider myself to have a personal relationship with God, whom I believe I shall join in the afterlife, whatever its character may be (this I consider ineffable and unknowable).

I do not go to church.

I am not an inerrantist.

I accept the authenticity of evolution, though I have serious questions about it.

I believe in the validity of scholarly criticism of the Bible.

I do not believe that all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists etc. are "damned".

I am voting Democrat, not Republican, this November.

And I hold a high opinion of Muhammad as a brilliant visionary who promoted the rights of women and a more equitable society (he limited the number of marriages a man could have, encouraged charity and almsgiving, gave the Arabs a new sense of unity and community, exhorted tolerance of all rightly-guided religions).

So, am I saved? I believe so. My opinions are honest and sincerely held. If anyone can dissuade me, it will be through logic and data rather than emotional appeal and dogma. Certainly I welcome any to try, and engage all who are willing in dialogue. Salaam alaykum to all. :wink:

[Dan Zebiri]

HI Snarf and all,

Well, firstly, I don't think that the 10 Commandments found in the Torah (Decalogue in the first 5 Books of Moses) teach violence, as the Command 'Thou Shalt NOT KILL' itself is already one of the Ten Commandments.

I believe that God gave the 10 Commandments to preserve the Hebrew people and also as a 'school master to lead men to Christ', as Martin Luther has succintly put it.

When Romans 10:4 states that 'Christ is the END of the Law' it means that Christ set aside the requirements of fulfilling the Law as a means for obtaining Salvation, ie.its salvific value has been set aside. For Jesus Christ himself became that means of Salvation for mankind for once and for all. See also Ephesians 2:8-10. I dont believe that anyone is capable of keeping the whole of the 10 Commandments totally and perfectly, except Jesus Christ who was sinless. :teeth:

Nevertheless I did not say that the 10 Commandments must be absolutely abandoned now and is useless! It is useless as far as a means to acheive Salvation is concerned - BUT- we still can use it as a yardstick for good moral behavior and ethics for today, and so it still remains as a good and reliable guide for humanity and its survival.

So now, my model and Example is Jesus Christ, and the new Kingdom that He established thats based on genuine and unconditional LOVE. FOr me, that has abrogated the OT injunctions and commands, thus nullifying their force to be obeyed, as they have been replaced by a much more sublime Law.

But what you seem to be referring to are "OT commandments" which I assume are OUTSIDE of the 10 Commandments, but are other commands by God to 'kill the pagan enemies of the Hebrews' like those given to Joshua etc.

I believe those are different and outside of the 10 Commandments, simply because they were given in specific situations to address specific threats to the Hebrew people and their existence as the distinct people of God elected through Abraham.

Once that particular enemy was dealt with and posed no longer a threat (eg.the Perrizites, Ammonites etc) to the Hebrew people and nation and their worship of the 1 true God Yahweh, then the Jews or Hebrews were to stop from any more killing. Such injunctions to kill as self-defence were to EXHAUSTED, STOPPED and NOT TO BE CONTINUED INDEFINITELY, for ever and without any end in sight. :wink:

This is the opposite in Islamic and Quranic injunctions. As far as the Sword verses are concerned, and I primarily am alluding to THEM. Surah 9:5 and 9:29 are the abrogating texts over all the 'gentle and peaceful' verses in the Quran, and this is confirmd by the Muslim ulamas (scholars/theologians) themselves.

Thus, the injunction to violence and violent struggle -AGAINST NON MUSLIMS is truly and really INHERENT IN ISLAM as they are enjoined by key Quranic verses themselves which were acted upon in the past, are STILL in force TODAY and well into the future!

I was just watching an Interview over BBC with Tariq Ramadhan, a prominent middle-eastern muslim scholar, and he admits in the interview that violence - domestic, political, territorial and terroristic, REMAIN as real problems within Islam, and that such matters are in dire and serious need for reform and reformation, that unless muslims take real concrete measures and action to stem the tide, it will be impossible for Islam to move forward.

So, in a real sense, Tariq Ramadhan has put his finger on the actionable spot. The moderate Muslims MUST arise and engage the radicals fundamentalists in Islam concretely and unequivocally, to challenge these fundmantalists in their hyper-literalism and unbridled radicalism that there is a better and more contemporaneous way to express islam, in keeping with the times and current socio-political norms.

And all this has to be done and accomplished inside the house of Islam.

Your comparison of Islamic violence with OT 'commands' is really invalid, as for Christians, these OT injunctions no longer have imperative, actionable value. Whilst for the muslims, the Sword verses MUST be enforced by all 'true muslims' for all time, because they are the 'Nasikh' ie.the actionable verses for all time, as even their scholars have affirmed! :ahem:

Regards, Dan.




Actually, my insinuation was meant to be an inaccuracy (please forgive me if I offended you). But Jesus said
"18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "

Do you believe that the Ten Commandments have been invalidated because of Jesus's coming? (I'm guessing not). If the Ten Commandments are valid, then why not all the rest of the commandments in the O.T?

[kofh2u]

dan,
The Hebrew word is not "kill" but murder.

This gives a connotation to the commandment that allows for self defense, even pre-emptive defense.

The Christian observation that warring hack and forth doesn't work, doesn't stop was augmented by "Love thy enemy."

Martin Luther King, Jr and Ghanda understood this idea the correct way. It is not blind Quacker pacifism nor unpatriotic objection that Christianity supports, but the possiblity of martrydom in the face of passive resistence by CONFRONTATION.

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), and as the doves (of peace) to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:9 Surely the isles (of the New World) shall wait for me, and
the ships of Tarshish first (from Western Europe), to bring thy sons (of Abraham) from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD, (Christ) thy God, (the Word of scripture), and to the Holy One of Israel, (Jesus), because he hath glorified thee (in Christianity).

Isa. 60:10 And the sons of strangers (from the Americas) shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister peace unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee (in Holocaust), but in my favour (restoring my chosen to Israel) have I had mercy on thee.

Isa. 60:11 Therefore thy gates, (O'Promised Land), shall be open
continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring
(as tourists) unto thee the forces of the (rich Christian) Gentiles, and
that their kings may be brought (supporting your sovereignty).

[Snarf]

HI Snarf and all,

Well, firstly, I don't think that the 10 Commandments found in the Torah (Decalogue in the first 5 Books of Moses) teach violence, as the Command 'Thou Shalt NOT KILL' itself is already one of the Ten Commandments.

I believe that God gave the 10 Commandments to preserve the Hebrew people and also as a 'school master to lead men to Christ', as Martin Luther has succintly put it.

When Romans 10:4 states that 'Christ is the END of the Law' it means that Christ set aside the requirements of fulfilling the Law as a means for obtaining Salvation, ie.its salvific value has been set aside. For Jesus Christ himself became that means of Salvation for mankind for once and for all. See also Ephesians 2:8-10. I dont believe that anyone is capable of keeping the whole of the 10 Commandments totally and perfectly, except Jesus Christ who was sinless. :teeth:

Nevertheless I did not say that the 10 Commandments must be absolutely abandoned now and is useless! It is useless as far as a means to acheive Salvation is concerned - BUT- we still can use it as a yardstick for good moral behavior and ethics for today, and so it still remains as a good and reliable guide for humanity and its survival.

So now, my model and Example is Jesus Christ, and the new Kingdom that He established thats based on genuine and unconditional LOVE. FOr me, that has abrogated the OT injunctions and commands, thus nullifying their force to be obeyed, as they have been replaced by a much more sublime Law.

But what you seem to be referring to are "OT commandments" which I assume are OUTSIDE of the 10 Commandments, but are other commands by God to 'kill the pagan enemies of the Hebrews' like those given to Joshua etc.

I believe those are different and outside of the 10 Commandments, simply because they were given in specific situations to address specific threats to the Hebrew people and their existence as the distinct people of God elected through Abraham.



Examples of commands from a loving God:

Leviticus 20
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



Leviticus 20
10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.



Lev. 24
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

These are your yardsticks for good, moral behavior? The first two are not given in specific examples for how to deal a particular enemy, they are commanded as general principle. Since conservative Christians believe that ALL of the Bible is inerrant, then these commands are as much God's word as "turn the other cheek." Even in lesser incidents, there are those who beat their children quoting "spare the rod and spoil the child."

My point is not to attack the Bible, but to point out that it's very easy to pull a few verses from the Koran or the Bible and give them meaning that only a fanatic minority gives them. Most Muslims that I know don't go around saying "kill the infidel."

[Jude3b]

People,

The relevant Topic in THIS Trhead is : Don't Islamic Terrorist clearly show that their religion is a false and cultic? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=728258#post728258) - see Above!

I have also shown you the relevant verses FROM the Quran about how it really approves and endorses violent attacks and warring upon the non-Muslims by Muslims if non-Muslims choose not to accept Islam!

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God, He will not allow their works to perish. ... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them." (47:4-6)
"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him. ... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan ..." (4:74,76)
"The believers who stay at home––apart from those that suffer a grave impediment––are not the equals of those who fight for the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home ..." (4:95,96)
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. ... lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way ..." (9:5)
"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them ..." (5:34,35)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme" (8:39)
"Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding." (8:65)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given ... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (9:29)
The Qur’an contains scores of similar verses.

And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! :ahem:

How can Islam be truly a peaceful religion if the Quran itself enjoins such violence and terrorism?

I am still looking for an answer from some Muslim about this! Do not try to be funny and try to side track from the real issue! :ahem:

Regards, Dan Zebiri.

Dear Dan:

Thank you for bringing this thread back to message. What you posted is awesome and scary. It explains a lot about the nature of the Islamist attitude towards everyone else and especially the United States of America.

How can President Bush call it "a religion of Peace?" Obviously he has not studied the Koran as you have.

One last question, does the Koran use the word GOD or the word ALLAH?

Thank you.

[Dan Zebiri]

Dear Jude,

Many thanks for your precise comments. Yes, thats the reality of Islamic militancy and fundamentalism, which is QUITE different from Christian fundamentalism. Unfortunately there are some who wish to live in un-reality but may later on pay a high price for it.

Why did Pres.Bush have to state that abot Islam..? Well, he was only making a politically correct statement as the President and a politician of a country. It is as some woud say, a "job hazard" and comes with the territory that such officials of State have to make politically correct statements-for the sake of Diplomacy etc..

Your next question, the Quran uses the word Allah in the arabic text of the Quran. In some translations of the English, they have substituted it with 'God'. It means 'the one true God'. "Allah" was already in wide circulation before the birth of Islam and/or Muhammad. His foather's own name was 'Abdullah' which means 'servant of Allah'.

The eastern Churches, in the middle-east especially, also had been using "Allah" for 'God' in their arabic-language Bibles. It is not an Islamic word, per se, becos it was already in use before the existence and arrival of the Islamic religion. Christians have already been using that word hundreds of years before Muhammad tried using it! :wink:


Dear Dan:

Thank you for bringing this thread back to message. What you posted is awesome and scary. It explains a lot about the nature of the Islamist attitude towards everyone else and especially the United States of America.

How can President Bush call it "a religion of Peace?" Obviously he has not studied the Koran as you have.

One last question, does the Koran use the word GOD or the word ALLAH?

Thank you.
You're most welcome, Jude!

To snarf,

You seem to reflect a defective understanding of Biblical interpretation and exegesis, my friend! Even though as you postulate, that 'conservatives believe that the whole Bible is inerrant' but you fail miserably to properly exegete and interprete the Old Testament, according to the simple, basic rules of Biblical Interpretation. You have failed to interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, which is a basic, fundamental principle of Biblical Exegesis & Interpretation! :sigh:

This shows me that you may not be a Christian at all.

Like I said, It was Jesus Christ Who had already fulfilled the Law and Old Testament requirements totally. So, as Romans 10 stated, Christ is the END of the Law for the believers, He had set aside its commands as a rule of life for us, we are not required to follow the harsh penal commandments set out in those verses you displayed!

We follow a higher and more sublime Law that Christ Jesus enunciated in His New Covenant with His disciples for all eternity, one that is based on the true Love of God, which Jesus Himself exemplified.

So, your insistence on the Levitical verses you gave is not only redundant, but are also very irrelevant for Christians. You are just flogging a dead horse, unfortunately, my misguided friend..! :ahem:

We do not have to follow any violence and persecution to practise Christianity, absolutely!

The very OPPOSITE is true for Islam, however! Based on all the Sword verses shown to you from the Quran, they are the inspiration and driving force behind Muslims who are willing to die for the Islamic cause.

I am supported by muslim scholars who also agree to what I say, just go to this URL, where an Ulama, a Professor from Cairo University, who is complaining that the Al-Azhar University - the most prestigious Islamic university in the world, is teaching and promoting and extremist and terroristic Curriculum for its students:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP79004 (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP79004)

Snarf, you try to claim that its only a so-called 'fanatical minority of muslims' who adhere to the extremist islamist agenda, this Article proves you wrong, my friend :smile:.

As a matter of fact, (not fiction), I live in the midst of a muslim majority society which routinely and regularly persecutes, threatens and also kills non-muslims. Who have they killed - Christians mainly, but also Buddhists too..:bonk: so dont come and tell me that its only the minority of muslimswho kills the Christians..they do that with impunity and with the tacit approval of the muslim dominated government who close their eyes and look the other way!

So I know the real practices of muslims but I dont think that you do, fully.

Thats the reality of it, snarf, pull your head from out of the ground, and don't be an deliberate ignoramus living in denial mode...:ahem: there will be sad consequences always...

Regards, Dan.

[Jude3b]

Dear Dan:

Thank you for your post again and for that link you provided. I read it. Kind of reads like parts of the Koran - doesn't it.

It appears to me that Muslims - who are really Muslims and thereby really believe their so-called "Holy Book" - the Koran - would be obligated by their very religious belief to act in the evil way that many of them do - like the Osama Bin Ladens and the Taliban types.

Where do you live?

[Snarf]

To snarf,

You seem to reflect a defective understanding of Biblical interpretation and exegesis, my friend! Even though as you postulate, that 'conservatives believe that the whole Bible is inerrant' but you fail miserably to properly exegete and interprete the Old Testament, according to the simple, basic rules of Biblical Interpretation. You have failed to interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, which is a basic, fundamental principle of Biblical Exegesis & Interpretation! :sigh:

Snarf, you try to claim that its only a so-called 'fanatical minority of muslims' who adhere to the extremist islamist agenda, this Article proves you wrong, my friend :smile:.


Regards, Dan.

Please explain how you interpret the verse
"13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. "

This is a simple command; What part of "They must be put to death" do you not understand?

This requires no complicated exegesis; the God of the Bible told his followers to kill people as punishment for certain actions. Does interpreting it in the light of the New testament mean that the word "kill" does not really mean "kill?" By what rule of biblical interpretation does "put to death" not mean "put to death?" How does one reinterpret it so that God was not the author of the command? Why is it so hard to admit that God ordered His followers to kill people, when it is the truth? To say otherwise, or to say that those are not God's words, is dishonest. One can honestly say that those commands don't apply to us for some cultural reason, or some religious reason, but neither cancels out the fact that God commanded his followers to kill others. While the law ceases to have salvific value, not one apostle, or Jesus, ever said that the laws to kill have ceased to be God's commands.

BTW, one's status as a Christian does not stand or fall on how one interprets the Bible; it stands or falls on how one views JESUS. John 3:16 does not say "that whosoever believes in Him and interprets Ecclesiates correctly shall have eternal life."

Regarding Muslims, I appreciate that you live in a dangerous place. However, according to your logic, that Koran-following Muslims must attack and kill infidels, is not borne out by the behavior of the millions of Koran-following Muslims in the US and Western Europe. Since they are following the Koran's commands, then according to your logic they should all be forming militias and storming the gates of every church and synagogue in sight. Since clearly they are not, then one is left to wonder if they are really following the Koran, because one Christian named Dan says that all Muslims must slay infidels like maniacs, or if they might not have a better understanding of their own holy book than the Christian named Dan. I don't doubt that there are many Muslims who believe in this holy war; this is how Osama gets his followers. But just because some Muslims say it does not mean that it represents the proper interpretation of the Koran anymore than Paul Hill spoke for all Christians when he advocated killing abortion doctors.

What I suspect is that you have genuine dislike for Islam, and will find any warped view of it to support your case, in the same way that creationists post warped views of the theory of evolution. It is because of your bias that makes it very hard to put any credence to your logic, in addition to the fact that millions of Muslims don't seem to be behaving in the manner which you describe as being proper Islam.

[Dan Zebiri]

Evidently, you snarf are truly living in a imgainary world of unreality, when you try to force your truly presumptious construct upon the Christians regarding your claims about Leviticus, specifically, homosexual practice and behavior and the likes of them.
When have Christians ever enforced that 'command' from Leviticus?? of "putting them to death" today? Never! Thats because since the coming of Jesus Christ, Who has already set aside these kind of commands - Romans 10:4, Christians no longer practise them. Jesus Himself set the precedent, in John 8 : 1-12, when He Himself set aside the commands in the Old Testament of stoning for the sin of Adultery, and refused her 'prosecutors' calls to stone the adulterous woman - which was the prescribed punishment from the Levitical Laws, He only told her this :

"Woman, where are they (her 'prosecutors')? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU; go, AND DO NOT SIN AGAIN. "

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

It is not merely to some 'cultural mores' as you try to suggest, that such capital punishments are no longer practised in the Christian world today. It has a much more radical and revolutionary cause behind it that began with the coming of Christ Jesus. With Jesus' New Covenant (see Luke 22:20 - And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.) that is in force today for all His disciples,

On the other hand, just about 2-3 years ago, international Media highlighted a number of celebrated cases of Adultery in Muslim States in some parts of Africa, where some Black Muslim women were condemned to be stoned to death according to Islamic shariah laws. At least in one case, the woman's punishment of death by stoning was hanging over her head because she was pregnant (due to her alleged adultery), and her stoning to death would be administered only after she had given birth to the child! In the meantime, international outcry had come to her defence in that she may have not been a willing partner in the alleged act. Finally after much appeal and media exposure, the muslim judges let her 'case off the hook', BUT who knows the hundreds of such cases that already went by unnoticed in such states because the media failed to bring them to public outcry ad opinion!
Snarf, you also conveniently ignored the MEMRI news report about the continued teaching and propogation of Islamic terrorism in the link I provided you with. These are the words straight 'from the horses' mouth' ie.the Muslim educators and learned Ulamas themselves who teach and train thousands of muslim undrgrads at Al-Azhar University.

The call to violence is not only explicit, but urgent and obligatory for ALL Muslim men today, as it was centuries ago, when the Hanafi Manual of Al-Ikhtiyar fi Ta'lil Al-Mukhtar was the standard textbook for all these Muslim students to study and apply. This manual is just a logical exposition of all the Verses of violence that the Quran contains, which are far, far more numerous and extensive than in the Bible.

Let Professor Sayyed al-Qimmi be your expositor and commentator, for he himself is calling for the abandonment for such violent and archaic injunctions in Islam, the BIG question is, will he succeed? :

Progressive writer and Cairo University lecturer on the sociology of religion Sayyed Al-Qimni wrote, in an article in the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Youssef, that the curricula of Al-Azhar University encourage extremism and terror.

This is because a book of the Hanafi school of thought, ' Al-Ikhtiyar fi Ta'lil Al-Mukhtar ' by Abdallah Ibn Mahmoud Al-Mawsily, teaches the next generation of Muslim students (and they themselves will be teachers of other Muslim masses) that :

1] 'the war against the infidels is an obligation of all intelligent, healthy, free, and able men

2] when the Muslims besiege their enemies in a town or a fortress, they must call upon them to convert to Islam.

3] If they convert, [the Muslims] must cease fighting them, and if they do not convert, they must call upon them to pay the jizya [poll tax].

4] If they refuse to pay the jizya, the Muslims must call upon Allah's help in the war against them, to erect catapults, to destroy their fields and their trees, to burn them, and to pelt them [with catapult stones], even if [the enemies] use Muslims as a human shield.'

Guidelines

'When the imam conquers a country by force, if he so desires – he will divide it among those taking the spoils, [and] if he so desires – he will have to :

1] execute the prisoners,

2] subjugate them,

3] or leave them under the patronage of the Muslims.

4] Moreover, if he wishes to return to the country and has livestock, which he cannot take with him, he will slaughter and burn it.'

On this matter there are guidelines in ' Al-Rawdh Al-Murabba Sharh Zad Al-Mustaqna ' by Mansur Ibn Yunes Al-Buhuti through which one can see what the position of an Al-Azhar graduate will be towards the non-Muslims brother in the Arab Muslim nation :

a) The [hair] on their foreheads must be cut,

b) They are permitted to ride [mounts] other than horses, such as donkeys, without a saddle…,

c) [One] must not rise in their honor or precede them in greetings,

d) [One] must not offer them condolences, visit them in sickness or participate in their celebrations.

e) They are forbidden to establish new churches or to rebuild those that were destroyed…,

f) They are forbidden to build a structure higher than those belonging to Muslims,

g) If a dhimmi (non-muslim) invites a Muslim to a wedding celebration, he must not go, 'because one must degrade dhimmis',

h) If someone of the People of the Book, [4] the dhimmi, avoids paying the jizya – his life and his property are permissible.

i) If [the dhimmi ] kills a Muslim, he must be killed, but if a Muslim kills him – the Muslim is not to be killed, but must pay blood money

j) the blood money for [the killing of] a dhimmi is half the blood money for [the killing of] a Muslim. The height of justice.

THIS is the reality, as spelled out by Islam itself, I do NOT HATE Muslims, the very opposite is true! But we cannot afford to ignore the real violence and terror that comes from within Islam itself. Wake up, snarf!

Dan Z.

[Maimonides]

Well, at least the Infidels find this thread quite amusing- I posted it over there. So I suppose it wasn't all bad.
Go Infidels! If this thread gets any funnier, maybe we'll have a mass influx of them(us)!

[Maimonides]

dan,
The Hebrew word is not "kill" but murder.

This gives a connotation to the commandment that allows for self defense, even pre-emptive defense.

The Christian observation that warring hack and forth doesn't work, doesn't stop was augmented by "Love thy enemy."

Martin Luther King, Jr and Ghanda understood this idea the correct way. It is not blind Quacker pacifism nor unpatriotic objection that Christianity supports, but the possiblity of martrydom in the face of passive resistence by CONFRONTATION.

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), and as the doves (of peace) to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:9 Surely the isles (of the New World) shall wait for me, and
the ships of Tarshish first (from Western Europe), to bring thy sons (of Abraham) from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD, (Christ) thy God, (the Word of scripture), and to the Holy One of Israel, (Jesus), because he hath glorified thee (in Christianity).

Isa. 60:10 And the sons of strangers (from the Americas) shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister peace unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee (in Holocaust), but in my favour (restoring my chosen to Israel) have I had mercy on thee.

Isa. 60:11 Therefore thy gates, (O'Promised Land), shall be open
continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring
(as tourists) unto thee the forces of the (rich Christian) Gentiles, and
that their kings may be brought (supporting your sovereignty).
I love your interpretation of Christian values, but I must ask about your interpretation of Isaiah: where did you obtain these eschatological, prophetic interpretations?

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi Jude, Snarf, Maimoides and all...

Dear Dan:

Thank you for your post again and for that link you provided. I read it. Kind of reads like parts of the Koran - doesn't it.

Well, all these Islamic instructional manuals merely expound on what is found in the Koran itself - which is the very source for such violent, terroristic and chauvinistic practices. What else can they do - other than just elaborate on whats already found there in the Koran...:smile: ! Its worth showing the URL again:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP79004

It appears to me that Muslims - who are really Muslims and thereby really believe their so-called "Holy Book" - the Koran - would be obligated by their very religious belief to act in the evil way that many of them do - like the Osama Bin Ladens and the Taliban types.

Where do you live?
But Of course..! What else do Muslim divines and ulamak like Imam Abu Hanifa write his manual for?? And is further elaborated by other Mainstream islamic scholars eg. manuals like the Al-Ikhtiyar fi Ta'lil Al-Mukhtar..?

It is standard and orthodox Islam we are seeing here, expounded and taught at al-Azhar university, not some aberrant, fringe form of terroristic Islam, but normal Islam as practised since Day 1 and even taught right through the 21st Century-today!

I live..?? Somewhere in Asia, but I don't think I need to specify where exactly because of security reasons :ahem: !

Maimonides shallow sceptism gets him nowhere anyway, as this is not a laughing matter for Progressive writer and Cairo University lecturer on the sociology of religion Proffessor Sayyed Al-Qimni.

Comments and Question to snarf:

Unfortunately, your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Biblical Christianity about those Leviticus and so-called 'violent Old Testament verses' lends you even less credence, as mainstream orthodox Christians today, dont practise the kind of violent injunctions in the Quran (the Sword verses) and those expounded in Al-Ikhtiyar fi Ta'lil Al-Mukhtar ' Abdallah Ibn Mahmoud Al-Mawsily] as well as those propounded in Al-Rawdh Al-Murabba Sharh Zad Al-Mustaqna ' by Mansur Ibn Yunes Al-Buhuti - all mainstream Sunni Muslim ulamas.

In orthodox Islam, Islam defines itself and the muslims it controls as being in the realm called Darul Islam, whereas the non-muslim peoples are in an area or territory called Darul Harb.

What does 'harb' mean? According to the Arabic Dictionary Ghiyasu 'l-Lughat, Daru 'l-harb is "a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam". Darul harb literally means 'the House of WAR' amd its inhabitants are called in Islam as HARBIs ie.people who can be attacked (ie.waged war against) for subjugation.

This is also confirmed by the Hughes Dictionary of Islam here:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Hughes/d.htm#DARU 'L-HARB

Tell us, snarf, Why is there nothing that is equivalent to this Islamic concept and definition in orthodox, mainstream Christianity?

Why are there no equivalent manuals of war, and subjugation like the ones mentioned above in mainstream Christianity?

Think on that before you attempt and answer or reply, if you can, my friend.

Regards, Dan Z.

[Maimonides]

Hi Jude, Snarf, Maimoides and all...


But Of course..! What else do Muslim divines and ulamak like Imam Abu Hanifa write his manual for?? And is further elaborated by other Mainstream islamic scholars eg. manuals like the Al-Ikhtiyar fi Ta'lil Al-Mukhtar..?

It is standard and orthodox Islam we are seeing here, expounded and taught at al-Azhar university, not some aberrant, fringe form of terroristic Islam, but normal Islam as practised since Day 1
Maimonides shallow sceptism gets him nowhere anyway, as this is not a laughing matter for Progressive writer and Cairo University lecturer on the sociology of religion Proffessor Sayyed Al-Qimni.


For somebody who lives in Asia I am astounded at your (apparent) lack of understanding of Islamic history. If this is "shallow" scepticism tell me now, of course.

Certainly this is no laughing matter; I for one never meant to imply that it was. Probably before this is over I will have to learn Arabic so that I may read the Qu'ran in its entirety; translation into English leaves it sadly bastardized. Frankly the word of Christians with large axes to grind against Muslims I do not implicitly trust; I freely admit this and admit also that I will have to do more research on the matter.

Several points right now, however:

1) Christianity doesn't need any "manuals of war", my friend, Christians have shown themselves as capable as any (or more so), of inflicting cruelty on others, as I have re-iterated time and again (but perhaps not enough). My "shallow scepticism" as you so memorably put it, is toward Christians with GIGANTIC theological axes to grind. I put more stock in what you have to say about Islam, though, because you claim to have first-hand knowledge of it (I live in an area with few Muslims).

2) Concerning Islam, my reading of the current situation is of a religion at a crucial point in its evolution, one struggling to see its way ahead. Christianity had its own Dark Age (in Europe, obviously), and emerged. So must Islam emerge from the dark night and the shadow of European colonialism. I'm sure you know your world history well enough to agree that modernity has been a disorienting and dislocating experience for the Islamic world (and the rest of the world), far more so than for Europe and America (surely, living in Asia?). So an Islamic Dark Age... how much, my friend, do you know about "Classical" (actually medieval), Islam? That is, Islam before the Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century and the seizure of power by Georgian and Circassian Mameluke slave-soldiers in Egypt before their 1517 defeat and partial subsumation by the Ottoman Turks?

3) If Christianity and Islam are to be evaluated equally we are not in a fair position to do this now (if ever). Their circumstances are far too disparate; Islam is still struggling with the legacy of colonialism already mentioned, while Christianity was (and is), the colonizer.

4) As to "rote practice" mentioned somewhere on this thread in regards to Islam, what about similar behaviourisms of Christians? Going to church mechanically, fretting over iniquity real or imagined, stock prayers, bible anecdotes as "cure all" answers... This is no SHALLOW scepticism, my friend, as I have witnessed this myself due to a lifetime spent around Christians (and far too much of that in church). Don't by any means get me wrong: many Christians are wonderful people to which the above simply could not apply. My point in summation is that all have their faults and foibles, irrespective of religious predilection.

Correct my shallowness, O Learned One. My scepticism runs deep against inerrantist, bible-thumping Christians and continues to remain...

[Pitiricus]

I don't see colonialism as the problem of the muslim world, nor do I see a Golden Age... The Golden Age existed in spite of Islam and because Arab Islam had conquered civilizations it plundered... What ypou call colonialism was the payuback for 1000 years of Islamic conquests...[/quote]

Pitiricus, you have made clear in previous posts of yours that you are an agnostic Jew. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists, though exceptions may be granted within the moderator's discretion that keep to the spirit of the comparative religions department. And this post does not meet those criteria.

Atheists (and Agnostics) are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

[Snarf]

Evidently, you snarf are truly living in a imgainary world of unreality, when you try to force your truly presumptious construct upon the Christians regarding your claims about Leviticus, specifically, homosexual practice and behavior and the likes of them.
When have Christians ever enforced that 'command' from Leviticus?? of "putting them to death" today? Never! Thats because since the coming of Jesus Christ, Who has already set aside these kind of commands - Romans 10:4, Christians no longer practise them. Jesus Himself set the precedent, in John 8 : 1-12, when He Himself set aside the commands in the Old Testament of stoning for the sin of Adultery, and refused her 'prosecutors' calls to stone the adulterous woman - which was the prescribed punishment from the Levitical Laws, He only told her this :

"Woman, where are they (her 'prosecutors')? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU; go, AND DO NOT SIN AGAIN. "

12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

It is not merely to some 'cultural mores' as you try to suggest, that such capital punishments are no longer practised in the Christian world today. It has a much more radical and revolutionary cause behind it that began with the coming of Christ Jesus. With Jesus' New Covenant (see Luke 22:20 - And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.) that is in force today for all His disciples,


Jesus as God is the one who told the author of Leviticus to kill the evil ones, not I (or do you deny that Jesus is the same God who told the authors of Leviticus to kill the adulterers?) Jesus also said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to complete it and that the law will remain unchanged until heaven and earth pass away. Since Jesus wrote the laws, and never said that that they were rescinded, they are still part of the Bible that you probably call inerrant.

there's a more important reason why Christians do not practice such punishments today: we have a society in the US in which laws are not allowed to be based on religion. However, in countries ruled by Christian theocracies the death penalty was used for a wide variety of punishments
(do the Salem witch trials ring a bell?) The Reverend Cotton Mather, an early Reformed theologian, led his church in celebration after the massacre of native americans, being happy that 500 more souls were going to hell. Even in our more civilized society, the lies and paranoia spread by the Christian Right about gays are quite evident (like James Dobson constantly predicting the end of families if gays are allowed to get married). I have little doubt that, if given their way, many Christians would put into practice their most violent desires if they had the power to do so.

Regarding Muslims, you are the one saying that Muslims have a religious duty to kill. My question for you is simple: why are so many Muslims, who study the Koran, living in peace amongst us here in the US and in Europe? Why aren't they attacking us on sight, as you insist they must? You are the one insisting that all Muslims want (or should want) to kill all infidels? Well, there is a great discrepancy between the behavior of millions of peaceful Muslims, and your portrayal of them as followers of a murderous belief. I want to hear your explanation.

[Jude3b]

Jesus as God is the one who told the author of Leviticus to kill the evil ones, not I (or do you deny that Jesus is the same God who told the authors of Leviticus to kill the adulterers?) Jesus also said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to complete it and that the law will remain unchanged until heaven and earth pass away. Since Jesus wrote the laws, and never said that that they were rescinded, they are still part of the Bible that you probably call inerrant.

there's a more important reason why Christians do not practice such punishments today: we have a society in the US in which laws are not allowed to be based on religion. However, in countries ruled by Christian theocracies the death penalty was used for a wide variety of punishments
(do the Salem witch trials ring a bell?) The Reverend Cotton Mather, an early Reformed theologian, led his church in celebration after the massacre of native americans, being happy that 500 more souls were going to hell. Even in our more civilized society, the lies and paranoia spread by the Christian Right about gays are quite evident (like James Dobson constantly predicting the end of families if gays are allowed to get married). I have little doubt that, if given their way, many Christians would put into practice their most violent desires if they had the power to do so.

Regarding Muslims, you are the one saying that Muslims have a religious duty to kill. My question for you is simple: why are so many Muslims, who study the Koran, living in peace amongst us here in the US and in Europe? Why aren't they attacking us on sight, as you insist they must? You are the one insisting that all Muslims want (or should want) to kill all infidels? Well, there is a great discrepancy between the behavior of millions of peaceful Muslims, and your portrayal of them as followers of a murderous belief. I want to hear your explanation.

YOUR QUESTION IS- WHY ARE SO MANY MUSLIMS, WHO STUDY THE KORAN, LIVING IN PEACE AMONGST US HERE IN THE US AND IN EUROPE?

This is speculation on my part - but I would assume that they would be considered "Liberal" - not taking the Koran as literally as the "Fundamentalist" Muslim who is out to conquer the world and convert everyone to Islam, by whatever means necessary. Another reason they might be peaceful - besides being a Liberal Muslim - is that they enjoy the democratic freedoms and opportunities that exist in the USA and Europe that would not exist back in Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Northern Nigeria, etc. etc. and they want to go on living and enjoying their freedom here.

What is your opinion of the reasons they live here and in Europe in a peaceful manner - when their Koran would tell them to slay the Infidel - which is most of the people living in the USA and Europe (from the Muslim perspective)???

[Dan Zebiri]

Snarf and all,

You are either as ignorant or wilfully arrogant as ever in the light of your question:

"Regarding Muslims, you are the one saying that Muslims have a religious duty to kill. My question for you is simple: why are so many Muslims, who study the Koran, living in peace amongst us here in the US and in Europe? Why aren't they attacking us on sight, as you insist they must? You are the one insisting that all Muslims want (or should want) to kill all infidels? Well, there is a great discrepancy between the behavior of millions of peaceful Muslims, and your portrayal of them as followers of a murderous belief. I want to hear your explanation."

I have given you the Link to MEMRI's archive of a Egyption Weekly Roz Al-Youssef, in which a muslim professor described as 'progressive' , from Cairo University, denounces muslim fundementalist acadamics for continuing to teach 'violent, extremist curricula like' War, Subjugation of subdued peoples, intolerance of differing beliefs and faiths, etc - all of which proceed from ancient Orthodox Islamic Sunni theologians themselves like the Muslim Hanafi's school Abdallah Ibn Mahmoud Al-Mawsily and Mansur Ibn Yunes Al-Buhuti manuals and handbooks for Muslims for today's Muslism to live by.

Your accusation by saying 'your insistence' and 'your portrayal' is false and really is a lame attempt to put words in my mouth, when I was not making the claims at all as I was only quoting the facts from MEMRI and the Weekly's Report as proof of the 'murderous belief' as you put it. For the second time, you snarf, conveniently ignored the FACTS about Islamic endemic violence in the Link that I had posted. I like to hear your explanation for the facts discussed therein.

Here, go through it again, and tell us what part of Islamic violence and intolerance don't you understand, when these facts originate from Muslims and Islam itself :

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP79004

Prove to us that these are not authentic Islamic sources and Manuals, and they're not being taught today at Al-Azhar, as they were since their composition. That the Sword verses are not in the Quran, and if they are, already abrogated. I rest my case.

Dan Z.

Jesus as God is the one who told the author of Leviticus to kill the evil ones, not I (or do you deny that Jesus is the same God who told the authors of Leviticus to kill the adulterers?) Jesus also said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to complete it and that the law will remain unchanged until heaven and earth pass away. Since Jesus wrote the laws, and never said that that they were rescinded, they are still part of the Bible that you probably call inerrant.

there's a more important reason why Christians do not practice such punishments today: we have a society in the US in which laws are not allowed to be based on religion. However, in countries ruled by Christian theocracies the death penalty was used for a wide variety of punishments
(do the Salem witch trials ring a bell?) The Reverend Cotton Mather, an early Reformed theologian, led his church in celebration after the massacre of native americans, being happy that 500 more souls were going to hell. Even in our more civilized society, the lies and paranoia spread by the Christian Right about gays are quite evident (like James Dobson constantly predicting the end of families if gays are allowed to get married). I have little doubt that, if given their way, many Christians would put into practice their most violent desires if they had the power to do so.

Regarding Muslims, you are the one saying that Muslims have a religious duty to kill. My question for you is simple: why are so many Muslims, who study the Koran, living in peace amongst us here in the US and in Europe? Why aren't they attacking us on sight, as you insist they must? You are the one insisting that all Muslims want (or should want) to kill all infidels? Well, there is a great discrepancy between the behavior of millions of peaceful Muslims, and your portrayal of them as followers of a murderous belief. I want to hear your explanation.

[Maimonides]

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?

Lastly, what will be the future of the Muslim people and this religion that is so intolerant that it will for the most part not even allow any other point of view or allow Christian missionaries to operate in most of their countries. If they keep on killing and murdering - won't the entire world have to rise up against them eventually and wipe them out - to neutralize them - before they try to kill everyone off, who is not a Muslim or refuses to become one?
I'm going to shoot off my gun one more time by going straight to the source. In order to demonstrate the aptness of my motto: "We are our history. Nothing ever changes." I would like to assign to you (Jude) and anyone else a small homework assignment: go watch Hidalgo starring Viggo Mortensen.

The point is actually concerned less with Islam than with our attitudes. Consider this:

In 1492 the indigenous population of Hispaniola was about eight million. Disease, massacre, and horrific torture and abuse at the hands of the invading Spanish brought to effectual extinction by 1535. That's a paltry forty-three years. But Hispaniola, alas, was only the beginning...

In 1519 the population of central Mexico stood at about twenty-five million. By 1595 it was down below 1,300,000. That's a paltry seventy-six years.

In 1769 the population of my home state of California was about 310,000. By 1850 we were down perhaps a hundred thousand or more. My home state has a despicable history (I am utterly ashamed to say), of extirpation and extermination: indigenous people were massacred by miners, enslaved, and hunted for sport/bounty.

Now, at last, the point: how was this execrable genocide carried out? What kind of people would do this?

The answer: Christians. Christianity served as the justification for monstrous horrors; Native Americans were "pagans" who had to be subdued and "civilized" so that they could be Christianized. And the misdeeds, which would fill thousands upon thousands of blood-soaked pages of a ravaged and savaged humanity, were not by any means endemic to the Catholic Spaniards. Protestant America had its share aplenty.

Now, watching Hidalgo, tell me honestly that the popular attitudes/actions of whites in 1890 (and preceding centuries, and in some places still today), toward Native Americans have not been transferred in recent decades, first to the Southeast Asians (I give you the chaos of the Vietnam war), and hence to the world of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa? Like the Native Americans, this group of "Indians" has its share of Little Bighorns and the like. And of course, we go over there and "civilize" them. We "have" to, according to you; we must rise up against them and save them from themselves, seemingly. I say this not solely to upbraid (and never merely to abrade), but rather as an exhortation: examine your attitudes, their causes, and their potential effects. Realize to what end they may be put; historically the easiest way to get a lot of principled people to do something very unprincipled is to wind 'em up and point. That was true in Columbus's time and it's still true today.

Salaam alaykum (that's Arabic, yes; means 'peace be with you'), ~Maimonides.

[Maimonides]

Jesus as God is the one who told the author of Leviticus to kill the evil ones, not I (or do you deny that Jesus is the same God who told the authors of Leviticus to kill the adulterers?) Jesus also said that He did not come to destroy the law, but to complete it and that the law will remain unchanged until heaven and earth pass away. Since Jesus wrote the laws, and never said that that they were rescinded, they are still part of the Bible that you probably call inerrant.

there's a more important reason why Christians do not practice such punishments today: we have a society in the US in which laws are not allowed to be based on religion. However, in countries ruled by Christian theocracies the death penalty was used for a wide variety of punishments
(do the Salem witch trials ring a bell?) The Reverend Cotton Mather, an early Reformed theologian, led his church in celebration after the massacre of native americans, being happy that 500 more souls were going to hell. Even in our more civilized society, the lies and paranoia spread by the Christian Right about gays are quite evident (like James Dobson constantly predicting the end of families if gays are allowed to get married). I have little doubt that, if given their way, many Christians would put into practice their most violent desires if they had the power to do so.

Regarding Muslims, you are the one saying that Muslims have a religious duty to kill. My question for you is simple: why are so many Muslims, who study the Koran, living in peace amongst us here in the US and in Europe? Why aren't they attacking us on sight, as you insist they must? You are the one insisting that all Muslims want (or should want) to kill all infidels? Well, there is a great discrepancy between the behavior of millions of peaceful Muslims, and your portrayal of them as followers of a murderous belief. I want to hear your explanation.
I agree with you, although I see I will have to do much more research about Islam... see my post above as regards the Native Americans. Cotton Mather was quite a character; just goes to show. Your insight on the Christian Right is piercing, by the way; also disturbing is the campaign of misinformation they've launched: YEC and their own version of the events that marked America's birth. I tell you, I find it sickening.

[Snarf]

Snarf and all,

You are either as ignorant or wilfully arrogant as ever in the light of your question:

"Regarding Muslims, you are the one saying that Muslims have a religious duty to kill. My question for you is simple: why are so many Muslims, who study the Koran, living in peace amongst us here in the US and in Europe? Why aren't they attacking us on sight, as you insist they must? You are the one insisting that all Muslims want (or should want) to kill all infidels? Well, there is a great discrepancy between the behavior of millions of peaceful Muslims, and your portrayal of them as followers of a murderous belief. I want to hear your explanation."

I have given you the Link to MEMRI's archive of a Egyption Weekly Roz Al-Youssef, in which a muslim professor described as 'progressive' , from Cairo University, denounces muslim fundementalist acadamics for continuing to teach 'violent, extremist curricula like' War, Subjugation of subdued peoples, intolerance of differing beliefs and faiths, etc - all of which proceed from ancient Orthodox Islamic Sunni theologians themselves like the Muslim Hanafi's school Abdallah Ibn Mahmoud Al-Mawsily and Mansur Ibn Yunes Al-Buhuti manuals and handbooks for Muslims for today's Muslism to live by.

That does not answer my question. Jude's answer was a good one and I thank him for it. What's yours?


Your accusation by saying 'your insistence' and 'your portrayal' is false and really is a lame attempt to put words in my mouth, when I was not making the claims at all as I was only quoting the facts from MEMRI and the Weekly's Report as proof of the 'murderous belief' as you put it. For the second time, you snarf, conveniently ignored the FACTS about Islamic endemic violence in the Link that I had posted. I like to hear your explanation for the facts discussed therein.

These are your words, not MEMRI's
" But we cannot afford to ignore the real violence and terror that comes from within Islam itself. "

"And all these verses have never been abrogated before, so they're still 'active' and valid for Muslim terror to spread 'freely and with impunity'.

So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey!

How can Islam be truly a peaceful religion if the Quran itself enjoins such violence and terrorism? "




Here, go through it again, and tell us what part of Islamic violence and intolerance don't you understand, when these facts originate from Muslims and Islam itself :

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP79004

Prove to us that these are not authentic Islamic sources and Manuals, and they're not being taught today at Al-Azhar, as they were since their composition. That the Sword verses are not in the Quran, and if they are, already abrogated. I rest my case.

Dan Z.

That these manuals are from Muslims is true, and that there are violent Muslims who use religious reasons to kill was known long before you wrote this. No one is arguing this. However, you are defining an entire religion and the practitioners of it by these manuals. Since the vast majority of Muslims are not carrying out the edicts of the manual that you use to define the entire religion, then there is clearly something wrong with your supposition, that such violence is necessary for Muslims to carry out.

Many Nazis were Christians, remember that. Thanks to
Maimondes for the factual support of the violence of Christianity, and would I be correct in saying that you, Dan, must follow the religious edicts of Pope Innocent III to carry on the Crusade and kill the infidels? Why aren't you doing so?

[Snarf]

YOUR QUESTION IS- WHY ARE SO MANY MUSLIMS, WHO STUDY THE KORAN, LIVING IN PEACE AMONGST US HERE IN THE US AND IN EUROPE?

This is speculation on my part - but I would assume that they would be considered "Liberal" - not taking the Koran as literally as the "Fundamentalist" Muslim who is out to conquer the world and convert everyone to Islam, by whatever means necessary. Another reason they might be peaceful - besides being a Liberal Muslim - is that they enjoy the democratic freedoms and opportunities that exist in the USA and Europe that would not exist back in Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia or Northern Nigeria, etc. etc. and they want to go on living and enjoying their freedom here.

What is your opinion of the reasons they live here and in Europe in a peaceful manner - when their Koran would tell them to slay the Infidel - which is most of the people living in the USA and Europe (from the Muslim perspective)???

Jude,

Thank you for the answer. While I'm not sure that I would agree with the part about liberal Muslims (based on my conversations with Muslims), your answer touches on an important point that i am trying to make, and that is this: the words of religious texts do not have meaning apart from someone who is giving them meaning within a given cultural context, the meaning of religious texts are understood within a given cultural context and the relative importance of the words of a given text, because the readers from different cultures use their background and knowledge in interpreting the symbols (written words).

Thus, Muslims who live in nonviolent societies, like everyone else, want to live in peace. Therefore, they will interpret the Koran in such a way as to practice what they believe to be the essentials of their faith, but in a way that also allows for peaceful coexistence. Muslims who live in societies in which violence is more common, and who do not think that peaceful means will help them achieve their goals of a better life, might emphasize the importance of violent passages more so than those who live in societies where goals are achieved peacefully. In the same way, Christians who lived in more violent societies, like in the Middle Ages, treated verses encouraging violence more literally and more necessary than today, because they were used to more violence in general.

This is why I see the logic (that Islam is a violent religion) as being useless and dangerous. Religions don't kill people; people kill people. To argue that Islam is inherently violent says that ALL of the followers are also inherently violent, because for all Muslims,their religious beliefs are very dear to them.

Human societies do not indulge in violence as a matter of habit; very few people spend their average day waking up, punching out their spouses and children, then walk down the street picking a fight with everyone they meet. A society that existed in such a manner would not last long. Violence is used as a means to an end, generally (competition for resources, mates, etc.).
Jesus said "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword," and I think we should be paying attention to these words. Conflict with terrorists who use religion as their excuse cannot be stopped by attacking the religion, because frequently far more people believe the religion than the terrorists. Imagine if we went on the logic that Islam is dangerous, what do we do, force them to convert? (Christians did actually do that in Europe during the early Dark Ages).

If the goal is to stop violence, then the root causes of the violence must be addressed, not the means of amplifying the violence. In the case of Islamic countries, most who are attracted to terrorists are those who are poor and have little chance at a better life. Yes, there are the little rich kids like Osama, and probably all of the 9/11 terrorists were at least middle class, but most are recruited from the poor, those who have simple lives and who believe that their leaders are always right. Until they can see other options for a better life, they will continue to sacrifice themselves. We must also give them fewer valid reasons for violence. I'm not saying that PLO terrorism is ever justified, but what response from them should we expect when the houses of innocent Palestinians are blown up by Israelis armies supported by the US? When their land is militarily occupied? When doctors are subjected to humiliating searches at checkpoints trying to get to their offices?

Israel and the US have given whackos like Osama lots of ammo to help convince people that we are dangerous. When we deal with Islamic people like the noble people that they are, and show them that life can be better, more peaceful, and they can still retain their Islamic faith and not see us as a threat to their societies existence, then we all can win.

[Jude3b]

A radical strain of Islamic fundamentalism has unified some of the most violent factions in the Arabic world, and they are bent on destroying not only Israel but all of Western culture as well.

Isn't it true that in the year 624 AD, Mohammed began a so-called "Holy War" against "infidels" (those who did not acknowledge him as a prophet of or Allah as the only god). Isn't it true that by means of this so-called "Holy War", by 632 A.D., the year that Mohammed died, Islam had become a powerful religious and political force?

Is it not true that ever since the time of Mohammed that Muslims have regarded war as a legitimate means of turning people to their religion? What is nobel about a religion like that?

Isn't it true that a war whose purpose is to bring infidels into submission under Islam is considered jihad, a so-called "holy war?"

Isn't it true that Mohammed himself justified and participated in killing and robbery against infidels in the name of Allah?

Isn't "convert or die" the most persuasive tool in the Islamic "missionary's arsenal? Does't a penchant for death still dominate the radical strains of Islam and don't these base their belief and actions on the Koran?

Isn't it true that many fundamentalist Muslims believe they are called to wage jihad against infidels, and this often includes killing innocent people, women and children? (Examples are the World Trade Center, The school children in Russia, etc.) What is nobel about a religion that causes people to act that way, or a Koran that tells them its ok?

Isn't it true that Islam has always conquered by the sword? Isn't it true that in medieval times, Islamic armies converted virtually all of the Middle East by force?

Isn't it true that violence against infidels and the concept of jihad is fundamental to Islam, and is an inescapable part of Islamic history?

[Snarf]

A radical strain of Islamic fundamentalism has unified some of the most violent factions in the Arabic world, and they are bent on destroying not only Israel but all of Western culture as well.

Isn't it true that in the year 624 AD, Mohammed began a so-called "Holy War" against "infidels" (those who did not acknowledge him as a prophet of or Allah as the only god). Isn't it true that by means of this so-called "Holy War", by 632 A.D., the year that Mohammed died, Islam had become a powerful religious and political force?

Is it not true that ever since the time of Mohammed that Muslims have regarded war as a legitimate means of turning people to their religion? What is nobel about a religion like that?

Isn't it true that a war whose purpose is to bring infidels into submission under Islam is considered jihad, a so-called "holy war?"

Isn't it true that Mohammed himself justified and participated in killing and robbery against infidels in the name of Allah?

Isn't "convert or die" the most persuasive tool in the Islamic "missionary's arsenal? Does't a penchant for death still dominate the radical strains of Islam and don't these base their belief and actions on the Koran?

Isn't it true that many fundamentalist Muslims believe they are called to wage jihad against infidels, and this often includes killing innocent people, women and children? (Examples are the World Trade Center, The school children in Russia, etc.) What is nobel about a religion that causes people to act that way, or a Koran that tells them its ok?

Isn't it true that Islam has always conquered by the sword? Isn't it true that in medieval times, Islamic armies converted virtually all of the Middle East by force?

Isn't it true that violence against infidels and the concept of jihad is fundamental to Islam, and is an inescapable part of Islamic history?

Let me answer your question with a question: What is noble about worshipping a deity who ordered His followers to kill homosexuals, adulterers, and unbelievers? (Judaism and Christianity) Isn't it true that Christianity was spread by violence, first by the converted Roman empire, then by the Catholic Church, later to be followed by Protestants?

If you believe that Islam itself is the cause of violence, then what is your solution to end the violence? How do you intend to treat the peaceful followers of the allegedly violent religion?

Finally, if your solution entails violence, are you willing to participate in that which you advocate? Or are violent solutions to be only as long as someone else has to actually face what you want to unleash?

[Jude3b]

Let me answer your question with a question: What is noble about worshipping a deity who ordered His followers to kill homosexuals, adulterers, and unbelievers? (Judaism and Christianity) Isn't it true that Christianity was spread by violence, first by the converted Roman empire, then by the Catholic Church, later to be followed by Protestants?

If you believe that Islam itself is the cause of violence, then what is your solution to end the violence? How do you intend to treat the peaceful followers of the allegedly violent religion?

Finally, if your solution entails violence, are you willing to participate in that which you advocate? Or are violent solutions to be only as long as someone else has to actually face what you want to unleash?

The only solution to the problems of the false religions of this world and their followers - is the Gospel of the Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. He is the only hope that any of us have - for peace on earth and the hope of heaven.

Is Jesus Christ, your personal Lord and Savior?

[Snarf]

The only solution to the problems of the false religions of this world and their followers - is the Gospel of the Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. He is the only hope that any of us have - for peace on earth and the hope of heaven.

Is Jesus Christ, your personal Lord and Savior?

This is the third time that you have asked, yes He is my Lord and Savior.

No, exactly how will the Gospel prevent terrorism?

[Jude3b]

This is the third time that you have asked, yes He is my Lord and Savior.

No, exactly how will the Gospel prevent terrorism?

Saved people don't commit murder. If you are saved, you should know that!

[Jude3b]

Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace. He taught people to love and not to kill.

When a person becomes a true Christian and is born-again, they get a new heart and it is a heart of Love. True Christians do not murder.

That is quite different from the teachings of the founder of Islam - who taught "slay the infidels!"

[Snarf]

Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace. He taught people to love and not to kill.

When a person becomes a true Christian and is born-again, they get a new heart and it is a heart of Love. True Christians do not murder.

That is quite different from the teachings of the founder of Islam - who taught "slay the infidels!"

Why did Jesus tell the Israelites to kill homosexuals and adulteres (in Leviticus)?
Why have so many Christians killed so many people over the centuries?

[heaven]

[QUOTE=Snarf]Why did Jesus tell the Israelites to kill homosexuals and adulteres (in Leviticus)?
Why have so many Christians killed so many people over the centuries?[/QUOTe




I suppose that when a christian is on the battlefield, he has to kill.

The sentencing of Leviticus should be viewed as the sentence for such sins,
damnation. Thankyou Jesus for dying for me.:sigh:

[Jude3b]

Why did Jesus tell the Israelites to kill homosexuals and adulteres (in Leviticus)?
Why have so many Christians killed so many people over the centuries?

God, who created men and women and ordained the proper and fruitful institution of marriage and the family unit. God calls homosexuality an abomination.

The land of Canaan, which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the world before the flood. The people of Canaan were promiscuous, into incest, homosexuality, bestiality, even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god (Lev. 18:21) and blaspheming the true God.

God wanted his chosen people to "be holy" and the sins that were punishable by death was for the purpose of maintaining the holiness of the people as a nation set apart to God (Lev. 20:23-26).

The death sentence is what we all deserve for all our sins. That is why Messiah - the Lord Jesus Christ came. We deserve death - but He took it upon Himself - on our behalf. When we repent and receive Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior - we become partakers of that forgiveness. Christ deals with us as a merciful and loving Father. He put the punishment that we deserve on His own Son - the Lord Jesus Christ. That is Agape Love!

The command to "Be Holy" also applies to Christians today. (I Peter 1:15, 16; 2:9). The sin that is so prevalent in the World today - will still be dealt with. Those who reject the Love of God, by rejecting Christ will reap what they sow. There is a Hell and all Murderers, Whoremongers, Homosexuals, all sinners - who die in their sin - outside of Christ, are going there. They will suffer and burn there for all eternity... and I am convinced that those who kill in the name of Religion will be sent to the hottest part of Hell!

[Snarf]

God, who created men and women and ordained the proper and fruitful institution of marriage and the family unit. God calls homosexuality an abomination.

The land of Canaan, which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the world before the flood. The people of Canaan were promiscuous, into incest, homosexuality, bestiality, even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god (Lev. 18:21) and blaspheming the true God.

God wanted his chosen people to "be holy" and the sins that were punishable by death was for the purpose of maintaining the holiness of the people as a nation set apart to God (Lev. 20:23-26).

The death sentence is what we all deserve for all our sins. That is why Messiah - the Lord Jesus Christ came. We deserve death - but He took it upon Himself - on our behalf. When we repent and receive Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior - we become partakers of that forgiveness. Christ deals with us as a merciful and loving Father. He put the punishment that we deserve on His own Son - the Lord Jesus Christ. That is Agape Love!

The command to "Be Holy" also applies to Christians today. (I Peter 1:15, 16; 2:9). The sin that is so prevalent in the World today - will still be dealt with. Those who reject the Love of God, by rejecting Christ will reap what they sow. There is a Hell and all Murderers, Whoremongers, Homosexuals, all sinners - who die in their sin - outside of Christ, are going there. They will suffer and burn there for all eternity... and I am convinced that those who kill in the name of Religion will be sent to the hottest part of Hell!

So, you believe in a god who kills people for their sins. Since you think that people should be killed for their sins, then who are you to say that Islam is violent? Your belief that people who sin should be killed is about the same as those who want to kill the infidels.
Since, by this point in your life you have probably committed at least one sin before you came to believe in Jesus, why are you still alive?

[Snarf]

[QUOTE=Snarf]Why did Jesus tell the Israelites to kill homosexuals and adulteres (in Leviticus)?
Why have so many Christians killed so many people over the centuries?[/QUOTe




I suppose that when a christian is on the battlefield, he has to kill.

The sentencing of Leviticus should be viewed as the sentence for such sins,
damnation. Thankyou Jesus for dying for me.:sigh:

The sentence indicated is death by stoning, not damnation. Why don't all such sinners get put to death that way today? What should the penalty for your sins, and everyone else's Did God have a change of mind on death penalty without telling us?

[Sparko]

The sentence indicated is death by stoning, not damnation. Why don't all such sinners get put to death that way today? What should the penalty for your sins, and everyone else's Did God have a change of mind on death penalty without telling us?

John 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
7But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

[Pilgrim]

In regards to the leading question posted in the title:

No, in fact what they show is that their specific interpretation of the given religion is cultic and violent. It's much like many Christian organizations, Fred Felps comes to mind, whose actions really on serve to condemn themselves.

[Snarf]

John 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
7But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Last I checked, heaven and earth are still around. The point of this thread was about how violent a religion Islam is. Given that there are Christians who think that stoning is appropriate for gays and others, and how many people that Christians have killed over the centuries, one wonders how such people can talk about theirs as being one of love and peace, when it's more about believe and don't sin or be killed.

[Sparko]

The point of this thread was about how violent a religion Islam is. Given that there are Christians who think that stoning is appropriate for gays and others, and how many people that Christians have killed over the centuries, one wonders how such people can talk about theirs as being one of love and peace, when it's more about believe and don't sin or be killed.
Hey you asked about stoning and I quote:
The sentence indicated is death by stoning, not damnation. Why don't all such sinners get put to death that way today? What should the penalty for your sins, and everyone else's Did God have a change of mind on death penalty without telling us

I answered how Jesus responded when some people wanted to stone a woman. We can only do the same. Looks like you are just trying to pick a fight. In your post at the top, you claim Christians want to stone gays, yet in the bottom quote you ask why do we not stone people today. Which is it?

Personally I have never seen any Christian propose stoning gays. But hey, there are always fringe wackos, in christianity and in islam.

[heaven]

The Koran and Hadith state that the religion is intolerant and is spread by the sword,
kill the infidel wherever you may find them and jews are pigs and christians are apes.
Way back when 700 Ad. Islam was on the move, they invaded N. Africa, entered Spain
and France, the Turks invaded Austria, the Balkans and both intended to take Europe.
The crusades were poorly carried out, mostly northern europeans , but the idea to take
the Holy Land and repel the Turks was a great idea, because they have been hindered
all of these centuries and are mad and I am glad.
Islam is a one world government, no distinction between state and religion and one
must submit or be beheaded.

Allah is not the God of the jews and christians, he is an abstract who demands
submiswsion. Love is never mentioned in the Koran or Hadith, the system operates
under fear. The reason the Iraqis love the Americans is just because they had to be
liberated by war, democracy is their only hope as they are being squeezed by various
fundamentalist groups and Saddam bathists.

The Book of revelation clearly that nothing can be added to the written scriptures
and to do so is to incur a curse.

Mohammed is clearly a false prophet

[heaven]

Your history of Hispaniola and Mexico is not based on fact. Diseases wiped out the
indigenous peoples. Mexico was the most progressive country in that the indigenous
were schooled along with the foreigners, which schools and society were founded by
the friars, indigenous held positions in government while the US indigenous were
pushed west onto reservations and isolated. Each country is different in the Americas,
while Cortez obeyed the orders of the king of Spain, Pizarro in Peru tried to claim the
wealth of the Incan civilization for himself, a 'lousy cut throat" w/o scruples.

I do not believe that Islam has the right to be on the aggressive against christianity
and take up the cause of indigenous peoples, one only has to view the position of
women in such countries, the Koran does not consider woman a full person, and the
mean estate of the muslim people to know they lack the authority.

The actions of apostate cultural christians has nothing to do with the God of
christianity or the religion, the teachings of the religion in the Koran are vile however.
The peaceful moslems either do not read the Koran which is in arabic or cannot read
the koran. Your statement that the moslems who read the Koran are peaceful is
ambiguous. It is precisely the fundamentalists who study the Koran who are terrorists.

The problem with the moslem faith is the Koran and it's teachings.
This is not the issue with the scriptures, which you should read to avoid further
untruthful assumptions

[Jude3b]

So, you believe in a god who kills people for their sins. Since you think that people should be killed for their sins, then who are you to say that Islam is violent? Your belief that people who sin should be killed is about the same as those who want to kill the infidels.
Since, by this point in your life you have probably committed at least one sin before you came to believe in Jesus, why are you still alive?

I believe what the Bible states- "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, I will repay" and what that means to me is this: it is not my place nor my job to kill anyone.

God in fact told us "Thou shalt not kill" - nevertheless, those who don't repent of their wicked ways - will suffer eternal separation from God in Hell and that will seem a whole lot worse than being killed.

[Dan Zebiri]

Snarf and all,

There was nothing in my posts on this thread that was also NOT said by professor Sayyed al-Qimni that was reported by the the Egyptian weekly Ros el-Youssef. One key difference was that Prof.Sayyed presented the facts with greater intensity and much more urgency when he tried exposing the extremists curricula in Al-Azhar. Thus this Islamic scholar only authenticated everything I had said!

If you have aby problems with the facts published, take up issue with the Roz el-Youssef Weekly, OR better still, with Professor Syaed al-Qimni himself, who as a Muslim will confirm everything with you 'from the horses mouth'.
I find it incredulous that you are still trying to twist the Christian scriptures around by alleging that 'Jesus taught violence' through the Old Testament references you quote.

Show me these so-called teachings and words and verses of violence coming from Jesus' own mouth Himself! Don't misquote some OT verses and then glibly attribute them 'to Jesus'. Show me such verses from the New Testament and the 4 Gospels.

Don't quote verses that came from Yahweh from the Old Testament, and then try to put them into JESUS' mouth, when you can't find them in the Gospels! That is clear-cut misrepresentation and downright misleading. It furthermore proves your Scriptural bankruptcy and shoddy grasp of true biblical Christianity!

By taking the Old Testament verses out of context, and then attributing them to Jesus Christ, you deliberately circumvented biblical salvation-History and the New Testament historical witness to the New Covenant and New Testament that was augmented and enunciated by the Coming of Jesus Christ AND AS ESTABLISHED BY HIM IN:

Matthew 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 - Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Go, read and study the full text of Hebrews chapter 8, where the New Covenant which was augmented in Jesus Christ had already done away with the practices and injunctions of the Old Covenant, in other words, abrogating the 'violent demands' of the OT laws. I had already given you 3 times, posts that elaborated in this fact, but you again and again, obstinately chose to ignore them.

The New testamant ie.The New Covenant in Christ's blood, does not require the carrying out of the OT 'violent injunctions' any more because Christ had already come to abrogate such injunctions. God would be writing His laws in mens' hearts, not on stone nor in Arms any longer. Otherwise, the earliest Christians and Apostles of Jesus Christ would themselves have taught them and practiced such things! Why don't we find such 'violent teachings' echoed and reproduced in the Epistles of Peter, James, John and Paul, etc?? Have you ever thought of that for a moment, snarf??
Here are some of Jesus Christ's real words as recorded by His apostles and earliest followers about 'violence and warring'!

John 8 : 36-37

36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world." 37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You rightly say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."

Matthew 26 : 52-56

52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."

Luke 6 : 27-29

27 "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
Also:

Matthew 5:44

Luke 6:35

The first 250 years of Christianity was not one of violence practised, perpertrated nor promoted by its followers the Christians. In FACT, the earliest Christians were always persecuted for the faith in Jesus Christ as GOD and Savior. Thousands were martyred and killed relentlessly by the emperors Nero and his kind. Christians were forced to choose to worship and burn incense to the Roman emperors, OR DEATH!

Many chose to die rather than to deny their Savior Jesus Christ, who to them was the true Lord and King! The Catacombs in Rome, and the massacres of Christians by hungry, wild animals in the colosseums are all proof of the non-violent history of the earliest Christians, but of cruel violence perpertrated against them by their enemies, instead!

ON THE OTHER HAND, Islam's earliest history was one of blatant violence, force and murder of all the detractors and would-be Muslim apostates. The first 4 caliphs all practised force and violence, evidenced by the Wars of Apostasy (Ridda) as soon as Muhammad, Islam's founder, died. Even ALL THE 4 ISLAMIC Caliphs THEMSELVES ALL DIED VIOLENTLY - But at the hands of their own fellow Muslims themselves!

Even in the early years of the first three caliphs force and violence in Islam was already enforced. Don't tell me you never heard of the Wars of Apostasy (the Ridda Wars). It happened in the earliest years after Muhamad's unexpected death -particularly caliph Abu Bakar's reign. The Quraish and Arab 'converts' of Islam immediately wanted to disown and give up Islam but were FORCED to remain muslims by the sword of the caliph and his enforcer and war-captain, Khalid al-Walid. 1st caliph Abu Bakar himself called these wars the Apostasy Wars and he himself engaged in them for up to a year-rounding up and attacking any apostates!

All this was recorded by the following muslim learned men: at-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir and as-Suyuti. In more recent days, the al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt had published a Book called: Al-Khulafa Al-Rashidun written by their Islamic Civilisation professor Dr.Abu Zayd Shalabi, of the Arabic Language Department, documenting the entire process of the spread of Islam in the earliest days of the Khalifahs, by the Sword and by force. A full twenty pages, from page 41 - 60; documents how indeed the first years of Islamic expansion was bloody and forceful. Far from the peaceful rosy picture you vainly try to paint over our eyes!

Various tribes were coerced into submitting to Islam under threat of war. Following Muhammad’s death Muslim armies attacked and conquered Persia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and so on. They went west and conquered North Africa, Spain and southern France. They forcefully pushed east and conquered the lands of present Pakistan, Afghanistan, and much of the Indian subcontinent.

There is much more to Islam besides their five pillars. Islam is a complex religion filled with concepts, rules, and rituals, even militaristic ones. Some are very threatening to non-Muslims. For example Muhammad taught offensive warfare in the Quran -in surah 9/5 and 9/29 :

"Make WAR upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given [Christians and Jews] 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." Quran 9:29

Under this dispensation, 3,200 churches were destroyed or converted into mosques in the Middle East. The population, initially 90% "Christian", eventually became almost completely Muslim.

This is a Book that completely documents the forceful spread of Islam in it's first three hundred years (and beyond) by Bat Yeor:

"The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh to Twentieth Century Documentation"

found here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0838636888/qid=1097651096/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-1784924-7805717

Muhammad did make war upon Christians and Jews. After Muhammad’s death, his followers continued to do. This is evidenced in Indonesia - where islam was supposed to have penetrated by traders, by the attacks of the Laskar Jihad muslim fighters in East Indonesia, Poso and Ambon and of late, the Sulawesi islands in the modern day!

Lets do a proper source-to-source comparison of Christianity and Islam about the issue of violence and forceful practices.

VALID QURANIC SOURCES:

The Quran AND Sunna ('example') of Muhammad both ALSO prescribe DEATH for peoples leaving Islam for instance :

Islam SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES the Death Penalty for apostates of Islam. So see for yourself the verses:

This is surah 4 vs.89 from the Qur'an:

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (from Islam) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. "

Also, from surah 9/5 AND 9/29 AMONG OTHERS - the Sword verses that are unabrogated, but which themselves abrogate all the peaceful gentle verses of the Quran.

And the Muslim scholars' elaboration on the Sunna/example of Muhammad is as follows:

According to Abu Hanifah, a male apostate is disabled from selling or otherwise disposing of his property. (Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 16, citing Hamilton, Hidaya, vol. ii, p. 235)

Furthermore, if a boy under aged apostatizes, he is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned until he come to full age, when, if he continue in the state of unbelief, he must be put to death. Neither lunatics nor drunkards are held to be responsible for their apostasy from Islam (Hidayah, vol. ii, 246). If a person upon compulsion become an apostate, his wife is not divorced, nor are his lands forfeited. If a person become a musalman upon compulsion, and afterwards apostatize, he is not to be put to death. (Hidayah, vol. iii, 467). The will of a male apostate is not valid, but that of a female apostate is valid. (Hidayah, vol. iv, 537).

VALID HADITHIC SOURCES

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " - Sahih Bukhari 4.260.

Also supported by the HADITH sources - Sahih Bukhari 9.58 and also Sahih Bukhari 9.271

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.058

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.271

The hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, are very clear in their instructions, and they state that "if they (Muslims) change their religion (islam), kill them."

VALID SUNNA REFERENCES

Narrated Abu Burda:

.... The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" - Sahih Bukhari 9.58, also Sahih Bukhari 9.271
Caliph Ali burnt them, but Muhammad said to kill him -with the sword-Sahih Bukhari Vol.4, Book 52, Number 260

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260

And here are some more proof of the modern-day violence that still being pracised by Muslims and Islamic followers.:
MEMRI TV Project: A Former Hostage in Iraq Tells His Story -

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD79804 (http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD79804)

Al-Qa'ida Magazine: 'O Sheikh of the Slaughterers, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, Go Forth in the Straight Path, Guided by Allah' -

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD79704 (http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD79704)

Here are some Christian responses and questions tp Islam's violent, forceful and intolerant agenda:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/agenda.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/torture.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/TWOR/peacepromoting.html

So we can actually find valid verses and references in Islam and the Quran which enjoin force and violence and which were followed since Day 1 of its inception. And these verses are all UN-ABROGATED ones, but they actually abrogate or nullify the other 'peaceful and gentle' verses found therein.

However, the very opposite is true when we examine the Christian Scriptures, in particular the Gospels and the New Testament references, especially when they relate to violence, persecution and forcefulness.

So, try not to pull any more wool over the readers' eyes, snarf, as all the source documents testify against your opinions, actually!

Shalom, Dan Z.

[Snarf]

Snarf and all,

There was nothing in my posts on this thread that was also NOT said by professor Sayyed al-Qimni that was reported by the the Egyptian weekly Ros el-Youssef. One key difference was that Prof.Sayyed presented the facts with greater intensity and much more urgency when he tried exposing the extremists curricula in Al-Azhar. Thus this Islamic scholar only authenticated everything I had said!

Why do you deny writing these words, taken from your own post?
"So we find Quranic commands and injunctions to go fight with other people!

I really cannot consider Islam a 'so-called 'peaceful religion' when it has all these kinds of verses and commands for Muslims to follow and obey! "

You still haven't answered my question as to why millions and millions of Koran-believing Muslims aren't obeying the commands to fight other peoples. Maybe they know something about that Koran that you don't.



If you have aby problems with the facts published, take up issue with the Roz el-Youssef Weekly, OR better still, with Professor Syaed al-Qimni himself, who as a Muslim will confirm everything with you 'from the horses mouth'.

Why should their teachings be considered more important than the peaceful behavior of millions of Muslims?

I find it incredulous that you are still trying to twist the Christian scriptures around by alleging that 'Jesus taught violence' through the Old Testament references you quote

Show me these so-called teachings and words and verses of violence coming from Jesus' own mouth Himself! Don't misquote some OT verses and then glibly attribute them 'to Jesus'. Show me such verses from the New Testament and the 4 Gospels. .

Review the meaning of the Trinity "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

"I and the Father are one"

"If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

Since Jesus is God by definition, and indivisible from the Father, anything that the Father commanded in the OT was also commanded by Jesus (or do you think that He was schizophrenic when Leviticus was written?)

Or do you believe that Jesus was not God to begin with?

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

As far as I can see, heaven and earth are still here, and so are the commands of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the Israelites to slaughter other peoples, to stone gays and adulterers, etc. Such a 'peaceful' holy book and religion you have.

The rest of your reply is merely repeating yourself, you still haven't answered why millions of Muslims live peaceful lives, contrary to what you insist is true about Islam.

[heaven]

Dan Zebiri in his post to snarf and All states to the effect ......Don't confuse Jesus with
YHVH of the OT...............Well, Jesus is Yahweh.

Early on in christianity we learn that the christian walk is about spiritual warfare and that
Jesus had satan as His enemy.
We also learned that there is the seed of Jesus and the seed of satan literally. A creation of the seed of satan is the race of giants from the evil angels going into the
daughters of men and which angels did teach occultic secrets, evidence the flood.
Later the same scene in Israel enfolds with Goliath, etc.
This seed intermarried or handed down the occultic secrets creating another evil race
on the earth.
The Amalakites, the Pezzarites, etc. were of such a nature and as such Israel was
commanded by God to destroy them totally, children and animals.
God does not want the seed of satan on the earth.
Jesus came to redeam His creation.

[heaven]

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Last I checked, heaven and earth are still around. The point of this thread was about how violent a religion Islam is. Given that there are Christians who think that stoning is appropriate for gays and others, and how many people that Christians have killed over the centuries, one wonders how such people can talk about theirs as being one of love and peace, when it's more about believe and don't sin or be killed.
Hi Snarf,

The issue is the precepts of Islam versus Christ.
The behahaviour of so called christians, who fail to respect the dignity of all men under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Jesus by showing violence against
sexual orientation, is merely sin. Jesus can heal sexual orientation and remove
sin
The Koran itself is a sinful document.

[barryrob]

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?

Lastly, what will be the future of the Muslim people and this religion that is so intolerant that it will for the most part not even allow any other point of view or allow Christian missionaries to operate in most of their countries. If they keep on killing and murdering - won't the entire world have to rise up against them eventually and wipe them out - to neutralize them - before they try to kill everyone off, who is not a Muslim or refuses to become one?
Myself as A Jehovah's Christian Witness do not see that Christendom’s' Churches are any better, but in fact far worse then Islam, as they claim to represent Jesus Christ the "Prince of Peace" then the murder 1,000s of ancient Aztecs, ancient Northern Europeans who would not Convert by the sword, then the 40 yrs. war in Europe between Protestants and Catholics the slaughter of the North American Indians while the Church stood by and did nothing, the Jewish Holocaust in WW2 while the Church remained quite and even supported in some cases, sectarian murdering in Northern Ireland, the Crusades, and the blessing on all the so called Christian nations by the Churches in their respective country on the whole sale mass murdering among themselves of men. Women, children in WW1 & WW2. to name but a few of a very long list!!!



What of the impressing of imperialistic democracy upon these who have the right to say no, don’t they have rights???



I suggest you think again!!



Barryrob

[heaven]

JWs,


I have never seen a church bare arms or have a standing army , therefore your reasoning
is fallacious.
Islam tried to conquor and over run Erope after taking N.Africa and the Mid East by thr
sword. Now that is a religion that bares a standing army, why no criticism.
The crusades then were a good idea, poorly carried out, they put Islam to rest for
a long time, until the present and Bin Laden et al. have never forgiven the crusaders,
the West, thank God.
So what are you trying to say?

[Jude3b]

Myself as A Jehovah's Christian Witness do not see that Christendom’s' Churches are any better, but in fact far worse then Islam, as they claim to represent Jesus Christ the "Prince of Peace" then the murder 1,000s of ancient Aztecs, ancient Northern Europeans who would not Convert by the sword, then the 40 yrs. war in Europe between Protestants and Catholics the slaughter of the North American Indians while the Church stood by and did nothing, the Jewish Holocaust in WW2 while the Church remained quite and even supported in some cases, sectarian murdering in Northern Ireland, the Crusades, and the blessing on all the so called Christian nations by the Churches in their respective country on the whole sale mass murdering among themselves of men. Women, children in WW1 & WW2. to name but a few of a very long list!!!



What of the impressing of imperialistic democracy upon these who have the right to say no, don’t they have rights???



I suggest you think again!!



Barryrob

Dear Barryrob:

Your statement does not surprise me. Since you are also a member of a religious cult and a "works" based religious system - not unlike Islam, you do not even know what true Christianity is.

You look at the history of Christendom and see the sects and denominations of Roman Catholicism, etc. That is not true Christianity. Those are religious sects - just like the Jehovah Witness cult. They are not Biblical and neither is your religion.

One thing the Roman Catholic, the Muslim and the Jehovah Witness all have in common is a false view of the true Jesus Christ and a works based plan of salvation. "Another Jesus" will not save. You need the real one that is revealed to us in the Scriptures of the Holy Bible. If you ever want to find him, throw down that New World Translation and read a real Bible.

[Dan Zebiri]

snarf and all,

I have no doubts at any time, about the perfect Divinity AND Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But I do really doubt and cannot buy into your fallacious assertions that "Jesus preached and taught violence and war" literally to His disciples and followers. That cannot be proved from any of His statements from the New Testament or the Gospels. Your fallacious equivocation also does violent injustice to the text and of Biblical Hermeneutics. Thus I can only consider your such assertions about Jesus as straw men, without real historical basis from the New Testament record.

So far, in your reply to my earlier question, you have failed to :

1) Show the actual verses from the New Testament and/or the Gospel sources (if any) that, Jesus had actually "preached and taught War and violence" to His followers, in His life-time -that such teachings had actually come directly from His mouth,

2) Prove that the earliest Christian documents or manuals for guidance on Christian living, ie.the Epistles written by the Apostles like Peter, James, John and Paul etc EVER followed up on such 'teachings of Jesus', ie.Epistles that expound on 'physical war, violence and force' or the need for similar things,

3) Elicit convincing evidence that the earliest Christians in the FIRST THREE HUNDRED YEARS of their existence were actual practitioners of 'force, physical violence and literal war' in line with this so-called 'war-like teaching' of their Leader and Lord, Jesus Christ.

In these 3 crucial areas you have failed pathetically to prove your flimsy hypothesis and straw man caricature projection of Jesus and His true teachings ("Jesus 'taught war'")!
In point (3) above, you actually leap-frogged 300 years into the Constantine's era and deliberately IGNORED THE CHRISTIANS who existed since the first Century when they were first called 'Christians' in Antioch-as found in Acts 11 verse 26! Which means the Christians were already established and around during 50-60 A.D.

None of THESE CHRISTIANS had persecuted any other non-believer, waged physical war with the detractors or practised intolerant forcefulness as a norm on them! Your deliberate jumping over 300 years of actual Christians and Christianity that WAS PERSECUTED, ATTACKED AND EVEN MASSACRED, for instance by Emperor Nero etc, I find very deceptive and misleading, to say the least.

Actually, your false equivocation about Jesus' "war teachings" is only a bald assertion and is merely a distraction from the real and actual teachings of physical violence, literal war and intolerance that are actually found in the Quran and in Islam and its authoritative Source Documents, which are STILL VALID IN ISLAM AND IN FORCE TODAY.

A baseless claim like yours is only an assertion that is wrenched out of Context (in the OT) and made into a PRETEXT. And a Text that is not in Context is actually a Pretext! By claiming that Jesus also 'taught literal war' to His followers you wrench Jesus' actual teachings out of the historical context - His life and times in which He actually lived, taught and ministered into a hypothetical and false position. It is really a false equivocation you made that really is unsupportable and baseless.

That is why I do not buy into your straw man assertion and fallacious equivocation about Jesus at all.

Thats also why you could not find any verses from the New Testament or from the Gospels themselves to prop up your flimsy claim!

On the OTHER HAND, I had already presented you with many verses, right out from the Gospels and the New Testament, which prove that JESUS NEVER TAUGHT NOR PREACHED LITERAL WAR AND/OR VIOLENT FORCE to His followers and disciples. He - and His followers like Him, actually TAUGHT THE OPPOSITE - based on Jesus' New Covenant of truth and love.

And when He had ascended, His followers themselves continued spreading and expounding His teachings, which upon close examination, do not have the 'physical violence and war' you try to propogate about!

NO. snarfy, unlike Christianity, Islam still has its intractable violence and intolerant war-like nature still very much UN-ABROGATED AND VERY MUCH IN FORCE right to this very Day AT ITS CORE..!

Just look at the way Islam defines itself, according to a neutral source and which is an academic source for Islamic studies:

I) "DARU'L-HARB" - The 'House of War'& 'the Land of Warfare'

"The House of War" or "The land of warfare." According to the Dictionary Ghiyasu 'l-Lughat, Daru 'l-harb is "a country belonging to the infidels which has not been subdued by Islam." According to the Qamus, it is "a country in which peace has not been proclaimed between Muslims and unbelievers.

The theological basis for Daru 'l-Harb is the doctrine (found in the Hadith as well as in the Qur'an) that the earth belongs to Allah and to his Messenger. In the Qur'an too Allah promises the world to his followers. This leads to the idea that jihad is a defensive war - liberating what already belongs to Allah and to his Umma. Hence the Muslims by waging jihad are taking back what is theirs. Even the whole world.

Since the world belongs to the Umma, any power that prevents them from having it is by definition oppressive, and upsurping the Umma's rights.

In the earliest hadiths, Omar says to his generals: 'When you will take the land that God gives you back...'

This means that jihad - even ‘offensive’ jihad is ALWAYS a defensive war of liberation. This is one of the theological factors that makes discussion of jihad so confusing.

This concept of the world belonging to Allah and his Messenger then became formalized into the doctrine of Daru 'l-Harb.

Territory not owned by the Muslims is by definition to be an object of war, until liberation takes place and territory is returned to its rightful owners - the Umma.

To this day, non-muslims are considered as 'Harbis' (thats the official term), and thus they can be fought against and over-run, and of course taken over. Ask your muslim friend why, snarf??
See also the entry DARU 'L-HARB in Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM for more information..pages 69-70. THOMAS PATRICK HUGHES, B.D., M.R.A.S.
LONDON, W.H. ALLEN & CO., 13 WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL S.W.1895.


II) "DARU 'L-ISLAM" - 'Land of Islam'

"The House of Islam" or "Land of Islam." According to the Raddu 'l Mukhtar, vol. iii. p. 391, it is a country in which the edicts of Islam are fully promulgated.

In a state brought under Muslim rule, all those who do not embrace the faith are placed under certain disabilities. They can worship God according to their own customs provided they are not idolaters; but it must be done without any ostentation and whilst churches and synagogues may be repaired, no new place of worship can be erected. "The construction of churches and synagogues in Muslim territory is unlawful, this being forbidden in the Traditions; but if the places of worship belonging to Jews, or Christians, be destroyed, or fall into decay, they are at liberty to repair them because buildings cannot endure forever."

Idol temples must be destroyed, and idolatry suppressed by force in all countries ruled according to strict Muslim law. (Hidiyah, vol. ii, p. 219)


III) "Daru'l-'Ahd" - Abode of Covenants

The Daru 'l-'Ahd is a means by which Muslims can solve the dilemma that they have created for themselves through migration and immigration: how can one live as a true Muslim while living in a non-Islamic state? The Dar al-'Ahd is a non-Muslim state in which there is an agreement between Muslims and non-Muslims that each must respect the other's right to practice their own religion.

IV) Darul-Sulh (also sometimes known as darul 'amn).

Similar to (III) above, Dar al-Sulh, is also at times translated as "the abode of peace" where Muslims, due to military/political stalemate, can have a treaty of peace and/or Truce and conclude agreements with non-Muslims.

So, in answer to your question, why the Muslims in the west are not 'fighting and attacking' their host Nations or States?

Firstly, the Muslims who come to the West eg.from Pakistan, Iran, India, Algeria, etc may very well be the liberal Muslims who, like some else already posted, want to move away from the stifling intolerance and radical extremism they find in their original Islamic states. They are attracted by the liberalism and 'open society' of the West. So they themselves do not buy into the radical Islamist agenda and may actualy be moving away from that!

Secondly, If you look at the (III) AND (IV) above, it is THUS a given in Islam, that Muslims who migrate to non-Islamic States, which are friendly towards such muslims, they are not to attack or subvert such states that treat these muslims HOSPITABLY and/or peaceably.

You still have not explained away the many, many verses in the authoritative Islamic sources themselves - the Quran, the Sunnah and the Hadiths, that ENJOIN AND OBLIGATE Violence, physical War and intolerance! These have NEVER been abrogated or cancelled or replaced or repealed in any way, in accordance with Nasikh waal mansukh-the muslim teaching of Abrogation.

Thus, they remain IN FORCE TO THIS VERY DAY. This is not just 'my views' - you can check them out with any orthodox Muslim manual and source, Sources which I myself have already given you as references and/or links to ORTHODOX MUSLIM SITES for anybody's verification.

Yes, people are the ones that kill other people. But don't you know that its the ideology and their belief system that drives them and also gets them that way! This is the most fundamental basis for any society of people.

Just look at the samurai folk, who will think nothing of disembowelling themselves at the command of their leader. They think it nothing to kill others via kami-kaze suicide murders!

Because their belief system tells them and teaches them so..!
Thank GOD that that belief has been largely debunked and disowned TODAY!

Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for Islam and its injunctions, and the intolerance, physical violence and literal war it still enjoins and requires for its detractors today.

Shalom, Dan Z.

[flipper]

JohnSparks:


Personally I have never seen any Christian propose stoning gays. But hey, there are always fringe wackos, in christianity and in islam.

I can give you a URL where you can go chat to some if you like, if you're curious. I think "fringe wackos" is a reasonable description.

[barryrob]

JWs,

I have never seen a church bare arms or have a standing army , therefore your reasoning is fallacious.
Islam tried to conquor and over run Erope after taking N.Africa and the Mid East by thr sword. Now that is a religion that bares a standing army, why no criticism.
The crusades then were a good idea, poorly carried out, they put Islam to rest for a long time, until the present and Bin Laden et al. have never forgiven the crusaders, the West, thank God.
So what are you trying to say?Any time the British nation goes to war the Queen or King, as the case may be, has to sign the declration. She or He is also the Head of the Church of England thus it automatily become a religo-polital war.
Under the Popes at Times the Pope himself would lead his army into Battle.
During the WW1 the priests in England would set up Drum Alters in the Streets to bless the troops as they went to war.
The Greman Soliders had a badge where upon it said "God is with us."
Any solider past and present is sworn to God and Country:-


Past
Under the Catholics. The following is "Vegetius's version" taken from 'The Roman Soldier' by G.R. Watson p.49:-
"'They swear by God, by Christ, and by the holy Spirit; and by the majesty of the Emperor, which is next to God, should be loved and worshipped by the human race. ... The soldier swear to perform with enthusiasm whatever the Emperor commands, never to desert, and not to shrink from death on behalf of the Roman state.'"


Today
Under The Protestants.
The following is "The Oath of Allegiance" taken by British soldiers in 1991:-
"I . . . . . . . Swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors and that I will as in duty bound honesty and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors and of the Generals and Officers set over me."


Your understanding of the interpaly between Church and State needs to be very much reexamined and brought up to-date as it is not at all accurtate. Due to the above Oaths the any wars fought are for God and country, the two are inseprable.

What I am saying is, if you condem Islam then you automatily condem the Churches of Christiandom as they have and are doing exatly the same thing, murdering men, women and children in the Name of God.

Barryrob

[barryrob]

Dear Barryrob:

Your statement does not surprise me. Since you are also a member of a religious cult and a "works" based religious system - not unlike Islam, you do not even know what true Christianity is.

You look at the history of Christendom and see the sects and denominations of Roman Catholicism, etc. That is not true Christianity. Those are religious sects - just like the Jehovah Witness cult. They are not Biblical and neither is your religion.

One thing the Roman Catholic, the Muslim and the Jehovah Witness all have in common is a false view of the true Jesus Christ and a works based plan of salvation. "Another Jesus" will not save. You need the real one that is revealed to us in the Scriptures of the Holy Bible. If you ever want to find him, throw down that New World Translation and read a real Bible.

Very easy to say, offer proof!

Barryrob

[Snarf]

snarf and all,

I have no doubts at any time, about the perfect Divinity AND Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ.


I don't think that you really believe that statement. The logic is simple

Jesus is God.
God said to kill certain people in the OT.
Therefore, since Jesus is God, then Jesus
said to kill certain people in the OT.

It's really no different than

A Ford is a car.
A car has 4 wheels.
Therefore, since a Ford is a car, then a Ford has four wheels.

There's only one reason why you don't accept what you call a "fallacious equivocation," and that is this: it disagrees with your idea of Jesus from the NT, and you don't want to face the fact that the God-man who said "turn the other cheek" is also the same God who laid out the law of Leviticus.
Too bad. If you want to believe that Jesus is God, then to Jesus must be ascribed ALL of the things that God did, not the ones that you happen to like and don't like.

The God that we worship ordered His followers to kill in the OT. Maybe not in the NT, but that doesn't cancel out what He said in the OT. I'm assuming that you consider the OT to be part of the Bible, yes? Since God (and this includes Jesus) said to kill certain people, He is a God capable of violence and ordering violence to be committed in His name.

I like what John Sparks said, about the fringe whackos. I do not believe either Islam or Christianity to be truly peaceful religions. Both of their holy books advocate violence, ordered by their respective gods. However, we followers (Christian and Muslim) have a choice. We can choose violence or peace. The whackos choose violence.

Since you seem to consider Muslims as being like robots who can only do what the Koran says (according to you, which is not trustworthy given your antipathy towards it), even saying that they are peaceful in western countries only because they have been ordered to, what is your solution for what you see as violence caused by Islam?

[Snarf]

Dear Barryrob:

Your statement does not surprise me. Since you are also a member of a religious cult and a "works" based religious system - not unlike Islam, you do not even know what true Christianity is.

You look at the history of Christendom and see the sects and denominations of Roman Catholicism, etc. That is not true Christianity. Those are religious sects - just like the Jehovah Witness cult. They are not Biblical and neither is your religion.

One thing the Roman Catholic, the Muslim and the Jehovah Witness all have in common is a false view of the true Jesus Christ and a works based plan of salvation.

We Roman Catholics believe in the same Jesus as you, and we believe in salvation by faith, same as you. Regarding works: "Faith without works is dead."

[Benster]

"Since you seem to consider Muslims as being like robots who can only do what the Koran says (according to you, which is not trustworthy given your antipathy towards it), even saying that they are peaceful in western countries only because they have been ordered to, what is your solution for what you see as violence caused by Islam?[/QUOTE] Clearly, not all muslims are robots ordered to kill...only some. But Islam is MORE of a problem than Christianity to the civilized world, AT THIS POINT IN TIME. This has to do with history and geography, and the clash of you-know-what.

What has to happen is for Islam to come to terms with the modern world, to relinquish its claim of authority over people in the sphere of law and civil society. To me, all religions are on the fringe. I want them to STAY ON THE FRINGE, as Christianity and Judaism do...pretty much. An example: I interact with people who are christians, even though they know I am an atheist. It doesn't seem to matter too much. And yet, I know that, in the privacy of their own homes, they pray, utter incantations to strange, unknowable, non-existent entities. And it's a bit weird. But they woudn't do it in public. They have learned to swallow their beliefs into their private world, and not let God-ness interfere with the operations of the real world. We are an a-religious society, no matter how many people say they believe in God in America, we won't let it get in our way.

Being on the fringe is not a problem for the muslim or myself. The problem is when that fringe comes into stark contact with what I consider to be the real, practical world. Muslims in the west are keenly aware of this. They are experiencing the change. And there is no doubt that Islam will fall into line, eventually. We might start by forcing Muslims, and all other theists, to swear allegiance to America, ahead of their bible, or not permit them in this country.

[Sparko]

Well I admit that the God of the bible advocated violence in the Old Testament. I think he had good reasons for it, and being God, he has the right to take the life that he gives, whether directly, like in the flood, or indirectly like when he tells his people to do it for him.

But he never used violence to convert people to believe in him. He never told his people to hold a sword to someone's head and convert or die.

And he never advocated people to take matters into their own hands. It was always only at his direct orders. I also believe we have a right to self defense. Jesus told his disciples to go and buy a sword because rough times were coming.

But yes, there are fringe wackos in Christianity, like the KKK and some other Chrisitian Identity cults that do interpret the bible in a violent way. Most mainstream Christians do not, and NEVER did. Christianity spread peacably until the Crusades, and that was mostly done by people who were pretty borderline in their Christianity, IMHO.

Now currently in Islam, most of its adherants are peaceful. But there are some groups in it that are equivalent to Christianity's KKK that want to spread Islam via violence and stop the evil west via terrorism.

The main difference I see is that where Christianity started out peaceful and remained so, other than a few periods like the crusades ---- Islam started violently, Mohommed and his generals DID spread islam by the sword, threatening to cut off peoples heads if they did not convert. Only later did it change into a more peaceful religion, but there are some hold outs like the Terrorists.

So to my mind, true Christianity has always been non-violent with some violent offshoots here and there.

True Islam started out violent but has been taken over by peaceful "denominations" for the most part, but with some violent groups that still remain.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[barryrob]

Why did Jesus tell the Israelites to kill homosexuals and adulteres (in Leviticus)?
Why have so many Christians killed so many people over the centuries?
As Jesus is not, never has been or ever will be Almighty God, it was not him who spoke in the O.T. it was His Creator/Father Jehovah who by waring against the evil and wicked from his view point, showing the time will come when he will remove all evil immoral waemungering persons from the face of the earth as he will not tolarate thier behavor indefinatly no matter who or what they claim to be or are! His soultion is called Armageddon!!

Why do Christians god to war, easy, they are not Christians even if they claim they are, the Bible says:-

2 Timothy 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be ..... 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, .... without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, .... 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.


All the above qualities are manifest by humans in war so the Bible say this kind of person does not know God, in fact they are false Christians, as they do not know the truth so stay away from them they are bad. At times they show how much they are evil and false Christians when they murder each other by the milions during WW1 & WW2, fought many among so called Christian countries showing just how Godless they where and in some case still are!

Barryrob

[barryrob]

Snarf and all, ETC. ETC. ETC.
Shalom, Dan Z.
A very good post and right on the non voilant stance by the followers of Christ.

As the facts show the Chiurch does not follow Christ anymore and has not done so for 1700 yrs or so as they put politcal intersts and self intrests first and Jesus Christs teaching go out of the window as it does not fit in with the churches quest for earthly power.

Do you agree?

Barryrob

[Maimonides]

A radical strain of Islamic fundamentalism has unified some of the most violent factions in the Arabic world, and they are bent on destroying not only Israel but all of Western culture as well.

Isn't it true that in the year 624 AD, Mohammed began a so-called "Holy War" against "infidels" (those who did not acknowledge him as a prophet of or Allah as the only god). Isn't it true that by means of this so-called "Holy War", by 632 A.D., the year that Mohammed died, Islam had become a powerful religious and political force?

Is it not true that ever since the time of Mohammed that Muslims have regarded war as a legitimate means of turning people to their religion? What is nobel about a religion like that?

Isn't it true that a war whose purpose is to bring infidels into submission under Islam is considered jihad, a so-called "holy war?"

Isn't it true that Mohammed himself justified and participated in killing and robbery against infidels in the name of Allah?

Isn't "convert or die" the most persuasive tool in the Islamic "missionary's arsenal? Does't a penchant for death still dominate the radical strains of Islam and don't these base their belief and actions on the Koran?

Isn't it true that many fundamentalist Muslims believe they are called to wage jihad against infidels, and this often includes killing innocent people, women and children? (Examples are the World Trade Center, The school children in Russia, etc.) What is nobel about a religion that causes people to act that way, or a Koran that tells them its ok?

Isn't it true that Islam has always conquered by the sword? Isn't it true that in medieval times, Islamic armies converted virtually all of the Middle East by force?

Isn't it true that violence against infidels and the concept of jihad is fundamental to Islam, and is an inescapable part of Islamic history?
You know, I was reading the Koran the other day. I happened upon a chapter where Allah says that he will allow foreigners to convert and submit to Islam, but he will destroy the nation of Israel regardless!




And then the other foot falls and he says, "Actually, I was talking about the Hebrew deity in Deuteronomy chapter 20."


My friend, it seems you need to hear a quote straight from the mouth of the Blessed Prophet. Upon returning from a battle (Arabic ghazu, raid), Muhammad said, "We are returning from the lesser jihad (that is, the battle), to the greater jihad." The greater jihad? The struggle to live for Allah, to implement His will in one's daily life. Jihad itself in Arabic is translated "struggle" not holy war.

Have you read/examined my posts on Christian violence? I thought Snarf had an excellent point about disparate cultures interpreting the same ideology differently. Is not it true indeed that Christians have always conquered by the sword to the degree that they have been able? Granted, Jesus was not a military messiah (as presented in the Gospels, anyway, although some have challenged this perception). Muhammad urged no coercion in matters of faith, incidentally.

The differences between Muhammad/Jesus as seen in Machiavellian terms: Muhammad was a more successful prophet than Jesus. He was able to effect a political regime with his ideology at the center during his lifetime; Christ was not. I understand this is directly contradictory to the Gospel or emic view, but the point is still a valid one.

Is not the maxim of conversion by the sword one used down the ages by Christians? Ironic that the very Roman Empire that crucified the founder of a (supposedly) peaceful cult facilitated the spread of that same cult (Christianity) via an organized network of roads? In those days Christianity was still too young to assay and effect the task of bringing about a regime promoting its ideology; but by the time the Roman Empire had begun to decay, they had done so.

And then the ball kept rolling from there. "Barbarian" regimes were recognized by the pope, allowing them to strengthen and centralize their suzerainty (witness the Carolingian Empire). Holy wars were fought to take the "Holy land" back; in 1099 the Crusaders rode through a sea of blood up to their horses's knees, the blood of men, women, and children, Jews and Muslims alike. But there were other crusades: the Reconquista in Spain, the Wendish Crusade in Central Europe in 1147, and the horrific Teutonic invasions of Eastern Europe. One of my least favorites: in the twelfth century the (English) Pope licensed the English king to "Christianize" Ireland (despite the fact that Ireland had been Christian for seven centuries already, and played some role in the re-evangelization of England). The English knights cut a red tide through the Gaelic resistance; by the close of the thirteenth century the dismal deed was done.

The point is not to overwhelm you with historical data; the point is to enlighten you concerning the phenomenon of Crusaderism in the West, and the drive to destroy "infidel" empires and tribes as described above and elsewhere on this thread.

As to Islam attempting/wishing the destruction of Israel and Western culture, they are (alas) responding to a trend of Crusaderism deeply entrenched within the matrix of our thought. The stirrings of Crusaderism are evident in the Biblical genocide of Canaan. Christians well after Christ picked up on this thread and carried it down to the present.

Of course Islam is violent at times! Any religion with that many adherents living in that many countries subjected to that much economic stricture will inevitably be! I don't mean to disseminate pro-Islamic propoganda with no basis in reality, merely to attempt to cultivate a balanced outlook on the sum total of all humanity and the many religions we've created.

Read your Bible. :wink:

[heaven]

We Roman Catholics believe in the same Jesus as you, and we believe in salvation by faith, same as you. Regarding works: "Faith without works is dead."
Snarf,
The original church was jewish which evolved into the catholic religion and
included 5 councils, as history intervened, it became the western at Rome
and the Orthodox at Constantinople. In 1054, the western and Orthodox
churches split, the Orthodox consider the Western church the first Protentant
sect. The Western Catholic Church became known as the Roman Catholic
Church when the Church of England broke off. The worship of the Episcopal
and RCC is allmost identical. The worship of the RCC and Orthodox is the
same. The Deposit of Faith was the oral tradition of the Apostles . The
early church relied on the OT and deposit of faith. The Catholic Church
wrote and compiled the canons of the New Testament. All churches that
descend from the oral tradition and deposit of faith and then the Catholic
Church are Christian.
Jehovah Witnesses, Moslems and the many cults, which may use the
scriptures do not have this lineage and are NOT CHRISTIAN.
heaven!

[heaven]

:sigh:
You know, I was reading the Koran the other day. I happened upon a chapter where Allah says that he will allow foreigners to convert and submit to Islam, but he will destroy the nation of Israel regardless!




And then the other foot falls and he says, "Actually, I was talking about the Hebrew deity in Deuteronomy chapter 20."


My friend, it seems you need to hear a quote straight from the mouth of the Blessed Prophet. Upon returning from a battle (Arabic ghazu, raid), Muhammad said, "We are returning from the lesser jihad (that is, the battle), to the greater jihad." The greater jihad? The struggle to live for Allah, to implement His will in one's daily life. Jihad itself in Arabic is translated "struggle" not holy war.

Have you read/examined my posts on Christian violence? I thought Snarf had an excellent point about disparate cultures interpreting the same ideology differently. Is not it true indeed that Christians have always conquered by the sword to the degree that they have been able? Granted, Jesus was not a military messiah (as presented in the Gospels, anyway, although some have challenged this perception). Muhammad urged no coercion in matters of faith, incidentally.

The differences between Muhammad/Jesus as seen in Machiavellian terms: Muhammad was a more successful prophet than Jesus. He was able to effect a political regime with his ideology at the center during his lifetime; Christ was not. I understand this is directly contradictory to the Gospel or emic view, but the point is still a valid one.

Is not the maxim of conversion by the sword one used down the ages by Christians? Ironic that the very Roman Empire that crucified the founder of a (supposedly) peaceful cult facilitated the spread of that same cult (Christianity) via an organized network of roads? In those days Christianity was still too young to assay and effect the task of bringing about a regime promoting its ideology; but by the time the Roman Empire had begun to decay, they had done so.

And then the ball kept rolling from there. "Barbarian" regimes were recognized by the pope, allowing them to strengthen and centralize their suzerainty (witness the Carolingian Empire). Holy wars were fought to take the "Holy land" back; in 1099 the Crusaders rode through a sea of blood up to their horses's knees, the blood of men, women, and children, Jews and Muslims alike. But there were other crusades: the Reconquista in Spain, the Wendish Crusade in Central Europe in 1147, and the horrific Teutonic invasions of Eastern Europe. One of my least favorites: in the twelfth century the (English) Pope licensed the English king to "Christianize" Ireland (despite the fact that Ireland had been Christian for seven centuries already, and played some role in the re-evangelization of England). The English knights cut a red tide through the Gaelic resistance; by the close of the thirteenth century the dismal deed was done.

The point is not to overwhelm you with historical data; the point is to enlighten you concerning the phenomenon of Crusaderism in the West, and the drive to destroy "infidel" empires and tribes as described above and elsewhere on this thread.

As to Islam attempting/wishing the destruction of Israel and Western culture, they are (alas) responding to a trend of Crusaderism deeply entrenched within the matrix of our thought. The stirrings of Crusaderism are evident in the Biblical genocide of Canaan. Christians well after Christ picked up on this thread and carried it down to the present.

Of course Islam is violent at times! Any religion with that many adherents living in that many countries subjected to that much economic stricture will inevitably be! I don't mean to disseminate pro-Islamic propoganda with no basis in reality, merely to attempt to cultivate a balanced outlook on the sum total of all humanity and the many religions we've created.

Read your Bible. :wink:

Dear Read Your Bible:wink:

You give a detailed complaint about the crusades and crusaders, an incorrect
historical account and then say read your bible. I suggest you do, begin
with the Book of Revelation and Genesis and then Matthew and find out
about Jesus.
I thank God for the Reconquista and the Holy Land Crusades, militant Islam
has been held at bay, only to rear it's ugly head once more.I hear more
complaints about the arabs or moslems being slaughtered by Christians, but
then they chose to spread a religion by force and the sword.
What about the blessed pedophile Mohammed who married a 9 yr. old and
instituted polygamy, counted woman not even half the value of a man and
who had spells, which many claimed were demonic, a religion that issues a
death fatwa for criticizing Mohammed or the Koran, a false prophet who
represents the concept of deity, a god who cannot be known.

[Maimonides]

Your history of Hispaniola and Mexico is not based on fact. Diseases wiped out the
indigenous peoples. Mexico was the most progressive country in that the indigenous
were schooled along with the foreigners, which schools and society were founded by
the friars, indigenous held positions in government while the US indigenous were
pushed west onto reservations and isolated. Each country is different in the Americas,
while Cortez obeyed the orders of the king of Spain, Pizarro in Peru tried to claim the
wealth of the Incan civilization for himself, a 'lousy cut throat" w/o scruples.

I do not believe that Islam has the right to be on the aggressive against christianity
and take up the cause of indigenous peoples, one only has to view the position of
women in such countries, the Koran does not consider woman a full person, and the
mean estate of the muslim people to know they lack the authority.

The actions of apostate cultural christians has nothing to do with the God of
christianity or the religion, the teachings of the religion in the Koran are vile however.
The peaceful moslems either do not read the Koran which is in arabic or cannot read
the koran. Your statement that the moslems who read the Koran are peaceful is
ambiguous. It is precisely the fundamentalists who study the Koran who are terrorists.

The problem with the moslem faith is the Koran and it's teachings.
This is not the issue with the scriptures, which you should read to avoid further
untruthful assumptionsAs an Amerindian scholar I find your assertions about my facts... interesting. Unfortunately this is no light matter, as there is ample documentary evidence to describe the inundation of the Americas: the Europeans were literate and they very kindly wrote it all down for us: rapine, massacre of men, women, and children (I read of a Maya women who would not give in to her Spanish captors; she was thrown to the dogs), forced labor (first in the Bahamas, later on in Mexico and Peru; they forced the indigenous peoples to work in the mines to the neglect of husbandry of the land; famines followed and countless died), and the like. Again my own state of California has visible reminders of this: a string of very beautiful missions built with Indian slave labor that dots our coastline from San Diego to San Francisco.

You are correct: efforts were made to induct native peoples into the priesthood and the like, and to educate them. These came, however, at the expense of indigenous lifeways and cultures.

As to my statistics: I don't know how much you may have read about Pre-Columbian America. My parents' generation undoubtedly grew up hearing that the entire area of the U.S. and Canada was the province of a mere one million inhabitants. This is the result of a long trend of misinformation, propaganda, and lack of understanding that has facilitated the justification of the conquest of the Americas; the actual number was closer to 20 million, and more than that for Central Mexico alone as has already been stated.

Now, as concerns your statement about "apostate cultural Christians." Your point is understood and appreciated; in another debate my opponent asserted that European culture and the fundamentals of Christianity are separable, and of right ought to have been; furthermore it is not "God's" responsibility to isolate people. Very well, although this does raise some interesting questions about what manner of being "God" is: is God a "God of History?" If Christianity is to "make disciples of all nations" how are we to conclude that the Gospel should be spread? Furthermore, humanity is much older than Christianity... just what are the inalienable and untrammeled benisons of Christianity applicable on a universal basis?

As to the Islamic faith... As asserted elsewhere I do not wish to disseminate pro-Islamic propaganda. My assertions are based on my reading of Islamic history from Karen Armstrong's quite enlightened (and objective) books. Others have gone on at length about the more detrimental manifestations of the Islamic faith; personally I wish to look more carefully into these matters (I suspect this will involve learning Arabic).

As to the Bible... truly a wondrous compendium of philosophy, mythology, prose, and poetry (including my favorite, the love poem "Song of Solomon.") I deeply love the Bible as an incredible and awe-inspiring link to the ancient world; I refuse to merely take it literally within a narrow framework but rather prefer to analyze it in my own fashion through scholarly research. You state that the problem with the Islamic faith is... the Islamic faith and the basis thereof; you further suggest that I should merely read the "scriptures" (a term I try to avoid). In response let me say that I do not care to entrust a single document (especially of religious nature), with the sum total of my faculties; I remain a believer in Jesus with strong agnostic leanings.

Religious people are funny; every sect seems out to prove why you should accept it just their way.

Regards, my friend, and salaam alaykum, ~Maimonides.

[Maimonides]

:sigh:


Dear Read Your Bible:wink:

You give a detailed complaint about the crusades and crusaders, an incorrect
historical account and then say read your bible. I suggest you do, begin
with the Book of Revelation and Genesis and then Matthew and find out
about Jesus.
I thank God for the Reconquista and the Holy Land Crusades, militant Islam
has been held at bay, only to rear it's ugly head once more.I hear more
complaints about the arabs or moslems being slaughtered by Christians, but
then they chose to spread a religion by force and the sword.
What about the blessed pedophile Mohammed who married a 9 yr. old and
instituted polygamy, counted woman not even half the value of a man and
who had spells, which many claimed were demonic, a religion that issues a
death fatwa for criticizing Mohammed or the Koran, a false prophet who
represents the concept of deity, a god who cannot be known.
My dear friend... wherever shall I start? In what particulars was my historical account "incorrect"? History is a passion and a discipline I take extremely seriously; I would wish to be informed were my sources incorrect. How much do you know about the horrors of the Reconquista, and the disaster to Spanish jewry? Are you aware that in the very year Columbus set sail, 130,000+ Sephardic Jews were deported from Spain? If you're trying to bait me it simply will not work. You thank God for some of the bloodiest massacres in history and expect me to worship the Jesus you profess? I wonder from whence came your education in history; certainly I await your reply on this.

As to Jesus: let me inform you. I was raised in a church but go no longer. I'm glad to be out. Christians can be very wonderful people, and they can be very damaging. Damaging in their attitudes, presuppositions, and outlook. Strict literalism and fundamentalism, intellectually hollow and detrimental to the societal fabric. I could go on at length but decline to do so. Suffice it to say that I have had inordinate exposure to the Bible... and love it despite all this. As I mentioned elsewhere, I do believe in Jesus but refuse to submit to a church or set of established doctrines. The Bible is a wonderful compendium of many stories that can illumine the human heart; they can also serve as justification for the darkness therein. Jesus was a wonderful figure with the promise of a new hope for humanity. His actions, I will concede, stand in stark contrast to those of all-too-many of his followers. Christianity realistically did start out less a militaristic faith than Islam (unless one wishes to go the way of Marvin Harris); I will say though that this is due to the individual legacies of the founders and the disparate matrices from whence they came.

I would hesitate to call Muhammad a false prophet; I am an agnostic in that I do not believe this can be proved or disproved. He was a man with his strengths and failings; he remains one of my greatest historical heroes for his promotion of women's rights (contrary to the present situation- read Karen Armstrong's A History of God or The Battle for God).

As regards pundits of the Christian faith: mistaken are those who believe that they may promote their religion in any fashion whatsoever (no matter how legalistic or judgmental or the like), and expect the rest of us to meekly kowtow in submission to righteousness. I am not addressing any one individual; if you feel insulted reading this I've hit my mark.

Read your Bible and all the other good books that are out there, and salaam alaykum. ~Maimonides.

"Nonbeing can never be; Being can never not be. Both these statements are obvious to those who have seen the truth." ~Bhagavad Gita.

[Jude3b]

Very easy to say, offer proof!

Barryrob

Dear Barryrob:

You want proof. Ok, may I ask you a couple of questions first? If yes, please tell me Are you saved? Are you sure you will go to heaven (or your religions idea about a recreated earth) when you die? Why? Why should God let you live in heaven or on the recreated earth?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

[Maimonides]

I wanted to follow up the above by addressing the women's rights thing further. The polygynous situation in pre-Islamic Arabia verged on licentiousness. Muhammad was seemingly trying to limit it in a culturally acceptable way; the women's position is further strengthened by specific revelations addressed to them (in the Koran, or so I am given to understand), and the provisos of divorce and inheritance rights (revolutionary in the world at the time; for the first century or so of the Islamic faith female adherents did better generally than their Jewish and Christian sisters abroad).

Muhammad's marriages were more for the sake of political alliances; his multiple wives could be a nuisance with their bickering and the like. Certainly he was not a sensualist in the mode of later Islamic rulers.

Conversion was not mandatory; it was encouraged through the economic strictures of the jizya. Not until the early eighth century did the notion of Islam as a universal religion really take hold. The Koran asserts that many prophets have been sent to many nations; Muhammad was merely the local variant, and the last and greatest of the prophets reaching back to Adam via Noah, Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus) and the like.

Of course Islam has its shortcomings (so does Christianity); if you wish to win Muslims over to your religion perhaps you should cease to xenophobically disparage Islam; Abrasion and insult are never the pathways to true conversion.

[Maimonides]

Dear Barryrob:

You want proof. Ok, may I ask you a couple of questions first? If yes, please tell me Are you saved? Are you sure you will go to heaven (or your religions idea about a recreated earth) when you die? Why? Why should God let you live in heaven or on the recreated earth?

Thank you in advance for your answers.
My dear Jude,

I have been very critical of you on this thread. I have always had a justification, and have tried to be duly circumspect in doing so.

Thus, I wonder if perhaps you might possess a "Messiah complex", the notion that the (eternal) fate of others rests in your hands and you must make them see the error of their ways? Forgive my meddling but it seems a fair question. Certainly I do not care to disparage your cosmology; I'm sure your faith has great value for you as mine does for me. But I think perhaps it should be said that for a variety of reasons people do not all believe the same and never have. I am no seer so I cannot say they never will.

Some food for thought, methinks.

[Jude3b]

You know, I was reading the Koran the other day. I happened upon a chapter where Allah says that he will allow foreigners to convert and submit to Islam, but he will destroy the nation of Israel regardless!




And then the other foot falls and he says, "Actually, I was talking about the Hebrew deity in Deuteronomy chapter 20."


My friend, it seems you need to hear a quote straight from the mouth of the Blessed Prophet. Upon returning from a battle (Arabic ghazu, raid), Muhammad said, "We are returning from the lesser jihad (that is, the battle), to the greater jihad." The greater jihad? The struggle to live for Allah, to implement His will in one's daily life. Jihad itself in Arabic is translated "struggle" not holy war.

Have you read/examined my posts on Christian violence? I thought Snarf had an excellent point about disparate cultures interpreting the same ideology differently. Is not it true indeed that Christians have always conquered by the sword to the degree that they have been able? Granted, Jesus was not a military messiah (as presented in the Gospels, anyway, although some have challenged this perception). Muhammad urged no coercion in matters of faith, incidentally.

The differences between Muhammad/Jesus as seen in Machiavellian terms: Muhammad was a more successful prophet than Jesus. He was able to effect a political regime with his ideology at the center during his lifetime; Christ was not. I understand this is directly contradictory to the Gospel or emic view, but the point is still a valid one.

Is not the maxim of conversion by the sword one used down the ages by Christians? Ironic that the very Roman Empire that crucified the founder of a (supposedly) peaceful cult facilitated the spread of that same cult (Christianity) via an organized network of roads? In those days Christianity was still too young to assay and effect the task of bringing about a regime promoting its ideology; but by the time the Roman Empire had begun to decay, they had done so.

And then the ball kept rolling from there. "Barbarian" regimes were recognized by the pope, allowing them to strengthen and centralize their suzerainty (witness the Carolingian Empire). Holy wars were fought to take the "Holy land" back; in 1099 the Crusaders rode through a sea of blood up to their horses's knees, the blood of men, women, and children, Jews and Muslims alike. But there were other crusades: the Reconquista in Spain, the Wendish Crusade in Central Europe in 1147, and the horrific Teutonic invasions of Eastern Europe. One of my least favorites: in the twelfth century the (English) Pope licensed the English king to "Christianize" Ireland (despite the fact that Ireland had been Christian for seven centuries already, and played some role in the re-evangelization of England). The English knights cut a red tide through the Gaelic resistance; by the close of the thirteenth century the dismal deed was done.

The point is not to overwhelm you with historical data; the point is to enlighten you concerning the phenomenon of Crusaderism in the West, and the drive to destroy "infidel" empires and tribes as described above and elsewhere on this thread.

As to Islam attempting/wishing the destruction of Israel and Western culture, they are (alas) responding to a trend of Crusaderism deeply entrenched within the matrix of our thought. The stirrings of Crusaderism are evident in the Biblical genocide of Canaan. Christians well after Christ picked up on this thread and carried it down to the present.

Of course Islam is violent at times! Any religion with that many adherents living in that many countries subjected to that much economic stricture will inevitably be! I don't mean to disseminate pro-Islamic propoganda with no basis in reality, merely to attempt to cultivate a balanced outlook on the sum total of all humanity and the many religions we've created.

Read your Bible. :wink:

Dear Maimonide's:

Thank you for telling me to read my Bible. I will do it! Do you read it?

Do you know that the Bible offers the only hope that really matters? It is the kind of hope Islam cannot offer. The Bible offers the hope of eternal life.
"This is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son" (I John 5:11). Christ is the only way! "Not is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Those who embrace Christ by faith find in Him full salvation and the assurance of heaven eternally. "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12). The Lord Jesus Christ is our only hope of salvation (I Tim. 1:1).

Maimonide's, have you ever considered praying and asking Jesus Christ to reveal himself to you and to be your personal Lord and Savior? You may not realize this, but you cannot please God through your own religious efforts or your own intelligence. God offers salvation freely to you and to all of us who turn to Christ in faith. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31).

Salvation was purchased by Jesus Christ, who bore the full penanlty of sin on behalf of all who would ever trust Him. Won't you prayerully consider trusting Christ right now and asking Him to be your very own personal Lord and Savior? I pray you do, in the name of my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Maimonides]My dear Jude,

I have been very critical of you on this thread. I have always had a justification, and have tried to be duly circumspect in doing so.

Thus, I wonder if perhaps you might possess a "Messiah complex", the notion that the (eternal) fate of others rests in your hands and you must make them see the error of their ways? Forgive my meddling but it seems a fair question. Certainly I do not care to disparage your cosmology; I'm sure your faith has great value for you as mine does for me. But I think perhaps it should be said that for a variety of reasons people do not all believe the same and never have. I am no seer so I cannot say they never will.

Some food for thought, methinks.[/QUOTE


You being critical does not bother me one bit. Go ahead, if that is your desire.

What I write about and discuss is truth. It is not who's right, but whats right that matters. The Word of God is true and Jesus Christ is the only true savior. "He (alone) is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him." (Hebrews 7:25). Won't you consider calling on the name of the Lord today and getting saved?

[Maimonides]

[QUOTE=Maimonides]My dear Jude,

I have been very critical of you on this thread. I have always had a justification, and have tried to be duly circumspect in doing so.

Thus, I wonder if perhaps you might possess a "Messiah complex", the notion that the (eternal) fate of others rests in your hands and you must make them see the error of their ways? Forgive my meddling but it seems a fair question. Certainly I do not care to disparage your cosmology; I'm sure your faith has great value for you as mine does for me. But I think perhaps it should be said that for a variety of reasons people do not all believe the same and never have. I am no seer so I cannot say they never will.

Some food for thought, methinks.[/QUOTE


You being critical does not bother me one bit. Go ahead, if that is your desire.

What I write about and discuss is truth. It is not who's right, but whats right that matters. The Word of God is true and Jesus Christ is the only true savior. "He (alone) is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him." (Hebrews 7:25). Won't you consider calling on the name of the Lord today and getting saved?
Thank you, Jude. It certainly is heartening to be able to discuss matters in a rational fashion.

Perhaps you haven't read all of my posts? I do state in several that I consider myself a Christian. I did experience "God" (the term is problematic but will have to suffice), at a very young age. Despite my many shortcomings, I continue to profess the faith, albeit in a form much modified from my former ways. I consider this a benison; I am free to pursue scientific and academic inquiry in my own fashion and am free of the confines of dogmatism to which I once was prone.

I do not consider myself "earning" my salvation through acts or through intelligence; the cultivation of my awareness is something I indulge in for personal pleasure and advancement of knowledge.

Your concern is touching; I can only tell you that you and I have different approaches to the same fundamental questions. You might even say we have different answers. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong; that's why I'm an agnostic, too, I maintain you can't really know (in some sense), except through experience and the like.

As to Biblical anecdote, I do not concern myself overmuch; the Bible is a remarkable book. I do read it very regularly, but refuse to maintain an inerrantist worldview (due to my research, not circular reasoning in my ideology- I would if the evidence was there to support it).

My religion is not based on good works or I would have failed long ago. It motivates me to feel concern and compassion for people all over the world, and urges me to translate this into circumspect and right action towards them in my day-to-day life.

Tikkun olam (Hebrew, heal the broken earth), ~Maimonides.

[barryrob]

Dear Barryrob:

You want proof. Ok, may I ask you a couple of questions first? If yes, please tell me Are you saved? Are you sure you will go to heaven (or your religions idea about a recreated earth) when you die? Why? Why should God let you live in heaven or on the recreated earth?

Thank you in advance for your answers.1. Yes - The following is my faith:-

Acts 16:31 They said: "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved, you and your household."


2. Yes. Not on a recreated Earth, but a cleaned up or restored Earth:-


Psalm 37:10-11 And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. 11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

Psalm 37:29 The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.








The above is my firm hope.


3. Because that is part of his purpose for humans so that all in heaven or on earth will praise him for bringing salvation to mankind by Jesus Christ our lord as the following is a small glimps of:-


Ephesians 1:8-14 This he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and good sense, 9 in that he made known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in him, 11 in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, in that we were foreordained according to the purpose of him who operates all things according to the way his will counsels, 12 that we should serve for the praise of his glory, we who have been first to hope in the Christ. 13 But YOU also hoped in him after YOU heard the word of truth, the good news about YOUR salvation. By means of him also, after YOU believed, YOU were sealed with the promised holy spirit, 14 which is a token in advance of our inheritance, for the purpose of releasing by a ransom [God’s] own possession, to his glorious praise.


So weither on Earth or in Heaven all will worship Jehovah.


Barryrob

[Snarf]

Well I admit that the God of the bible advocated violence in the Old Testament. I think he had good reasons for it, and being God, he has the right to take the life that he gives, whether directly, like in the flood, or indirectly like when he tells his people to do it for him.

But he never used violence to convert people to believe in him. He never told his people to hold a sword to someone's head and convert or die.

And he never advocated people to take matters into their own hands. It was always only at his direct orders. I also believe we have a right to self defense. Jesus told his disciples to go and buy a sword because rough times were coming.

But yes, there are fringe wackos in Christianity, like the KKK and some other Chrisitian Identity cults that do interpret the bible in a violent way. Most mainstream Christians do not, and NEVER did. Christianity spread peacably until the Crusades, and that was mostly done by people who were pretty borderline in their Christianity, IMHO.

Now currently in Islam, most of its adherants are peaceful. But there are some groups in it that are equivalent to Christianity's KKK that want to spread Islam via violence and stop the evil west via terrorism.

The main difference I see is that where Christianity started out peaceful and remained so, other than a few periods like the crusades ---- Islam started violently, Mohommed and his generals DID spread islam by the sword, threatening to cut off peoples heads if they did not convert. Only later did it change into a more peaceful religion, but there are some hold outs like the Terrorists.

So to my mind, true Christianity has always been non-violent with some violent offshoots here and there.

True Islam started out violent but has been taken over by peaceful "denominations" for the most part, but with some violent groups that still remain.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Thanks for the thought, I agree with much of what you say.

[Jude3b]

1. Yes - The following is my faith:-

Acts 16:31 They said: "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved, you and your household."


2. Yes. Not on a recreated Earth, but a cleaned up or restored Earth:-


Psalm 37:10-11 And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. 11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

Psalm 37:29 The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it.








The above is my firm hope.


3. Because that is part of his purpose for humans so that all in heaven or on earth will praise him for bringing salvation to mankind by Jesus Christ our lord as the following is a small glimps of:-


Ephesians 1:8-14 This he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and good sense, 9 in that he made known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. [Yes,] in him, 11 in union with whom we were also assigned as heirs, in that we were foreordained according to the purpose of him who operates all things according to the way his will counsels, 12 that we should serve for the praise of his glory, we who have been first to hope in the Christ. 13 But YOU also hoped in him after YOU heard the word of truth, the good news about YOUR salvation. By means of him also, after YOU believed, YOU were sealed with the promised holy spirit, 14 which is a token in advance of our inheritance, for the purpose of releasing by a ransom [God’s] own possession, to his glorious praise.


So weither on Earth or in Heaven all will worship Jehovah.


Barryrob




Dear Barryrob:

You never did say, what is the reason that God will allow you to live on a restored earth? A simple answer will do. Is it because you are a Jehovah Witness? Or is it because you obey the Jehovah Witness doctrines? Is it because you go out and knock on doors with other Jehovah Witnesses and share the Jehovah Witness message with others? What exactly are you doing to be assured that you are saved and will be allowed to live on a restored earth for all eternity? WHY should God allow you to live on the restored earth?

[Jude3b]

We Roman Catholics believe in the same Jesus as you, and we believe in salvation by faith, same as you. Regarding works: "Faith without works is dead."

Dear Snarf:

Thank you for your post. I sense that you are sincere in your statement.

I also was a Roman Catholic for 27 years, trained for over 10 years in Roman Catholic Schools with theology classes daily. Served as an Altar Boy in my youth. I was sincere, but I was not saved. Your see, I was not fully trusting in the One and Only Savior - the Lord Jesus Christ - for my salvation. Instead I trusted in a lesser Jesus, who was only a part of salvation. The rest was up to me. I had to keep the rules and regulations of the Roman Catholic religion and maybe, that is possibly, someday, after the burnoff in Purgatory - if I was really lucky I would get to go to heaven. That was providing that I didn't die with an unconfessed "Mortal sin" - to cause me to go to Hell. It was hard for me to get to the confession box and stay out of Mortal sin for very long. I had no assurance at all of salvation, even though I was classified as a "good Roman Catholic." I thought Jesus was a "good example" - but never did I realize that I could actually have a personal relationship with My Lord and Savior - living in me, until the day that I truly believed and prayed and asked Him to Save me. He did and I've been saved ever since. Of course when I shared that fact with my friends back in the Roman Catholic religion - they told me - "watch out - you could be guilty of the sin of presumption!" WoW! I guess I John 5:13 - must not be in their BIBLES.

Now I believe ON the Real Jesus Christ - the ALL SUFFICIENT SAVIOR - who once and forever - paid it all. He saved me. I do not do good works or practice Roman Catholic Sacramentalism to help me "EARN" salvation, or even to keep my salvation. I do good works and have submitted to the Biblical ordinances of Believers Baptism by Immersion and Communion - because I am saved already - by Him! I recognize that my good works will never save me or add anything to my being saved. Jesus paid it all and all to Him I owe.

Snarf, may I ask you a couple of questions please? First- if you died today are you absolutely sure that you would go to heaven. Second- If yes, why?

Thank you.

[barryrob]

Dear Barryrob:

You never did say, what is the reason that God will allow you to live on a restored earth? A simple answer will do. Is it because you are a Jehovah Witness? Or is it because you obey the Jehovah Witness doctrines? Is it because you go out and knock on doors with other Jehovah Witnesses and share the Jehovah Witness message with others? What exactly are you doing to be assured that you are saved and will be allowed to live on a restored earth for all eternity? WHY should God allow you to live on the restored earth?
It is because of exercising faith in the Shed Blood of Jesus Christ as the ransom sacrifice as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In short:-



Romans 10:9 For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.. . .

Barryrob

[Jude3b]

It is because of exercising faith in the Shed Blood of Jesus Christ as the ransom sacrifice as the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. In short:-



Romans 10:9 For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved.. . .

Barryrob

Dear Barryrob:

You do not mean to say that you and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are teaching a salvation by Grace alone, are you?

Correct me if I am wrong please. But isn't your hope of life in the restored earth also based on your Watchtower Membership and active association in the WBTS? Weren't you also required to have baptism by immersion? Aren't you required to Proselytise for Jehovah and the WBTS?

[heaven]

HI Snarf and all,

Well, firstly, I don't think that the 10 Commandments found in the Torah (Decalogue in the first 5 Books of Moses) teach violence, as the Command 'Thou Shalt NOT KILL' itself is already one of the Ten Commandments.

I believe that God gave the 10 Commandments to preserve the Hebrew people and also as a 'school master to lead men to Christ', as Martin Luther has succintly put it.

When Romans 10:4 states that 'Christ is the END of the Law' it means that Christ set aside the requirements of fulfilling the Law as a means for obtaining Salvation, ie.its salvific value has been set aside. For Jesus Christ himself became that means of Salvation for mankind for once and for all. See also Ephesians 2:8-10. I dont believe that anyone is capable of keeping the whole of the 10 Commandments totally and perfectly, except Jesus Christ who was sinless. :teeth:

Nevertheless I did not say that the 10 Commandments must be absolutely abandoned now and is useless! It is useless as far as a means to acheive Salvation is concerned - BUT- we still can use it as a yardstick for good moral behavior and ethics for today, and so it still remains as a good and reliable guide for humanity and its survival.

So now, my model and Example is Jesus Christ, and the new Kingdom that He established thats based on genuine and unconditional LOVE. FOr me, that has abrogated the OT injunctions and commands, thus nullifying their force to be obeyed, as they have been replaced by a much more sublime Law.

But what you seem to be referring to are "OT commandments" which I assume are OUTSIDE of the 10 Commandments, but are other commands by God to 'kill the pagan enemies of the Hebrews' like those given to Joshua etc.

I believe those are different and outside of the 10 Commandments, simply because they were given in specific situations to address specific threats to the Hebrew people and their existence as the distinct people of God elected through Abraham.

Once that particular enemy was dealt with and posed no longer a threat (eg.the Perrizites, Ammonites etc) to the Hebrew people and nation and their worship of the 1 true God Yahweh, then the Jews or Hebrews were to stop from any more killing. Such injunctions to kill as self-defence were to EXHAUSTED, STOPPED and NOT TO BE CONTINUED INDEFINITELY, for ever and without any end in sight. :wink:

This is the opposite in Islamic and Quranic injunctions. As far as the Sword verses are concerned, and I primarily am alluding to THEM. Surah 9:5 and 9:29 are the abrogating texts over all the 'gentle and peaceful' verses in the Quran, and this is confirmd by the Muslim ulamas (scholars/theologians) themselves.

Thus, the injunction to violence and violent struggle -AGAINST NON MUSLIMS is truly and really INHERENT IN ISLAM as they are enjoined by key Quranic verses themselves which were acted upon in the past, are STILL in force TODAY and well into the future!

I was just watching an Interview over BBC with Tariq Ramadhan, a prominent middle-eastern muslim scholar, and he admits in the interview that violence - domestic, political, territorial and terroristic, REMAIN as real problems within Islam, and that such matters are in dire and serious need for reform and reformation, that unless muslims take real concrete measures and action to stem the tide, it will be impossible for Islam to move forward.

So, in a real sense, Tariq Ramadhan has put his finger on the actionable spot. The moderate Muslims MUST arise and engage the radicals fundamentalists in Islam concretely and unequivocally, to challenge these fundmantalists in their hyper-literalism and unbridled radicalism that there is a better and more contemporaneous way to express islam, in keeping with the times and current socio-political norms.

And all this has to be done and accomplished inside the house of Islam.

Your comparison of Islamic violence with OT 'commands' is really invalid, as for Christians, these OT injunctions no longer have imperative, actionable value. Whilst for the muslims, the Sword verses MUST be enforced by all 'true muslims' for all time, because they are the 'Nasikh' ie.the actionable verses for all time, as even their scholars have affirmed! :ahem:

Regards, Dan.
Dear Dan Zebiri,

It is my understanding that only if we are able to love as Jesus loved , then we are keeping all of the
law and the commandments, and that these commandments and the law are given to man as
a standard of morality and law, absolutes. Therefore, we who
are imperfect can only have the willingness to cooperative with God's law and
purposes in oiur walk.

[barryrob]

Dear Barryrob:

You do not mean to say that you and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are teaching a salvation by Grace alone, are you?

Correct me if I am wrong please. But isn't your hope of life in the restored earth also based on your Watchtower Membership and active association in the WBTS? Weren't you also required to have baptism by immersion? Aren't you required to Proselytise for Jehovah and the WBTS?

Sorry about all the quotes but I think they are needed here:-

Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY WORKS!
Watchtower 1986 January 15th p.10
"Exert Yourselves Vigorously"
Salvation cannot be earned by attendance at meetings or in any other way. It is free, a gift from God. Yet, Jehovah God does require efforts on our part if we are to receive his gift of everlasting life. (Romans 6:23) What are they? For one, vigorous exertion in his service! These actions must be motivated by genuine appreciation. God’s Son, Jesus Christ, once had a man inquire of him: "Lord, are those who are being saved few?" Jesus’ answer embraced not only the questioner but also all others interested in salvation, including us. He replied: "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."—Luke 13:23, 24.


'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol. 2 p.17 by WTBTS
"All men being sinners, they are justly worthy of death, and it is only by God’s undeserved kindness and mercy that any will gain life. (Rom 5:12, 21; 1John 4:9, 10) Jehovah owes nothing to mankind, and life everlasting for those who attain it will be a gift, not wages earned. (Rom 5:15; 6:23; Tit 3:4, 5) True, he has demonstrated unparalleled love toward mankind. (John 3:16; Rom 5:7, 8)


'United in Worship of the Only Ture God' pp.36-7 by WTBTS
The One to Whom All the Prophets Bore Witness
13 Jesus’ sacrifice has also opened to us the opportunity for eternal life—in the heavens for a "little flock," and on a Paradise earth for billions more of mankind. (Luke 12:32; Rev. 20:11, 12; 21:3, 4) This is not a reward that we earn. No matter how much we do in Jehovah’s service, we can never build up such merit that God will owe us life. Eternal life is "the gift God gives . . . by Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-10) Nevertheless, if we have faith in that gift and appreciation for the manner in which it was made possible, we will make this manifest. Discerning how marvelously Jehovah has used Jesus in accomplishing His will and how vital it is that all of us follow Jesus’ steps closely, we will make the Christian ministry one of the most important things in our life. Our faith will be evident from the conviction with which we tell others about this magnificent gift of God.—Compare Acts 20:24.

'Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom' Ch.18 p.293 - "Seeking First the Kingdom" by WTBTS
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses think that somehow they are earning salvation by their preaching activity? Not at all! The book United in Worship of the Only True God, which has been used since 1983 to help students to advance to Christian maturity, discusses this matter. It states: "Jesus’ sacrifice has also opened to us the opportunity for eternal life . . . This is not a reward that we earn. No matter how much we do in Jehovah’s service, we can never build up such merit that God will owe us life. Eternal life is ‘the gift God gives . . . by Christ Jesus our Lord.’ (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-10) Nevertheless, if we have faith in that gift and appreciation for the manner in which it was made possible, we will make this manifest. Discerning how marvelously Jehovah has used Jesus in accomplishing His will and how vital it is that all of us follow Jesus’ steps closely, we will make the Christian ministry one of the most important things in our life."

'Choosing the Best Way of Life' Ch. 3 p.34 by WTBTS
A Hope with a Sure Guarantee
Like first-century Christians, all believers today can be confident that Jehovah God will safeguard them for salvation. By means of his holy spirit, he initially made it possible for us to have faith and, by the same spirit, he will continue to strengthen our faith. This faith can carry us through all manner of trials successfully. (1 John 5:4) Do we not have sound reasons, then, to be thankful for what Jehovah God continues to do in aiding us to secure everlasting life? Indeed, and especially when we consider that this is not due to any merit on our part but because of Jehovah’s great mercy.

One can do nothing to merit or earn salvation the "free" gift of Salvation. The rest are just some other scriptual requirments.


Barryrob

[Sparko]

Looks like you did not need all those quotes Barryrob, you answered the question in the first paragraph:





"Exert Yourselves Vigorously"
Salvation cannot be earned by attendance at meetings or in any other way. It is free, a gift from God. Yet, Jehovah God does require efforts on our part if we are to receive his gift of everlasting life. (Romans 6:23) What are they? For one, vigorous exertion in his service! These actions must be motivated by genuine appreciation.

So yet again, the Watchtower speaks from both sides of their mouth. It's a free gift but it requires effort (work) vigorus exertion (work)

Without this work you will not be saved. So how free is a gift that you have to work for?

If I give you a new house and tell you it is a free gift but it requires vigorous exertion on your part of coming in and doing stuff for me for 40 hours a week for 30 years... exactly how FREE is that house?

[barryrob]

Looks like you did not need all those quotes Barryrob, you answered the question in the first paragraph:




So yet again, the Watchtower speaks from both sides of their mouth. It's a free gift but it requires effort (work) vigorus exertion (work)

Without this work you will not be saved. So how free is a gift that you have to work for?

If I give you a new house and tell you it is a free gift but it requires vigorous exertion on your part of coming in and doing stuff for me for 40 hours a week for 30 years... exactly how FREE is that house?
[/font][/left]
If one is a follower of Jesus then you cannot do much from a Armchair as Jesus set the example that all humans should follow so we do as he did or show that we are not christian by not doing what he did, showing we have no respect for the gift of his life and are not intersted in helping other the benefit from it as a gift from God.

[Pilgrim]

Sounds reasonable to me. It's like the scripture that tells us that we will know the tree by the fruit it bears.

[Sparko]

I never said that a true christian would not produce fruits. We do works BECAUSE we are saved. NOT in order to be saved. The watchtower says "Yet, Jehovah God does require efforts on our part if we are to receive his gift of everlasting life."

The difference might seem very slight, but it is very important and not slight at all.

If you were adopted into a family and you love your parents, you will do things to help out around the house. Cutting grass, taking out the garbage, etc. You do it BECAUSE you love your parents. If you were REQUIRED to do those things in order to belong to your family, and your parents would disown and send you back to the orphanage if you if you did not do your chores, then you would be earning your position in the family. Your parents would be slave masters and not parents.

We are adopted into God's family when we are saved. If we are true sons and daughters we will do our chores - but not because we must in order to earn our positions as sons and daughters, but because we love our Father. If God would disown us for not doing certain things, or for not vigorously exerting for him, then he would be a very shallow God.

[Jude3b]

Sorry about all the quotes but I think they are needed here:-

Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY WORKS!
Watchtower 1986 January 15th p.10
"Exert Yourselves Vigorously"
Salvation cannot be earned by attendance at meetings or in any other way. It is free, a gift from God. Yet, Jehovah God does require efforts on our part if we are to receive his gift of everlasting life. (Romans 6:23) What are they? For one, vigorous exertion in his service! These actions must be motivated by genuine appreciation. God’s Son, Jesus Christ, once had a man inquire of him: "Lord, are those who are being saved few?" Jesus’ answer embraced not only the questioner but also all others interested in salvation, including us. He replied: "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."—Luke 13:23, 24.


'Insight on the Scriptures' Vol. 2 p.17 by WTBTS
"All men being sinners, they are justly worthy of death, and it is only by God’s undeserved kindness and mercy that any will gain life. (Rom 5:12, 21; 1John 4:9, 10) Jehovah owes nothing to mankind, and life everlasting for those who attain it will be a gift, not wages earned. (Rom 5:15; 6:23; Tit 3:4, 5) True, he has demonstrated unparalleled love toward mankind. (John 3:16; Rom 5:7, 8)


'United in Worship of the Only Ture God' pp.36-7 by WTBTS
The One to Whom All the Prophets Bore Witness
13 Jesus’ sacrifice has also opened to us the opportunity for eternal life—in the heavens for a "little flock," and on a Paradise earth for billions more of mankind. (Luke 12:32; Rev. 20:11, 12; 21:3, 4) This is not a reward that we earn. No matter how much we do in Jehovah’s service, we can never build up such merit that God will owe us life. Eternal life is "the gift God gives . . . by Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-10) Nevertheless, if we have faith in that gift and appreciation for the manner in which it was made possible, we will make this manifest. Discerning how marvelously Jehovah has used Jesus in accomplishing His will and how vital it is that all of us follow Jesus’ steps closely, we will make the Christian ministry one of the most important things in our life. Our faith will be evident from the conviction with which we tell others about this magnificent gift of God.—Compare Acts 20:24.

'Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom' Ch.18 p.293 - "Seeking First the Kingdom" by WTBTS
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses think that somehow they are earning salvation by their preaching activity? Not at all! The book United in Worship of the Only True God, which has been used since 1983 to help students to advance to Christian maturity, discusses this matter. It states: "Jesus’ sacrifice has also opened to us the opportunity for eternal life . . . This is not a reward that we earn. No matter how much we do in Jehovah’s service, we can never build up such merit that God will owe us life. Eternal life is ‘the gift God gives . . . by Christ Jesus our Lord.’ (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-10) Nevertheless, if we have faith in that gift and appreciation for the manner in which it was made possible, we will make this manifest. Discerning how marvelously Jehovah has used Jesus in accomplishing His will and how vital it is that all of us follow Jesus’ steps closely, we will make the Christian ministry one of the most important things in our life."

'Choosing the Best Way of Life' Ch. 3 p.34 by WTBTS
A Hope with a Sure Guarantee
Like first-century Christians, all believers today can be confident that Jehovah God will safeguard them for salvation. By means of his holy spirit, he initially made it possible for us to have faith and, by the same spirit, he will continue to strengthen our faith. This faith can carry us through all manner of trials successfully. (1 John 5:4) Do we not have sound reasons, then, to be thankful for what Jehovah God continues to do in aiding us to secure everlasting life? Indeed, and especially when we consider that this is not due to any merit on our part but because of Jehovah’s great mercy.

One can do nothing to merit or earn salvation the "free" gift of Salvation. The rest are just some other scriptual requirments.


Barryrob

Dear Barryrob:

May I ask you another question or two? If yes, please tell me why you are a member of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Socieity? Also, if you were to leave the WBTS would you still be allowed to live in the restored earth that you are hoping to go to? Lastly, when the WBTS states that "Jehovah God does require efforts on our part of we are to receive the gift of eternal life;" - can you please tell me what the efforts are?

Thank you.

[barryrob]

I never said that a true christian would not produce fruits. We do works BECAUSE we are saved. NOT in order to be saved. The watchtower says "Yet, Jehovah God does require efforts on our part if we are to receive his gift of everlasting life."

The difference might seem very slight, but it is very important and not slight at all.

If you were adopted into a family and you love your parents, you will do things to help out around the house. Cutting grass, taking out the garbage, etc. You do it BECAUSE you love your parents. If you were REQUIRED to do those things in order to belong to your family, and your parents would disown and send you back to the orphanage if you if you did not do your chores, then you would be earning your position in the family. Your parents would be slave masters and not parents.

We are adopted into God's family when we are saved. If we are true sons and daughters we will do our chores - but not because we must in order to earn our positions as sons and daughters, but because we love our Father. If God would disown us for not doing certain things, or for not vigorously exerting for him, then he would be a very shallow God.


God answers you this way:-

James 2:17 Thus, too, faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.

James 2:24-26 YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone. 25 In the same manner was not also Ra´hab the harlot declared righteous by works, after she had received the messengers hospitably and sent them out by another way? 26 Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

If belief in the ransom is not seen then faith does not exist! It is the faith that matters as works are a product of faith in Jesus, works just show that we believe in Jesus and the Lamb of God and obey him by doing as he did. Love that is not in deed in no love at all:-

1 John 3:18 Little children, let us love, neither in word nor with the tongue, but in deed and truth.

Tell me how can you earn that which God says is "Free" because I do not think that is in any possaible, no matter what or how much is done it free!

Romans 3:23-24 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus.

So what of the things done, what do thet tell God?:-

1 John 5:3-4 For this is what the love of God means, that we observe* his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome, 4 because everything that has been born from God conquers the world. And this is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith.

*This requires Actions or Works.

If the work of Love for God and the Ransom of Jesus is not seen in manifested actions then Love does not exist as 'actions speak louder than words.'

No action = No Love = No Faith = No salvation as true love for Jesus does not exist!!

No matter what is doen this is what Jesus will say:-

Luke 17:10 "What we have done is what we ought to have done.’"
Barryrob

[Sparko]

God answers you this way:-
Nice to meet you God. Funny how you sound just like Barryrob.

[barryrob]

Dear Barryrob:

May I ask you another question or two? If yes, please tell me why you are a member of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Socieity? Also, if you were to leave the WBTS would you still be allowed to live in the restored earth that you are hoping to go to? Lastly, when the WBTS states that "Jehovah God does require efforts on our part of we are to receive the gift of eternal life;" - can you please tell me what the efforts are?

Thank you.
The WBTS is nothing more that a legal corp. to deal with legal things for the sake of being able to publish and distribute spiritual publications.

The efforts or actions required would be that to copy Jesus Christ our Lord to the very best of our personal ability according to our own circumstances.

Barryrob

[barryrob]

Nice to meet you God. Funny how you sound just like Barryrob.
Thank you John I could not think of a better complement:-

John 8:29-30 And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him."

John 12:44-50 However, Jesus cried out and said: "He that puts faith in me puts faith, not in me [only], but in him [also] that sent me; 45 and he that beholds me beholds [also] him that sent me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, in order that everyone putting faith in me may not remain in the darkness. 47 But if anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I came, not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that disregards me and does not receive my sayings has one to judge him. The word that I have spoken is what will judge him in the last day; 49 because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak. 50 Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them]."

The above is my role model:-

John 13:20 Most truly I say to YOU, He that receives anyone I send receives me [also]. In turn he that receives me, receives [also] him that sent me."

John 20:21 Jesus, therefore, said to them again: "May YOU have peace. Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending YOU."

A good for nothing slave Barryrob

[Sparko]

Thank you John I could not think of a better complement:-


A good for nothing slave Barryrob
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to God.

...Wait.. you mean that was YOU ,Barryrob, impersonating God above?

tsk-tsk! :no:

[heaven]

Dear Barryrob,

Do not Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is an Angel? They totally disbelieve the
Trinitarian concept or that Jesus is the son of God....Since angels are another order of
creation, the incarnation would mean that Mary gave birth to an angel.

I realize that many may be termed good samaritans, for the good samaritan did the
will of God, which Jesus commends for sanctification. But I respectfully submit that
there is only One God and not two or else Jesus has to be angel, aND THIS IS
IMPOSSIBLE

[heaven]

Dear Jude3b:

We are saved from the fires of hell by the atonement of Jesus on the cross and our faith
Confession and communion and the sacraments aide us in our relationship (http://begin2search.com/cgi-bin//ezlclk.fcgi?id=12) wirh God and
sanctification which is our calling on earth. You had confused salvation and sanctification........salvation without sanctification is cheap grace.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=barryrob]The WBTS is nothing more that a legal corp. to deal with legal things for the sake

Dear Barryrob:

It sounds like the WBTS is not considered to be a "church" or a "sect" by you. Can you tell me what the Biblical basis is for such an organization?
If you were to leave the WBTS (legal corp as you call it) - would you still be allowed to have eternal life in the restored earth?

[Maimonides]

Dear Barryrob:

You never did say, what is the reason that God will allow you to live on a restored earth? A simple answer will do. Is it because you are a Jehovah Witness? Or is it because you obey the Jehovah Witness doctrines? Is it because you go out and knock on doors with other Jehovah Witnesses and share the Jehovah Witness message with others? What exactly are you doing to be assured that you are saved and will be allowed to live on a restored earth for all eternity? WHY should God allow you to live on the restored earth?
What is the reason God would allow you to live on a restored earth? Or me? Perhaps because both of us, and of course Barryrob, are self-professed Christians who firmly believe in the validity of our esoteric connections to God?

[Timothy Leary]

A thousand years ago the situation was exactly reversed. Christians were the most cruel, murdering, people around. Shall we remember the inquistions, the crusades, etc? In comparison, Islamic lands were fairly tolerant of other religions, especially jews and christians.

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?

Lastly, what will be the future of the Muslim people and this religion that is so intolerant that it will for the most part not even allow any other point of view or allow Christian missionaries to operate in most of their countries. If they keep on killing and murdering - won't the entire world have to rise up against them eventually and wipe them out - to neutralize them - before they try to kill everyone off, who is not a Muslim or refuses to become one?

[technomage]

I have not read the entire thread, so I ask pardon if I am posting redundantly.

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?Because you are commanded to.

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mt 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Lastly, what will be the future of the Muslim people and this religion that is so intolerant that it will for the most part not even allow any other point of view or allow Christian missionaries to operate in most of their countries. If they keep on killing and murdering - won't the entire world have to rise up against them eventually and wipe them out - to neutralize them - before they try to kill everyone off, who is not a Muslim or refuses to become one?
Y'know, the last major book that advocated rising up and killing off an entire religious/racial group is now banned in Germany. And having violated Godwins law, I now hope that this thread will expire in the shame and silence that it so richly deserves.

Justin

[Edited to correct verse formatting.]

[Jude3b]

A thousand years ago the situation was exactly reversed. Christians were the most cruel, murdering, people around. Shall we remember the inquistions, the crusades, etc? In comparison, Islamic lands were fairly tolerant of other religions, especially jews and christians.

Dear Karaite:

You are partially right. Roman Catholics of a 1,000 years ago under the dictates of the anti-Christ Papal system was the most cruel, murdering, people around. I do remember the inquisitions, the crusades, tec...!

These same inquisitions of Romanism also were used to put multiple thousands of True Christians to death.

While there are periods of history that show that some Islamic lands were fairly tolerant of other religions, nevertheless many people have some fuzzy idea of Mohammed. They lump him into a category of gentle leader (e.g. Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius).

Mohammed's first convert was his wife Khadija. In the next three years, seven men became his converts and he decided to begin preaching his message in public. After five years, his followers only totaled 16 people. After preaching for 13 years he had only 100 followers. Than, he had a new revelation. Mohammed said he had a new message from Allah. Now, Islam could be spread by the sword. The doctrine of Jihad came into existence as one of the central tenets of Islam (in fact, the only sure way of entering paradise in Islam is to die in Jihad).

Followers of Mohammed were instructed to subdue those in opposition to him as well as the pagans, and to propagate Islam by force. Fortunately, Allah had supposedly allowed several inducements to the tenet of Jihad. Allah supposedly allowed his followers to keep the goods of any people that were attacked, after they presented them to Allah's prophet, Mohammed. Secondly, those who died in Jihad (like those flying planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11) were whisked into paradise and into the arms of 70 eternal virgins.

[Maimonides]

I have not read the entire thread, so I ask pardon if I am posting redundantly.

Because you are commanded to.

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mt 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



Y'know, the last major book that advocated rising up and killing off an entire religious/racial group is now banned in Germany. And having violated Godwins law, I now hope that this thread will expire in the shame and silence that it so richly deserves.

Justin

[Edited to correct verse formatting.]
My sincere thanks to my Wiccan brother Justin, and to Karaite, for so resolutely highlighting the key issues. I believe that this will be my last post to this thread; I have tried, seemingly in vain, to correct some of the popular conceptions of Islam based on lies, stereotypes, and easy generalizations. I could go on at length here about jihad (actually a struggle, not a holy war); perhaps I could speak of the CIA-sponsored jihad in Afghanistan, created to fight the Soviet Union, that led among other things to the creation of al-Qaeda and 9/11. But I rest my case on past testimony and recommend Karen Armstrong instead, as well as Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. As a historian I have realized that "We are our history; nothing ever changes." Sadly, the veracity of this motto has been reinforced for me on this thread. I sincerely hope that more enlightened discourse will lead to a more compassionate awareness, approach, and a global vision for Christians and all other religions.

Salaam alaykum to all, and tikkun olam. ~Maimonides.

[Jude3b]

My sincere thanks to my Wiccan brother Justin, and to Karaite, for so resolutely highlighting the key issues. I believe that this will be my last post to this thread; I have tried, seemingly in vain, to correct some of the popular conceptions of Islam based on lies, stereotypes, and easy generalizations. I could go on at length here about jihad (actually a struggle, not a holy war); perhaps I could speak of the CIA-sponsored jihad in Afghanistan, created to fight the Soviet Union, that led among other things to the creation of al-Qaeda and 9/11. But I rest my case on past testimony and recommend Karen Armstrong instead, as well as Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. As a historian I have realized that "We are our history; nothing ever changes." Sadly, the veracity of this motto has been reinforced for me on this thread. I sincerely hope that more enlightened discourse will lead to a more compassionate awareness, approach, and a global vision for Christians and all other religions.

Salaam alaykum to all, and tikkun olam. ~Maimonides.

Dear Maimonides:

You say "I sincerely hope that more enlightened discourse will lead to a more compassionate awareness..."

Is it compassionate to accuse the American CIA who helped the poor people of Afghanistan to stand up to the atheistic Soviet Union - of causing 9/11 and Al-Queda? Was it not good for Americans to help Afghanistan? Are you not an anti-American/anti-Christian bigot - going under the name of an Historian?

From a puerly secular standpoint, it is a fact that today, the United States is engaged in the war of just protection. An evil aggressor (Islamic Fundamentalists) have shattered the peace in a murderous manner (killing thousands of innocent people), making it necessary to wage war to restore peace and security. Such a war has a defensive aim. It is protective. It is the last resort when all avenues of peace are exhausted. Waging that kind of war is a legitimate function of government. Every government has a duty to protect its people. American's War on Terrorism is necessary to end the reign of terror.

From a puerly spiritual standpoint, we Christians need to make friends with every Muslim we can. It is Christian love, not hate or fear - that will open doors to be able to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - with the poor dear people trapped by this legalistic and false religious system.

[Jude3b]

Thank you, Jude. It certainly is heartening to be able to discuss matters in a rational fashion.

Perhaps you haven't read all of my posts? I do state in several that I consider myself a Christian. I did experience "God" (the term is problematic but will have to suffice), at a very young age. Despite my many shortcomings, I continue to profess the faith, albeit in a form much modified from my former ways. I consider this a benison; I am free to pursue scientific and academic inquiry in my own fashion and am free of the confines of dogmatism to which I once was prone.

I do not consider myself "earning" my salvation through acts or through intelligence; the cultivation of my awareness is something I indulge in for personal pleasure and advancement of knowledge.

Your concern is touching; I can only tell you that you and I have different approaches to the same fundamental questions. You might even say we have different answers. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong; that's why I'm an agnostic, too, I maintain you can't really know (in some sense), except through experience and the like.

As to Biblical anecdote, I do not concern myself overmuch; the Bible is a remarkable book. I do read it very regularly, but refuse to maintain an inerrantist worldview (due to my research, not circular reasoning in my ideology- I would if the evidence was there to support it).

My religion is not based on good works or I would have failed long ago. It motivates me to feel concern and compassion for people all over the world, and urges me to translate this into circumspect and right action towards them in my day-to-day life.

Tikkun olam (Hebrew, heal the broken earth), ~Maimonides.

Dear Maimonides:

That is the most confusing bit of theology - I think I have ever read. You say you are a Christian. You say you are an Agnostic.
Please tell me, if you don't mind - what is the definition of a Christian? What makes one a Christian?

[barryrob]

Dear Barryrob,

Do not Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus is an Angel? They totally disbelieve the
Trinitarian concept or that Jesus is the son of God....Since angels are another order of
creation, the incarnation would mean that Mary gave birth to an angel.

I realize that many may be termed good samaritans, for the good samaritan did the
will of God, which Jesus commends for sanctification. But I respectfully submit that
there is only One God and not two or else Jesus has to be angel, aND THIS IS
IMPOSSIBLE
Michael The Acrhangel or Chief Angel is just one of Jesus heavenly titles which means he is leader of the Angels:-

2 Thessalonians 1:7
the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels

Barryrob

[barryrob]

[QUOTE=barryrob]The WBTS is nothing more that a legal corp. to deal with legal things for the sake

Dear Barryrob:

It sounds like the WBTS is not considered to be a "church" or a "sect" by you. Can you tell me what the Biblical basis is for such an organization?
If you were to leave the WBTS (legal corp as you call it) - would you still be allowed to have eternal life in the restored earth?Biblical basis:-



Philippians 1:7




the defending and legally establishing of the good news.



I am not a memeber of the W.T.B.T.S. it is a legal body to deal with matters pertaning to the laws of any country.

I am a member of the Christian Congregatrion which is a seprtate from the WTBTS.

Some members of the WTBTS are in the Christian Congregation.
Barryrob

[Timothy Leary]

Why is a debate about the christian views of salvation in the islam forum??

[heaven]

Dear Jude 3b,

A thousand years ago there was no RCC. Check your history!

Europe had no standing armies and so the concept of booty literally fed the armies, not
of the various christian sects but the fifedoms of the age. Furthermore, not all of
europe was christian, even those who participated in the crusades.

No minister, no Pope, no cardinal, no deacon, no priest or friar ever headed a crusade.

The secular governments of that era were so harsh, that in France, a peasant who stole one sheep would have his eyes poked out. To avoid the secular courts, heresy
was proclaimed in order to be tried by the inquisition.

We are not talking about the tenets of faith or relationship (http://begin2search.com/cgi-bin//ezlclk.fcgi?id=12) with Jesus in christianity,
when we quote improperly the culture in europe.

The fact is that the koran and Mohammed and his hadith make this barbaric behaviour
a tenet of the faith.
The commission by Jesus is to preach the gospel to the whole world, so that the world
might know the love (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=10,-1,theologyweb.com,0) of God in Christ Jesus and be saved.
This is quite a difference.

[Snarf]

Dear Jude 3b,

A thousand years ago there was no RCC. Check your history!

Europe had no standing armies and so the concept of booty literally fed the armies, not
of the various christian sects but the fifedoms of the age. Furthermore, not all of
europe was christian, even those who participated in the crusades.

No minister, no Pope, no cardinal, no deacon, no priest or friar ever headed a crusade.

.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/inn3-cdesummons.html
Medieval Sourcebook:
Innocent III:
Summons to A Crusade, 1215
2. Priests, moreover, and other clergy who shall be in the Christian army, subordinates as well as prelates, shall diligently insist with prayer and exhortation, reaching the crusaders by word and example alike that they should always have the divine fear and love before their eves, and that they should not say or do anything which might offend the divine majesty. Although at times they may lapse into sin, through true penitence they shall soon arise again; showing humility of heart and body, and observing moderation as well in their living as in their apparel; altogether avoiding dissensions and emulations; rancour and spleen being entirely removed from them. So that, thus armed with spiritual and material weapons, they may fight the more securely against the enemies of the faith; not presuming in their own power, but hoping in the divine virtue.

BTW, the RCCdates back to at least the fourth century and the council of Nicea

You don't know much about history, do you?

[heaven]

When the Anglican church broke off, two churches were left, the Anglican and the Roman. No RCC existed prior to this date.

Also please note the intent of the crusades and the rules of behaviour, very christian.
But what transpired was not. Even the Knight Templars were rosicrucians, the pagan
religion of Iran. Thus the church was deceived, not knowing the barbarities inflicted on
the resident christian, jewish and muslim populations. The european armies were
fifedom bounty hunters.
Therefore, the concept was good, but the barbarism was not. In any event, the
crusades served to hold militant Islam in check until the present. It is too bad, that so
many want to be politically correct and hold their heads in the sand and pretend that
the religion of militant Islam is not violent, and that Palestinians are not terrorists,etc.

\On the shiite radio in Saudi Arabia, a muslim cleric ordered the house of Saud to evict
the 20,000 resident christians, upon which the Saudi economy depends. evicted or
the shiites will behead the christians and the entire Saudi Royal family.

Osama has vowed to help the shiites, a sunni wahabbi.

And who supports the shiites of Saudi Arabia, Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And who will grab the saudi oil and nuclears, Iran.

It is a religion of war.

[Snarf]

When the Anglican church broke off, two churches were left, the Anglican and the Roman. No RCC existed prior to this date.

Also please note the intent of the crusades and the rules of behaviour, very christian.
But what transpired was not. Even the Knight Templars were rosicrucians, the pagan
religion of Iran. Thus the church was deceived, not knowing the barbarities inflicted on
the resident christian, jewish and muslim populations. The european armies were
fifedom bounty hunters.
Therefore, the concept was good, but the barbarism was not. In any event, the
crusades served to hold militant Islam in check until the present. It is too bad, that so
many want to be politically correct and hold their heads in the sand and pretend that
the religion of militant Islam is not violent, and that Palestinians are not terrorists,etc.

\On the shiite radio in Saudi Arabia, a muslim cleric ordered the house of Saud to evict
the 20,000 resident christians, upon which the Saudi economy depends. evicted or
the shiites will behead the christians and the entire Saudi Royal family.

Osama has vowed to help the shiites, a sunni wahabbi.

And who supports the shiites of Saudi Arabia, Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And who will grab the saudi oil and nuclears, Iran.

It is a religion of war.

From
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_den1.htm
"Beliefs concerning the origin of the Roman Catholic Church differ: The church teaches that it was founded by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, some 50 days after Jesus' execution by the Roman Army, circa 30-APR CE. Peter is believed to have moved to Rome, been universally regarded as the first pope, and followed by a continuous succession of popes up to the present day.
Many liberal theologians and historians believe that Peter never moved to Rome. They credit Paul as being the actual founder of what is now Christianity. They assert that centralization of church power in Rome did not occur until perhaps the mid 5th century CE. Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 to 461 CE, claimed that the Bishop of Rome was highest ranking bishop. That time period could be considered as the start of the Roman Catholic church."

The RCC existed long before the time you give, your ignorance of history continues.
Given your hateful attitudes, it is clear that yours is a religion of war, you thank God for the slaughter of thousands, and you believe war to be the solution to problems.

Where did Jesus teach this?

Given how much you think war to be a good idea, then why aren't you out there doing the fighting, instead of sitting at a computer? What's the matter, too cowardly to take part in what you advocate? You like war, only as long as someone else does the fighting. I doubt that you'll be in a hurry
to sign up for military service anytime soon.

One day you may get to physically experience the war that you crave to have, watch your house be destroyed, the people nearest to you raped and killed, won't that be fun? After all, war is the only way to keep the enemy at bay isn't it? Violence, destruction, isn't that what you thank God for?

[Jude3b]

Biblical basis:-



Philippians 1:7




the defending and legally establishing of the good news.



I am not a memeber of the W.T.B.T.S. it is a legal body to deal with matters pertaning to the laws of any country.

I am a member of the Christian Congregatrion which is a seprtate from the WTBTS.

Some members of the WTBTS are in the Christian Congregation.
Barryrob

Dear Barryrob:

I've never heard of the "Christian Congregation" - as you seem to be using it. Is that a new sect? How is it connected with the Wathchtower/JW's? When did your "Christian Congregation" religion start? Where is its headquaters? Who is its founder?

[heaven]

From
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_den1.htm
"Beliefs concerning the origin of the Roman Catholic Church differ: The church teaches that it was founded by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, some 50 days after Jesus' execution by the Roman Army, circa 30-APR CE. Peter is believed to have moved to Rome, been universally regarded as the first pope, and followed by a continuous succession of popes up to the present day.
Many liberal theologians and historians believe that Peter never moved to Rome. They credit (http://begin2search.com/cgi-bin//ezlclk.fcgi?id=8) Paul as being the actual founder of what is now Christianity. They assert that centralization of church power in Rome did not occur until perhaps the mid 5th century CE. Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 to 461 CE, claimed that the Bishop of Rome was highest ranking bishop. That time period could be considered as the start of the Roman Catholic church."

The RCC existed long before the time you give, your ignorance of history continues.
Given your hateful attitudes, it is clear that yours is a religion of war, you thank God for the slaughter of thousands, and you believe war to be the solution to problems.

Where did Jesus teach this?

Given how much you think war to be a good idea, then why aren't you out there doing the fighting, instead of sitting at a computer? What's the matter, too cowardly to take part in what you advocate? You like war, only as long as someone else does the fighting. I doubt that you'll be in a hurry
to sign up for military service anytime soon.

One day you may get to physically experience the war that you crave to have, watch your house be destroyed, the people nearest to you raped and killed, won't that be fun? After all, war is the only way to keep the enemy at bay isn't it? Violence, destruction, isn't that what you thank God for?
Please try giving your definition of the RCC to the catholic and orthodox
churches...............................The church in Rome split from the catholic
church in 1054 AD. The pope was the head bishop.....................When the
Anglican church broke with the catholic church in Rome, two churches
emerged, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

The response of the crusades was no different than the US response to the
bombing of Pearl Harbor.

We, in the US are facing the possibility of even greater woes than 9/11, and
why, a continuance of revenge against the crusaders. But wait, did not
Islam attack the european continent on the western and eastern flanks,
and yes the barbary pirates as well raped plenty.

I am not the author of this history. It is what it is.

The unintended barbarity of the crusades cannot over ride the fact that
the crusades held Islam in check until this time.

Given the historic past of europe and it's lack of human rights, it can be
said that christianity has had a beneficial impact on european society. If
europe turns it's back on christianity, no doubt it will sink back to a previous
uncivil state .........If a nation turns it's back on God, God will turn His back
to that nation.

It is right to want peace, but nation's have the responsibility of war to
protect it's citizens against unwarranted aggression.

US troops have died and suffered on battlefields all over the world to protect
human rights and human dignity.

[Snarf]

Please try giving your definition of the RCC to the catholic and orthodox
churches...............................The church in Rome split from the catholic
church in 1054 AD. The pope was the head bishop.....................When the
Anglican church broke with the catholic church in Rome, two churches
emerged, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

As described before, the Roman Catholic Church dates back to at least the fifthe century, actually the RCC says that the apostle Peter was the first Pope. Sorry you don't want to accept historical facts.

The response of the crusades was no different than the US response to the
bombing of Pearl Harbor.

We, in the US are facing the possibility of even greater woes than 9/11, and
why, a continuance of revenge against the crusaders. But wait, did not
Islam attack the european continent on the western and eastern flanks,
and yes the barbary pirates as well raped plenty.

I am not the author of this history. It is what it is.

Yes Muslims did engage in much war then, as did the Europeans, in fact, the 'peaceful' christians killed a lot of other 'peaceful' Christians, particularly during the 16th and 17th centuries. Warfare has been a very important part of the violent religion of christianity.


The unintended barbarity of the crusades cannot over ride the fact that
the crusades held Islam in check until this time.

Your ignorance of history continues. The Crusades were a series of wars intended to drive the Muslims from Jerusalem. The first one succeeded, but in a short time the Muslims retook Jerusalem and and the second and later Crusades all failed, and the Muslims held it until the last century.


Given the historic past of europe and it's lack of human rights, it can be
said that christianity has had a beneficial impact on european society.

You mean the lack of human rights has been the beneficial impact of Christianity on european society?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

If
europe turns it's back on christianity, no doubt it will sink back to a previous
uncivil state .........If a nation turns it's back on God, God will turn His back
to that nation..

Gee, the europeans are living pretty good today despite the fact that in most countries less than 15% go to church, Holland has legalized pot and prostitution, where's God's vengence?


It is right to want peace, but nation's have the responsibility of war to
protect it's citizens against unwarranted aggression.

Umm, when did Iraq commit aggressions against U.S citizens?

US troops have died and suffered on battlefields all over the world to protect
human rights and human dignity.

I'm not sure Native Americans and the Vietnamese would agree.

[Snarf]

Is it compassionate to accuse the American CIA who helped the poor people of Afghanistan to stand up to the atheistic Soviet Union - of causing 9/11 and Al-Queda? Was it not good for Americans to help Afghanistan? Are you not an anti-American/anti-Christian bigot - going under the name of an Historian?.

Yes, our help was especially good for Osama and the Taliban, who got lots of help from us. Lest we not forget that the US gave a lot of material aid to Saddam.

Wonderful foriegn policy we have, we help create our own monsters so that we can have wars to destroy them. Sometimes I think that such a policy is really all planned by defense contractors, who want to insure that we stay in perpetual war.

From a puerly secular standpoint, it is a fact that today, the United States is engaged in the war of just protection. An evil aggressor (Islamic Fundamentalists) have shattered the peace in a murderous manner (killing thousands of innocent people), making it necessary to wage war to restore peace and security. Such a war has a defensive aim. It is protective. It is the last resort when all avenues of peace are exhausted. Waging that kind of war is a legitimate function of government. Every government has a duty to protect its people. American's War on Terrorism is necessary to end the reign of terror.

From a puerly spiritual standpoint, we Christians need to make friends with every Muslim we can. It is Christian love, not hate or fear - that will open doors to be able to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - with the poor dear people trapped by this legalistic and false religious system.

Yes, Islamic Fundamentalists are the aggressor, but the invasion of Iraq was a wasteful diversion of troops and money since there is no evidence that Saddam helped Osama. Meanwhile, our gas money continues to line the pockets of the Saudis, who contributed far more to Osama.

For some reason, our government seems to think that the only way to keep down terrorism from a group with tens of millions of potential future soldiers is to keep attacking with our armies which in the thousands. Such a policy insures that we will lose. As you say, we need to make friends with Muslims. Invading and occupying their countries, and helping Israel occupy the West Bank, won't help.

[Jude3b]

Yes, our help was especially good for Osama and the Taliban, who got lots of help from us. Lest we not forget that the US gave a lot of material aid to Saddam.

Wonderful foriegn policy we have, we help create our own monsters so that we can have wars to destroy them. Sometimes I think that such a policy is really all planned by defense contractors, who want to insure that we stay in perpetual war.



Yes, Islamic Fundamentalists are the aggressor, but the invasion of Iraq was a wasteful diversion of troops and money since there is no evidence that Saddam helped Osama. Meanwhile, our gas money continues to line the pockets of the Saudis, who contributed far more to Osama.

For some reason, our government seems to think that the only way to keep down terrorism from a group with tens of millions of potential future soldiers is to keep attacking with our armies which in the thousands. Such a policy insures that we will lose. As you say, we need to make friends with Muslims. Invading and occupying their countries, and helping Israel occupy the West Bank, won't help.

There is evidence that Saddam paid the families of terrorists who would die blowing themselves up in Israel, to kill innocent people. He would have done the same thing to kill Americans.

[Snarf]

There is evidence that Saddam paid the families of terrorists who would die blowing themselves up in Israel, to kill innocent people. He would have done the same thing to kill Americans.

Eh, that doesn't constitute aggression against America. You mean that we should invade every country whose government doesn't like Americans? Interesting foreign policy, when do you think we should invade Iran and Libya, and why haven't we done so?

[Jude3b]

Eh, that doesn't constitute aggression against America. You mean that we should invade every country whose government doesn't like Americans? Interesting foreign policy, when do you think we should invade Iran and Libya, and why haven't we done so?

Innocent Americans visiting Israel, cruising on ships, flying on planes, going to work at the World Trade Center, etc. have been killed by Islamist Terrorists. Americans in Israel have also been killed by Palestinians whose families were paid by Sadaam, because a member of their family is a terrorist murderer and willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people.

When Islamist terrorists lay down their arms and stop the murdering - than Americans and other peace loving people can stop defending ourselves. As long as terrorists exist and attack any American anywhere in the World, Americans are justified to take them out.

[Snarf]

Innocent Americans visiting Israel, cruising on ships, flying on planes, going to work at the World Trade Center, etc. have been killed by Islamist Terrorists. Americans in Israel have also been killed by Palestinians whose families were paid by Sadaam, because a member of their family is a terrorist murderer and willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent people.

When Islamist terrorists lay down their arms and stop the murdering - than Americans and other peace loving people can stop defending ourselves. As long as terrorists exist and attack any American anywhere in the World, Americans are justified to take them out.

"Islamist terrorist" is not synonymous with "Iraqi" or "Saddam." Many of the Islamist terrorists are Arabs, and most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we invading them, if the point of the invasion was to get islamists?

America has killed innocent Iraqis in its attacks, and Israel has killed innocent Palestinians as well. I'm not saying don't go after the terrorists violently, by all means beat them where we can. But that doesn't justify invading countries because their governments are opposed to us.

[Jude3b]

"Islamist terrorist" is not synonymous with "Iraqi" or "Saddam." Many of the Islamist terrorists are Arabs, and most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why aren't we invading them, if the point of the invasion was to get islamists?

America has killed innocent Iraqis in its attacks, and Israel has killed innocent Palestinians as well. I'm not saying don't go after the terrorists violently, by all means beat them where we can. But that doesn't justify invading countries because their governments are opposed to us.

This thread is not a debate on the virtues or wisdom of the US War in Iraq. However, I will give one short comment on that. If you will recall - after Desert Storm 1990 - there were sanctions placed on IRAQ by the UN. Sadaam and Iraq repeatedly violated those sanctions - even shooting on airplanes patrolling the No-fly zone. At what point do you enforce what was agreed on by Iraq and the World community? Sadaam pays terrorists to kill innocent people in Israel, including Americans. At what point do you put a stop to that practice?

So Snarf, are you a Muslim? Or a liberal?

[Snarf]

This thread is not a debate on the virtues or wisdom of the US War in Iraq. However, I will give one short comment on that. If you will recall - after Desert Storm 1990 - there were sanctions placed on IRAQ by the UN. Sadaam and Iraq repeatedly violated those sanctions - even shooting on airplanes patrolling the No-fly zone. At what point do you enforce what was agreed on by Iraq and the World community? Sadaam pays terrorists to kill innocent people in Israel, including Americans. At what point do you put a stop to that practice?

So Snarf, are you a Muslim? Or a liberal?
I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that the Republican Party is God.

[Jude3b]

I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that the Republican Party is God.

Dear Snarf:

I do not know any people that think the "Republican Party is God."

But let me ask you a few questions, if that is ok with you? If yes, first - please define "Christian" for me or put another way - on what basis do you claim to be a "Christian" - or how do you know your a Christian? Secondly - if you died tonight, are you sure you would go to heaven? If yes, why? Lastly - Are you a Democrat and if yes, did you vote for Kerry and if yes, why?

Thank you in advance for your answers. It might help me to understand why you post what you post.

[Snarf]

Dear Snarf:

I do not know any people that think the "Republican Party is God."

But let me ask you a few questions, if that is ok with you? If yes, first - please define "Christian" for me or put another way - on what basis do you claim to be a "Christian" - or how do you know your a Christian? Secondly - if you died tonight, are you sure you would go to heaven? If yes, why? Lastly - Are you a Democrat and if yes, did you vote for Kerry and if yes, why?

Thank you in advance for your answers. It might help me to understand why you post what you post.

This is the fifth time that you have asked me. I am a Christian based on my belief in Jesus and desire to follow His will. yes I am sure I would go to heaven, because of my belief in Him. Yes, I am a Democrat who wanted Kerry to win, because I believe that waging wars to feed fat corporation bosses and their helpers in government is wrong.Not that all wars are wrong, and I understand the need for police action against Saddam. However, there were other ways besides being the virtually sole invader. It was clear from the beginning that Bush wanted war, and he wanted the US to have virtually the only army there so that companies like Halliburton could get the profits. He made virtually no effort to build an international coalition which could punish Saddam in ways other than a full-scale invasion, he and his cabinet just wanted only American soldiers there. It is also clear that there was very poor preparation for the operations after the "pronouncement" of the end of operations.
I might add that I find it amusing that of all who were on his cabinet, the main opponent of the war, Powell, is the only one with substantial military experience. Cheney et al are only too happy to send soldiers to die when they find the excuses not to fight. Personally, i think that all politicians who start wars, whether Democrat or Republican, should get to experience the hell that they have unleashed. It's so easy for Americans to invade other countries, supply weapons to occupiers of territory like Israel, and get fat on the profits of defense contractors, and then cry boo-hoo and "pity us" when someone decides to strike back, like Osama. America has not experienced war in such a long time, we have forgottn what it is like. I don't mean losing relatives far away, or being soldiers. I mean watching our houses burn and watch foreign soldiers occupy our territory.
Jesus said he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. As long as Americans get rich by bombs, Americans will die by bombs. You're dreaming if you think that America can blast where it will, and expect the rest of the world to be grateful for American bombs and soldiers, and love us because of how nice we are to invade and control countries, support evil dictators like Saddam (yes we supported him at one time, apparantly evil dictators are OK if they're on our side. Remember the Batista regime and the Shah?).
Jesus did not support wars, it's incredible how much His followers want them.

[Jude3b]

This is the fifth time that you have asked me. I am a Christian based on my belief in Jesus and desire to follow His will. yes I am sure I would go to heaven, because of my belief in Him. Yes, I am a Democrat who wanted Kerry to win, because I believe that waging wars to feed fat corporation bosses and their helpers in government is wrong.Not that all wars are wrong, and I understand the need for police action against Saddam. However, there were other ways besides being the virtually sole invader. It was clear from the beginning that Bush wanted war, and he wanted the US to have virtually the only army there so that companies like Halliburton could get the profits. He made virtually no effort to build an international coalition which could punish Saddam in ways other than a full-scale invasion, he and his cabinet just wanted only American soldiers there. It is also clear that there was very poor preparation for the operations after the "pronouncement" of the end of operations.
I might add that I find it amusing that of all who were on his cabinet, the main opponent of the war, Powell, is the only one with substantial military experience. Cheney et al are only too happy to send soldiers to die when they find the excuses not to fight. Personally, i think that all politicians who start wars, whether Democrat or Republican, should get to experience the hell that they have unleashed. It's so easy for Americans to invade other countries, supply weapons to occupiers of territory like Israel, and get fat on the profits of defense contractors, and then cry boo-hoo and "pity us" when someone decides to strike back, like Osama. America has not experienced war in such a long time, we have forgottn what it is like. I don't mean losing relatives far away, or being soldiers. I mean watching our houses burn and watch foreign soldiers occupy our territory.
Jesus said he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. As long as Americans get rich by bombs, Americans will die by bombs. You're dreaming if you think that America can blast where it will, and expect the rest of the world to be grateful for American bombs and soldiers, and love us because of how nice we are to invade and control countries, support evil dictators like Saddam (yes we supported him at one time, apparantly evil dictators are OK if they're on our side. Remember the Batista regime and the Shah?).
Jesus did not support wars, it's incredible how much His followers want them.

Dear Snarf:

Thank you for your comments. You certainly seem to hold deep convictions about the United States being at war in Iraq. Let me say that I also hold reservations about our being in Iraq, but probably for a different reason than you. I personally thought it was good to have Sadaam in power, only because he seemed to keep the Islamist Fundamentalists under control. I do not think that our President considered that - when he went into Iraq. I do not think that the USA, at the time the Iraq war started - understood that Islam is not really a religion of peace, for millions of its members.

Snarf, please allow another question or two, ok? Lets just say for a moment that you were the President of the USA. At what point would you have enforced the UN resolutions on Iraq, such as the No fly zone - with planes being shot at on a regular basis? At what point would you have stopped Sadaam from continuing to pay $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber?

One other question ok? You state openly and it sounds proudly that you are a Demoncrat, yet you state that you are a Christian. Please tell me, how can you be a Christian and a Demoncrat - when your party has a platform in favor of waging the war of abortion on innocent babies and it is almost militant when it comes to defending this infanticide doctrine? You know the Word of God states "Thou shalt not kill" - and you know that there is nothing that God hates more than the shedding of innocent life. You do know that the Word of God states that, don't you?

[Snarf]

Dear Snarf:

Thank you for your comments. You certainly seem to hold deep convictions about the United States being at war in Iraq. Let me say that I also hold reservations about our being in Iraq, but probably for a different reason than you. I personally thought it was good to have Sadaam in power, only because he seemed to keep the Islamist Fundamentalists under control. I do not think that our President considered that - when he went into Iraq. I do not think that the USA, at the time the Iraq war started - understood that Islam is not really a religion of peace, for millions of its members.

Snarf, please allow another question or two, ok? Lets just say for a moment that you were the President of the USA. At what point would you have enforced the UN resolutions on Iraq, such as the No fly zone - with planes being shot at on a regular basis? At what point would you have stopped Sadaam from continuing to pay $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber?

One other question ok? You state openly and it sounds proudly that you are a Demoncrat, yet you state that you are a Christian. Please tell me, how can you be a Christian and a Demoncrat - when your party has a platform in favor of waging the war of abortion on innocent babies and it is almost militant when it comes to defending this infanticide doctrine? You know the Word of God states "Thou shalt not kill" - and you know that there is nothing that God hates more than the shedding of innocent life. You do know that the Word of God states that, don't you?

As a pretext, let me remind you that the US gave Saddam a lot of help in the Iraq-Iran war. It's a little hypocritical to say that Saddam must be destroyed for being so evil, when the US helped him in his evilness. The US has a long history of helping violent dictators stay in power for political reasons, this is why I don't believe the Bush line about Saddam being removed because he was a dictator.

Question 1: I would have made deals with the other countries who had major interests in Iraq, to come to an agreement on unified action. France, Germany, and Russia have fairly large numbers of Muslims living there and their leaders rightfully did not want to be associated with a crusade. They also wanted the money owed them. By considering their needs, instead of deciding that the US has to do everything, the US could made an effective and strong coalition.
The point about a coalition has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about an effective means of fighting terrorism. Terrorism is a worldwide problem, and the terrorists are connected worldwide. Therefore, action against them requires coordination between law enforcement agencies of different countries. This is being done now. In light of this, it also makes sense that the main countries also come to agreement as to the goals and means of fighting a worldwide war on terrorism. If not many terrorists were based in Iraq to begin with (since Osama would also represent a threat to Saddam), then it's a waste of money to spend billions in Iraq when the terrorists are elsewhere. Terrorists do not form armies and fight conventional wars. They are beaten by quiet, clandestine means, and good intelligence and police coordination requires money.
Back to Saddam, if properly and strongly administered, the oil for food program could have worked, although it would have required a military presence. The main countries have ways of monitoring Saddam's finances, and controlling what he does. Invasion was not necessary.

2) Do you believe that people are saved solely by faith in Jesus? If so, then one's convictions on abortion or anything do not affect the state of one's salvation. The Bible doesn't say, if you believe in Jesus AND are against abortion, you will be saved. One is not saved by the purity of one's convictions, one is saved only by Jesus.

In the OT, God told his followers to kill lots of people (you do know that the word of god states that, don't you). Innocent people were killed in Iraq by American bombs, innocent people in Palestine were killed by Israeli soldiers who are supported by the US (and please don't say that Palestinian kids throwing rocks are guilty of some heinous crime). "Thou shalt not kill", neither in the Bible nor as practiced by Christians today, seems ever to be considered. "Thou shalt not kill" is unconditional, it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill INNOCENT people, but you can kill GUILTY people." It does not speak about the guilt or innocence of anyone being killed, it just says "do not kill."

On abortion, zygotes are not babies or infants. Simple. They are cells or groups of cells which are not yet a human being. I don't like abortion, but it is not my place to tell a woman what she should do with her body. Hence, I believe this to be a personal moral decision. If Christians can support dropping bombs which kill innocent people, and executing prisoners, then it is hypocritical to consider abortion to be murder.

[Sparko]

I interupt your thread with a pre-emptive warning. Please don't drag this topic into one about abortion, that is a hotbed that needs to be taken to another forum. Thank you and now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Jude3b]

As a pretext, let me remind you that the US gave Saddam a lot of help in the Iraq-Iran war. It's a little hypocritical to say that Saddam must be destroyed for being so evil, when the US helped him in his evilness. The US has a long history of helping violent dictators stay in power for political reasons, this is why I don't believe the Bush line about Saddam being removed because he was a dictator.

Question 1: I would have made deals with the other countries who had major interests in Iraq, to come to an agreement on unified action. France, Germany, and Russia have fairly large numbers of Muslims living there and their leaders rightfully did not want to be associated with a crusade. They also wanted the money owed them. By considering their needs, instead of deciding that the US has to do everything, the US could made an effective and strong coalition.
The point about a coalition has nothing to do with political correctness, it's about an effective means of fighting terrorism. Terrorism is a worldwide problem, and the terrorists are connected worldwide. Therefore, action against them requires coordination between law enforcement agencies of different countries. This is being done now. In light of this, it also makes sense that the main countries also come to agreement as to the goals and means of fighting a worldwide war on terrorism. If not many terrorists were based in Iraq to begin with (since Osama would also represent a threat to Saddam), then it's a waste of money to spend billions in Iraq when the terrorists are elsewhere. Terrorists do not form armies and fight conventional wars. They are beaten by quiet, clandestine means, and good intelligence and police coordination requires money.
Back to Saddam, if properly and strongly administered, the oil for food program could have worked, although it would have required a military presence. The main countries have ways of monitoring Saddam's finances, and controlling what he does. Invasion was not necessary.

2) Do you believe that people are saved solely by faith in Jesus? If so, then one's convictions on abortion or anything do not affect the state of one's salvation. The Bible doesn't say, if you believe in Jesus AND are against abortion, you will be saved. One is not saved by the purity of one's convictions, one is saved only by Jesus.

In the OT, God told his followers to kill lots of people (you do know that the word of god states that, don't you). Innocent people were killed in Iraq by American bombs, innocent people in Palestine were killed by Israeli soldiers who are supported by the US (and please don't say that Palestinian kids throwing rocks are guilty of some heinous crime). "Thou shalt not kill", neither in the Bible nor as practiced by Christians today, seems ever to be considered. "Thou shalt not kill" is unconditional, it doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill INNOCENT people, but you can kill GUILTY people." It does not speak about the guilt or innocence of anyone being killed, it just says "do not kill."

On abortion, zygotes are not babies or infants. Simple. They are cells or groups of cells which are not yet a human being. I don't like abortion, but it is not my place to tell a woman what she should do with her body. Hence, I believe this to be a personal moral decision. If Christians can support dropping bombs which kill innocent people, and executing prisoners, then it is hypocritical to consider abortion to be murder.


Dear Snarf:

You are one confused and mixed up guy. We obviously have been studying different Bibles!!

In Exodus 20:13, the commandment not to kill obviously refers to murder, not to judicial execution. God Himself had ordained the principle of capital punishment for the murderer (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4). as well as for other crimes, (Exodus 21:17; Levitucus 24:16)

Governments must act for God in putting down crime and aggression. Romans 13:1-4 says: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Palestininian children have gone into Israel and blown innocent people up - encouraged by older - but perhaps not at stupid terrorists. Yes, they are guilty of heinous crimes.

Yes, Sadaam should have been taken out - if for no other reason than he was paying $25,000 to the family of Palestinian terrorists. "Go ahead son - strap these bombs around you and go blow up some innocent people - that way you'll be assured of paradise and 70 virgins" and oh, our family can get $25,000 from Sadaam!" That is your "Religion of Peace" in action! Sadaam was a murderer and he endangered his own people in Iraq, the Jewish people in Israel and Americans too!

Your trouble Snarf and what is causing you to be so confused is that you are going by your own opinion and not by the Word of God in matters that deal with Murder and Killing and War -whether it involves nations or Women and babies. You obviosly have yourself fully immersed in the secular media and not the Word of God.

Governments are ordained of God. People ought to obey the government just as children ought to obey parents and just like we ought to obey our heavenly Father - by obeying His Holy Word.

[Maimonides]

Dear Snarf:

Thank you for your comments. You certainly seem to hold deep convictions about the United States being at war in Iraq. Let me say that I also hold reservations about our being in Iraq, but probably for a different reason than you. I personally thought it was good to have Sadaam in power, only because he seemed to keep the Islamist Fundamentalists under control. I do not think that our President considered that - when he went into Iraq. I do not think that the USA, at the time the Iraq war started - understood that Islam is not really a religion of peace, for millions of its members.

Snarf, please allow another question or two, ok? Lets just say for a moment that you were the President of the USA. At what point would you have enforced the UN resolutions on Iraq, such as the No fly zone - with planes being shot at on a regular basis? At what point would you have stopped Sadaam from continuing to pay $25,000 to the family of each suicide bomber?

One other question ok? You state openly and it sounds proudly that you are a Demoncrat, yet you state that you are a Christian. Please tell me, how can you be a Christian and a Demoncrat - when your party has a platform in favor of waging the war of abortion on innocent babies and it is almost militant when it comes to defending this infanticide doctrine? You know the Word of God states "Thou shalt not kill" - and you know that there is nothing that God hates more than the shedding of innocent life. You do know that the Word of God states that, don't you?
Goddess forgive me, but I've decided to break my little golden rule... This thread is really almost too funny, and kudos to Snarf for the extremely piercing insights. Incidentally I've decided to take it on the chin, too... I'm a liberal and an agnostic to boot.

Jude... you mention the injunction "do not kill" and the shedding of innocent life. I'm going to answer that in two ways: comparative example and an exposee of my position on the Planned Parenthood issue.

Okay, Jude, you say Do not kill; very well, let's consider the case of the U.S. and Iraq... the economic sanctions in the '90's took the lives of perhaps half a million Iraqis, through disease, malnutrition, and the like. Most were under the tender age of five. That's several Hiroshimas, my friend, and the Iraqis never even attacked us. We retaliated for their invasion of (oil-rich) Kuwait after telling them we had no interest in Arab-Arab dealings! Why continue sanctions and subject an innocent civilian population to privation for no reason? It doesn't fail to astound me, in light of the fact that we doubled aid to Saddam's regime after he gassed the Iraqi Kurds in '87 under Reagan. You seem not to realize the vicious cycle of violence that can be perpetuated (ironically) by failing to follow Jesus' advice on the subject ("love your enemies" and the like). You also fail to realize the pragmatic political reasons for why these terrorists do the things they do. Theology aside. Let me tell you something.

During the dark days of apartheid in South Africa there was a practice called 'necklacing'. Essentially what would happen was that oppressed, segregated, underadvantaged South African blacks would get their hands on a suspected apartheid informer. And they would get a used tire, and dunk said used tire in gasoline. I'm sure you know where this is going... they would then take said tire, tie about the culprit's neck, light a match... it wasn't pretty, granted, but the point had to be made.

What happened? Recourse to more peaceful solutions for ending apartheid without bloodshed came under South African president Frederik Willem de Klerk, working in concert with Nelson Mandela. A new era had dawned; necklacing disappeared entirely.

The practice had occasioned controversy, of course... some preferred to see it as 'tribalism' or 'black-on-black violence', failing to see the underlying political pressures fueling it. Thus it is today. Realistically, more rational, expedite practices must be adopted towards the Middle East and the Islamic world if the U.S. and Israel hope to see the light of a new day. These countries must discover a kind of 'Jesus within', and seek a new awareness. Gandhi led India to independence without firing a shot. Remember Zechariah 4:6, "'Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit,' Says the LORD of hosts."

Is the point made? To me the Bible is useful as an incredible document of literature, poetry, mythology, philosophy... and insight. In that sense, then, it might truly said to be inspired.

As regards the abortion issue... I digressed but a little. Honestly, it's a difficult issue. Senator Kerry actually summed it up rather well when he asserted his own strong moral convictions but also asserted that he could not force them as a mandate upon others. Of course I voted for him; realistically he might have saved this country. In truth I was never more disgusted with this country than on November 3, and honestly a lot of my anger was fueled toward the religious right. We have a very strong puritanical streak in this country, and many of us had hoped to send a better message to the world than the one we gave them on that fateful stormy Wednesday (well, stormy in northern Cali, anyway). Here's my stance on abortion, and it's rather like Senator Kerry's: I don't base my actions on any standard, including the Bible, solely on faith. I generally have to test it out, think about it for myself.

The Bible doesn't have to tell me not to kill. I love children and babies and personally do not favor abortion. But I cannot in good conscience (moreover considering my gender), move for a legislative action that revokes the woman's right to choose for all women in the entire country! My exhortation to pro-life activists: give up the signs, protests, and legislative battles. Forget it. You're fighting on the wrong front.

Instead, why not (as many do), reach out? I know of a number of very wonderful pro-lifers who are reaching out to support troubled mothers considering abortion, offering a better solution (better being my value judgment as well, yes). This seems to me more in line with the actions of the founder, Jesus, anyway, inasmuch as it is the more compassionate and understanding route.

All things are Buddha things. Goddess bless us all.

[Maimonides]

Dear Snarf:

You are one confused and mixed up guy. We obviously have been studying different Bibles!!

In Exodus 20:13, the commandment not to kill obviously refers to murder, not to judicial execution. God Himself had ordained the principle of capital punishment for the murderer (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4). as well as for other crimes, (Exodus 21:17; Levitucus 24:16)

Governments must act for God in putting down crime and aggression. Romans 13:1-4 says: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Palestininian children have gone into Israel and blown innocent people up - encouraged by older - but perhaps not at stupid terrorists. Yes, they are guilty of heinous crimes.

Yes, Sadaam should have been taken out - if for no other reason than he was paying $25,000 to the family of Palestinian terrorists. "Go ahead son - strap these bombs around you and go blow up some innocent people - that way you'll be assured of paradise and 70 virgins" and oh, our family can get $25,000 from Sadaam!" That is your "Religion of Peace" in action! Sadaam was a murderer and he endangered his own people in Iraq, the Jewish people in Israel and Americans too!

Your trouble Snarf and what is causing you to be so confused is that you are going by your own opinion and not by the Word of God in matters that deal with Murder and Killing and War -whether it involves nations or Women and babies. You obviosly have yourself fully immersed in the secular media and not the Word of God.

Governments are ordained of God. People ought to obey the government just as children ought to obey parents and just like we ought to obey our heavenly Father - by obeying His Holy Word.
Personally I find it almost (not quite) astounding, this attitude of yours, Jude. According to you, we should maintain a certain worldview or interpretation (yours, it would become quite apparent), about the Bible and base everything on that. Decidedly anti-intellectual and uncritical of you, my friend. Did you ever stop to question? I've been questioning everything I was taught in a biblical matrix of school and church- and throwing most of it out. Whatever works for me, stays in or comes back. Whatever doesn't, doesn't. Of course I obey the law (in general), I don't want to land in jail. I accept evolution- does this make me 'outside the box'? Should I throw out scientific inquiry and bury my head in the sand, or attempt to create a more equitable equilibrium in my worldview, one that leaves room for Goddess and science?

Call me a Christian mystic agnostic with some unorthodox convictions. It's so much simpler that way.

[Maimonides]

Dear Maimonides:

You say "I sincerely hope that more enlightened discourse will lead to a more compassionate awareness..."

Is it compassionate to accuse the American CIA who helped the poor people of Afghanistan to stand up to the atheistic Soviet Union - of causing 9/11 and Al-Queda? Was it not good for Americans to help Afghanistan? Are you not an anti-American/anti-Christian bigot - going under the name of an Historian?

From a puerly secular standpoint, it is a fact that today, the United States is engaged in the war of just protection. An evil aggressor (Islamic Fundamentalists) have shattered the peace in a murderous manner (killing thousands of innocent people), making it necessary to wage war to restore peace and security. Such a war has a defensive aim. It is protective. It is the last resort when all avenues of peace are exhausted. Waging that kind of war is a legitimate function of government. Every government has a duty to protect its people. American's War on Terrorism is necessary to end the reign of terror.

From a puerly spiritual standpoint, we Christians need to make friends with every Muslim we can. It is Christian love, not hate or fear - that will open doors to be able to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - with the poor dear people trapped by this legalistic and false religious system.Congratulations, Jude, you've blown the lid off my evil identity... I also take candy from small children, did I tell you that?

As concerns the CIA-sponsored jihad in Afghanistan... what do you care about the poor people of Afghanistan? Do you have any idea at all of what you're talking about? Perhaps this sounds harsh but some of your other posts have left me in doubt somewhat.

The Afghan jihad was carried out for very pragmatic reasons within America. We wanted to turn Afghanistan into the Soviet Vietnam. The way to do that was to instigate a pan-Islamic jihad of a political sort. Hitherto there were but four: Saladin in the time of the Crusades, then in the seventeenth-century Senegambia in Africa, the Wahhabist sect in eighteenth-century Hijaz in Saudi Arabia, and the Mahdi in late-nineteenth century Sudan. Afghanistan was useful only as a pawn to manouver the U.S.S.R. into checkmate. And when it was over, we abandoned this very broken pawn to its own devices and we got the Taliban in a few short years. Funny how the skeletons in our closets, if neglected, eventually get hungry and come out to bite us.

And yes, I am an American who refuses to show his patriotism by uncritically swallowing everything he hears that is laced with the Bible and Republican agenda.

If you doubt my historical predilection you may feel free to challenge me openly on anything I have said as relates to history, or on any topic of historical relevance. If I have made an incorrect statement I will retract it. If I do not know I will find out. If I am right you may be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, this thread has contributed to the hardening of my attitudes against SOME Christians, especially of your stripe.

Make friends with Muslims on the basis of the peaceful religion of Jesus... you're off to such a good start. At the beginning of this thread you were advocating conversion by the sword. Or, should I say, the assault rifle.

I think you're trapped in a web of misunderstanding, and, perhaps, fear, based on your misconceptions about history and human nature. People do crazy things sometimes; as regards terrorism remember that terrorist acts have an ongoing history in a divided Catholic-Protestant Northern Ireland. See also my post on necklacing as it relates to the present situation.

Watch Dogma by Kevin Smith, by the way.

Goddess bless us all, saints, sinners, and everyone in between.

[Maimonides]

Dear Maimonides:

That is the most confusing bit of theology - I think I have ever read. You say you are a Christian. You say you are an Agnostic.
Please tell me, if you don't mind - what is the definition of a Christian? What makes one a Christian?
Yes, yes, and I'm also a mystic. See my new thread, "The Gospel According to Maimonides" in the Comparative Religions forum.

If you're confused think how I've felt.:wink:

[Krusader]

Islam has been called "A Religion of Peace!" Does history show it to be that?

Islam claims to be the one true religion. Doesn't its actions, of terrorism and killing and murder of innocent women and children, clearly show it to be a false religious cult and of Satanic origin?

How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?

Lastly, what will be the future of the Muslim people and this religion that is so intolerant that it will for the most part not even allow any other point of view or allow Christian missionaries to operate in most of their countries. If they keep on killing and murdering - won't the entire world have to rise up against them eventually and wipe them out - to neutralize them - before they try to kill everyone off, who is not a Muslim or refuses to become one?
We must make the distinction between the false doctrines of Islam and those in bondage to those false doctrines. Islam's Allah is derived from the pre-Islamic Moon God of Arabia. Mohammed was a charlatan who waged war against those who would not accept his new religion, and demanded a percentage of the goods taken from caravans raided by his followers. The whole Islamic system is devoid of real charity and is a robotic religion that does not stimulate intellectual thought.

We, as Christians, must continue to expose the false doctrines of Islam, and pray for those in bondage to be released from the demonic teachings of Mohammed.

[Maimonides]

We must make the distinction between the false doctrines of Islam and those in bondage to those false doctrines. Islam's Allah is derived from the pre-Islamic Moon God of Arabia. Mohammed was a charlatan who waged war against those who would not accept his new religion, and demanded a percentage of the goods taken from caravans raided by his followers. The whole Islamic system is devoid of real charity and is a robotic religion that does not stimulate intellectual thought.

We, as Christians, must continue to expose the false doctrines of Islam, and pray for those in bondage to be released from the demonic teachings of Mohammed.Then how was it that for centuries in the Middle Ages Islam was one of the most refined and cosmopolitan civilizations on earth while European Christendom was a comparative backwater? Islam amalgamated the collective legacies of the Greco-Roman, Persian, Indian and Chinese civilizations and built upon this foundation, making spectacular strides in technology, mathematics, medicine (much of which was not improved upon in Europe until the 17th century), geography and astronomy. Words in the English language of Arabic origin include: admiral, sloop, adelante, alkali, alcohol, algebra, algorithm, azimuth, cipher, zenith, zero, amber, almanac and many, many more (see http://www.zompist.com/arabic.html if you want more).

Muhammad wasn't a perfect man; he was a man of his times. Of course Allah (Arabic al ilah, the god), was based on the moon deity. Muhammad was actually quite brilliant in his innovation: he brought the Arabs together under a common belief structure. No one was to be coerced to accept Islam; Muhammad explicitly insisted on it. Let me give you a quote from the Blessed Prophet (peace be upon him):

Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) sent a message to the monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai:

"This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world."

http://islam101.com/terror/index.htm see also http://www.muhammad.net/

Arabic conquest of Jerusalem from the Byzantines meant the Jews could return to their holy city after centuries of Romano-Byzantine oppression. Funny how Christianity didn't reverse that in the three centuries from Constantine to the Arabic conquest in 638! (The Jews were shut out of Jerusalem after the second Jewish revolt of 132-135 CE).

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?" Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.
from www.muhammad.net (http://www.muhammad.net) also.


Ironic how Christians continue to subject Muhammad to a campaign of libel and hate, when Muhammad actually made efforts to reach out in compassion to Jews and Christians alike. Granted the Arab imperialism wasn't perfect, but I would rather have lived under Muslim than Christian rule in the Middle Ages (hence my handle).

[Maimonides]

Dear Maimonides:

You say "I sincerely hope that more enlightened discourse will lead to a more compassionate awareness..."

Is it compassionate to accuse the American CIA who helped the poor people of Afghanistan to stand up to the atheistic Soviet Union - of causing 9/11 and Al-Queda? Was it not good for Americans to help Afghanistan? Are you not an anti-American/anti-Christian bigot - going under the name of an Historian?

From a puerly secular standpoint, it is a fact that today, the United States is engaged in the war of just protection. An evil aggressor (Islamic Fundamentalists) have shattered the peace in a murderous manner (killing thousands of innocent people), making it necessary to wage war to restore peace and security. Such a war has a defensive aim. It is protective. It is the last resort when all avenues of peace are exhausted. Waging that kind of war is a legitimate function of government. Every government has a duty to protect its people. American's War on Terrorism is necessary to end the reign of terror.

From a puerly spiritual standpoint, we Christians need to make friends with every Muslim we can. It is Christian love, not hate or fear - that will open doors to be able to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - with the poor dear people trapped by this legalistic and false religious system.
What this says to me is that you've uncritically bought into a lot of Christio-Republican propaganda. The logic of the War on Terror reminds me of the logic of white incursion on Native American lands in the 19th century; they were the "terrorists" of the time. White settlers would go up in arms every time a few white children were kidnapped by indigenous people; yet those self-same whites were engaged in actively destroying the Native Americans and pushing them toward extinction.

Now today Euro-Americans aren't after land or gold in the Middle East: we're after black gold. We want to hold those SOBs down and make sure they know their place. And when they retaliate (and 9/11 was an execrable way to do it; I still mourn for the lives lost), we continue the vicious cycle.

We are our history, my friend. Nothing ever changes.

[Krusader]

Then how was it that for centuries in the Middle Ages Islam was one of the most refined and cosmopolitan civilizations on earth while European Christendom was a comparative backwater? Islam amalgamated the collective legacies of the Greco-Roman, Persian, Indian and Chinese civilizations and built upon this foundation, making spectacular strides in technology, mathematics, medicine (much of which was not improved upon in Europe until the 17th century), geography and astronomy. Words in the English language of Arabic origin include: admiral, sloop, adelante, alkali, alcohol, algebra, algorithm, azimuth, cipher, zenith, zero, amber, almanac and many, many more (see http://www.zompist.com/arabic.html if you want more).

Muhammad wasn't a perfect man; he was a man of his times. Of course Allah (Arabic al ilah, the god), was based on the moon deity. Muhammad was actually quite brilliant in his innovation: he brought the Arabs together under a common belief structure. No one was to be coerced to accept Islam; Muhammad explicitly insisted on it. Let me give you a quote from the Blessed Prophet (peace be upon him):

Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) sent a message to the monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai:

"This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world."

http://islam101.com/terror/index.htm see also http://www.muhammad.net/

Arabic conquest of Jerusalem from the Byzantines meant the Jews could return to their holy city after centuries of Romano-Byzantine oppression. Funny how Christianity didn't reverse that in the three centuries from Constantine to the Arabic conquest in 638! (The Jews were shut out of Jerusalem after the second Jewish revolt of 132-135 CE).

"Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?" Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.
from www.muhammad.net (http://www.muhammad.net/) also.




Ironic how Christians continue to subject Muhammad to a campaign of libel and hate, when Muhammad actually made efforts to reach out in compassion to Jews and Christians alike. Granted the Arab imperialism wasn't perfect, but I would rather have lived under Muslim than Christian rule in the Middle Ages (hence my handle).
Mohammed was a false prophet! Having read through the Quran twice and several biographies of Mohammed, I say this without reservation. He had very convenient revelations - such as the one allowing him to marry the wife of his adopted son. He had a yearning for very young women - after all Aisha was only 9, 10, or possibly 8 (according to different accounts) when he forced her to become his wife. Furthermore, he had his enemies murdered in their sleep (recall the poetess who scorned him, murdered by his followers while she slept in bed with her infant child), and had thousands of Jews killed for rejecting his so-called prophethood.

Frankly, Mohammed was a Joseph Smith, except on a larger scale. The romanticizing of Mohammed's life by his followers is much the same as the Mormon myths regarding Smith.

Is it any wonder that this "prophet's" wild imagination has spawned the death cult of Islam?

[Snarf]

Dear Snarf:

You are one confused and mixed up guy. We obviously have been studying different Bibles!!

In Exodus 20:13, the commandment not to kill obviously refers to murder, not to judicial execution. God Himself had ordained the principle of capital punishment for the murderer (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:4). as well as for other crimes, (Exodus 21:17; Levitucus 24:16)

Governments must act for God in putting down crime and aggression. Romans 13:1-4 says: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Palestininian children have gone into Israel and blown innocent people up - encouraged by older - but perhaps not at stupid terrorists. Yes, they are guilty of heinous crimes.

Yes, Sadaam should have been taken out - if for no other reason than he was paying $25,000 to the family of Palestinian terrorists. "Go ahead son - strap these bombs around you and go blow up some innocent people - that way you'll be assured of paradise and 70 virgins" and oh, our family can get $25,000 from Sadaam!" That is your "Religion of Peace" in action! Sadaam was a murderer and he endangered his own people in Iraq, the Jewish people in Israel and Americans too!

Your trouble Snarf and what is causing you to be so confused is that you are going by your own opinion and not by the Word of God in matters that deal with Murder and Killing and War -whether it involves nations or Women and babies. You obviosly have yourself fully immersed in the secular media and not the Word of God.

Governments are ordained of God. People ought to obey the government just as children ought to obey parents and just like we ought to obey our heavenly Father - by obeying His Holy Word.

Does this mean that God ordained Bill Clinton, and the failure of the attempted removal by the Republicans? Ah yes, I knew that Bill was truly divinely appointed!

You're a fine one to talk about "peace," given that you think it's OK for Israeli soldiers to kill kids throwing rocks, you think the Crusades were good, and that it's OK to kill homosexuals and adulterers based on Leviticus

(HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!)

(Hmm, seems that Jesus didn't agree with you on the death penalty (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone). In fact, it was very funny that it took a Wiccan to point out to you why Christians should love Muslims. You are, quite frankly, an embarassment to Christianity because of your hatred.
Did you learn this all from Jesus? did He say "kill the Pharisees?"

Jesus said that those who hate are guilty of murder. 'Nuff said.

[Jude3b]

Does this mean that God ordained Bill Clinton, and the failure of the attempted removal by the Republicans? Ah yes, I knew that Bill was truly divinely appointed!

You're a fine one to talk about "peace," given that you think it's OK for Israeli soldiers to kill kids throwing rocks, you think the Crusades were good, and that it's OK to kill homosexuals and adulterers based on Leviticus

(HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!)

(Hmm, seems that Jesus didn't agree with you on the death penalty (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone). In fact, it was very funny that it took a Wiccan to point out to you why Christians should love Muslims. You are, quite frankly, an embarassment to Christianity because of your hatred.
Did you learn this all from Jesus? did He say "kill the Pharisees?"

Jesus said that those who hate are guilty of murder. 'Nuff said.

Snarf:

If you want to have a debate with me - you will have to refrain from making statements that I say its ok to kill children or homosexuals or adulterers. You cannot quote any place that I ever stated that.

[raj215]

Dear friend, Terrorist dont show that Islam is false, what they show is their own crinimality. You cant judge the whole religion by the actions of a few. If I judge a religion by the actions of a few, look what is happening in the catholoic church. Would it be fair for me to conclude that all catholics are child molesters:eek:

[Krusader]

Dear friend, Terrorist dont show that Islam is false, what they show is their own crinimality. You cant judge the whole religion by the actions of a few. If I judge a religion by the actions of a few, look what is happening in the catholoic church. Would it be fair for me to conclude that all catholics are child molesters:eek:
But, you can judge a religion by its holy book, and for Muslims it is the Quran. Read it yourself - you will not find the word love therein, but all kinds of threats and hateful statements. For instance, those that refuse to worship the Moon god Allah can look forward to actually being roasted over a pit, or will be forced to drink boiling water that will tear their guts to pieces. All of Mohammed's lustful notions are vindicated time and again by supposed revelations from his god justifying Mohammed's desires. Christians and Jews are villified - especially after Mohammed fled to Medina and was rejected by the Jews. The book is akin to an ancient terrorist manual. And while Westerners who read it consider it to be without literary merit and fairly unintelligible, the average Muslim is fully indoctrinated in its blood-thirsty message.

And the extra-Quranic traditions are even more vulgar and hateful than the Quran. Those who change their religion (from Islam) are to be killed. No Muslim should be killed for the murder of those whose blood is not of equal value to the Muslims' blood (infidels, Christians, Jews, etc.). `

The terrorism we see today is not some aberrant form of Islam, but it is Islam in its purest sense. This is what the western world fails to grasp. This is not a religion of peace and justice, as the politically correct would proclaim - for Muslims will know no peace until all submit to Islam - and then Islamic justice will be imposed. This is their goal, and we would do well to remember it!

[raj215]

Dear friend, from reading your replies, it appears that you are very confused concerning islam and or its history. You seem to be set in your opinion that islam is a violent religion and its books teach nothing but violence. I suggest that you do some more research on the history of islam. In the beginning of Prophet Muhammad's mission, all he was trying to do was to get the people to reconized that there was only one god. This is the same god that was worshipped by all the prophets. However, the people of Mecca who were set upon there worship of many gods saw Muhammad as a threat.

The Muslims in the beginning were very peaceful. But the pagans, who were bent on distroying the muslims, killed and attacked the muslims every chance that presented itself. It based upon this background that God commanded the Muslims to defend themselves. Therefore, the muslims took up arms.

I see you have read the Quran, but you have not read it in its historical prospected. This is the only way that you will be able to understand the message of muhammad. If you want to do a one on one, provided you are not afraid, we can use this thread. It is very obivious that you do not really know what you are taking about. :eek: :eek:

[heaven]

Dear friend, from reading your replies, it appears that you are very confused concerning islam and or its history. You seem to be set in your opinion that islam is a violent religion and its books teach nothing but violence. I suggest that you do some more research on the history of islam. In the beginning of Prophet Muhammad's mission, all he was trying to do was to get the people to reconized that there was only one god. This is the same god that was worshipped by all the prophets. However, the people of Mecca who were set upon there worship of many gods saw Muhammad as a threat.

The Muslims in the beginning were very peaceful. But the pagans, who were bent on distroying the muslims, killed and attacked the muslims every chance that presented itself. It based upon this background that God commanded the Muslims to defend themselves. Therefore, the muslims took up arms.

I see you have read the Quran, but you have not read it in its historical prospected. This is the only way that you will be able to understand the message of muhammad. If you want to do a one on one, provided you are not afraid, we can use this thread. It is very obivious that you do not really know what you are taking about. :eek: :eek:
Mohammed cannot compare with Jesus, who laid down His life out of love that
we might have eternal life, guaranteed!

Who needs to follow a pedophile and murderer, who advocates body mutilation and other demonic acts. Jesus by contrast healed the sick,
comforted the broken hearted,and raised the dead, without asking for religious affiliaations. And Jesus is the central historical figure of the ages.

[Jude3b]

Dear friend, Terrorist dont show that Islam is false, what they show is their own crinimality. You cant judge the whole religion by the actions of a few. If I judge a religion by the actions of a few, look what is happening in the catholoic church. Would it be fair for me to conclude that all catholics are child molesters:eek:

Dear raj215:

Are you a Muslim?

You state, you cant judge the whole religion by the actions of a few. It seems that the number of terrorists involved with the Muslim religion has grown way past "a few" - it appears that the number could be much higher than that. Perhaps 100 million. That is not a few!

Look at what these terrorists have done and continue to do. All over the world they have caused murder, mayhem, acts of terrorism and this continues.

[Snarf]

Snarf:

If you want to have a debate with me - you will have to refrain from making statements that I say its ok to kill children or homosexuals or adulterers. You cannot quote any place that I ever stated that.

I overstated my case, I ask for forgiveness. But here is a list of your quotes:

In response to whether or not homosexuals and adulterers should be killed, you wrote:

"The land of Canaan, which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the world before the flood. The people of Canaan were promiscuous, into incest, homosexuality, bestiality, even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god (Lev. 18:21) and blaspheming the true God.

God wanted his chosen people to "be holy" and the sins that were punishable by death was for the purpose of maintaining the holiness of the people as a nation set apart to God (Lev. 20:23-26)."

So, your writing indicates support for killing homosexuals and adulterers.

You then write:
"The death sentence is what we all deserve for all our sins."

You now state that everyone deserves to be killed.

(Such a peaceful religion you have, in which you believe that everyone should be killed.)

In response to my statement on whether or not Palestinian kids throwing rocks should be killed, you wrote:

"Palestininian children have gone into Israel and blown innocent people up - encouraged by older - but perhaps not at stupid terrorists. Yes, they are guilty of heinous crimes."

Are you saying that ALL Palestinian kids, including the ones who just throw rocks, are guilty of heinous crimes?

You never did respond to Wiccan's point about love. I copy it here:
Your question

"How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?"

Reply
Because you are commanded to.

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mt 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

My question for you, should you love Muslims, and if so how should you show it? By saying that theirs is a religion of violence, you imply that all who follow this religion are violent because violence is inherent in their beliefs. IOW, even 80 year old Muslim grannies are plotting the death of someone, shuffling along waiting to strike with their canes. Is this your idea of Christian love, by making dishonest generalizations about hundreds of millions of people?

[Snarf]

Mohammed cannot compare with Jesus, who laid down His life out of love that
we might have eternal life, guaranteed!

Who needs to follow a pedophile and murderer, who advocates body mutilation and other demonic acts. Jesus by contrast healed the sick,
comforted the broken hearted,and raised the dead, without asking for religious affiliaations. And Jesus is the central historical figure of the ages.

Jesus is the same God who commanded that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned (in Leviticus). (Remember, Jesus and Yahweh are one?)

[Snarf]

Mohammed was a false prophet! Having read through the Quran twice and several biographies of Mohammed, I say this without reservation. He had very convenient revelations - such as the one allowing him to marry the wife of his adopted son. He had a yearning for very young women - after all Aisha was only 9, 10, or possibly 8 (according to different accounts) when he forced her to become his wife. Furthermore, he had his enemies murdered in their sleep (recall the poetess who scorned him, murdered by his followers while she slept in bed with her infant child), and had thousands of Jews killed for rejecting his so-called prophethood.

Frankly, Mohammed was a Joseph Smith, except on a larger scale. The romanticizing of Mohammed's life by his followers is much the same as the Mormon myths regarding Smith.

Is it any wonder that this "prophet's" wild imagination has spawned the death cult of Islam?

How do you know that Jesus's life was not falsely romanticized?

[Solly]

And Tweb's very own Jack Chick continues on his way...

[Jude3b]

I overstated my case, I ask for forgiveness. But here is a list of your quotes:

In response to whether or not homosexuals and adulterers should be killed, you wrote:

"The land of Canaan, which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the world before the flood. The people of Canaan were promiscuous, into incest, homosexuality, bestiality, even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god (Lev. 18:21) and blaspheming the true God.

God wanted his chosen people to "be holy" and the sins that were punishable by death was for the purpose of maintaining the holiness of the people as a nation set apart to God (Lev. 20:23-26)."

So, your writing indicates support for killing homosexuals and adulterers.

You then write:
"The death sentence is what we all deserve for all our sins."

You now state that everyone deserves to be killed.

(Such a peaceful religion you have, in which you believe that everyone should be killed.)

In response to my statement on whether or not Palestinian kids throwing rocks should be killed, you wrote:

"Palestininian children have gone into Israel and blown innocent people up - encouraged by older - but perhaps not at stupid terrorists. Yes, they are guilty of heinous crimes."

Are you saying that ALL Palestinian kids, including the ones who just throw rocks, are guilty of heinous crimes?

You never did respond to Wiccan's point about love. I copy it here:
Your question

"How can Christian people continue to show love to Muslims, when Muslims want to kill them?"

Reply
Because you are commanded to.

Mt 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mt 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mt 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mt 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

My question for you, should you love Muslims, and if so how should you show it? By saying that theirs is a religion of violence, you imply that all who follow this religion are violent because violence is inherent in their beliefs. IOW, even 80 year old Muslim grannies are plotting the death of someone, shuffling along waiting to strike with their canes. Is this your idea of Christian love, by making dishonest generalizations about hundreds of millions of people?

Dear Snarf:

You certainly do tend to overstate.

My response - if I quote you scripture verses that show exactly what the Word of God states and how God has dealt with things, if you don't like that - you will need to take it up with God. He's God afterall!

The point of Palestinian children with bombs strapped to them - sent to kill innocent people and their families being paid $25,000 by Sadaam - in no way indicates that ALL Palestinians or ALL Palestinian children are terrorist murderers. The point was that some were encouraged to do so, because their family would receive $25,000 from Sadaam. To someone who is really poor - $25,000 combined with the only sure assurance (they think) of entering Paradise and getting their 70 virgins - that can be quite an inducement.

About the Wiccan quoting scripture from Matthew. What comment can I give? I already believe and agree 100% with the teachings of my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ and His Word.

Let me restate- I Love all Muslims and long to see them saved and come to a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus Christ really is, just as I do for every living person on this earth. But that has nothing to do with our discussion that ISLAMIC TERRORISTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THEIR RELIGION IS FALSE AND CULTIC, now does it?

[Snarf]

Let me restate- I Love all Muslims and long to see them saved and come to a knowledge of the truth of who Jesus Christ really is, just as I do for every living person on this earth. But that has nothing to do with our discussion that ISLAMIC TERRORISTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THEIR RELIGION IS FALSE AND CULTIC, now does it?

Thank you for the response. Picking it up from this point, Christians such as Paul Hill have murdered people, in acts that could be described as terrorism. In our nation's history, Americans have engaged in acts of terrorism against other Americans (e.g. in pre-revolutionary War days wanton destruction of loyalist property.). These acts were performed by people who believed in Jesus, prayed to Jesus, etc. Why do their violent action not show Christianity to be false and cultic, whereas violent acts by Islamic terrorists cause you to label the entire religion to be false? In short, why do you say that the violent minority of Islam speaks for ALL Muslims (peaceful grannies included :-)) but say that violent Christians are either not christians or in some way do not represent all of christianity? Why the double-standard?

Second question, why do you not even begin to consider that the political situation (like their land being occupied) might not be a factor in Palestinian retaliation? Tell the truth here: if your country (the US I'm guessing) was occupied by hostile foreign armies, would you encourage your fellow citizens to fight back, or would you tell them to just accept it? If the latter, then do you think that the Revolutionary War was wrong? (after all, according to your earlier post all governments are God-ordained, therefore so was King George III and the Stamp Act)

[raj215]

dear brother, It seems like your are very popular on this site. If you are so confident in your attacks on Islam, why don't you give me a one on one on this open forum. I am quite sure that you would then see that you don not know what you are talking about. So far, I have not read any real substance in your attacts on islam. Just a lot of lip flapping. :eek:

[Jude3b]

Thank you for the response. Picking it up from this point, Christians such as Paul Hill have murdered people, in acts that could be described as terrorism. In our nation's history, Americans have engaged in acts of terrorism against other Americans (e.g. in pre-revolutionary War days wanton destruction of loyalist property.). These acts were performed by people who believed in Jesus, prayed to Jesus, etc. Why do their violent action not show Christianity to be false and cultic, whereas violent acts by Islamic terrorists cause you to label the entire religion to be false? In short, why do you say that the violent minority of Islam speaks for ALL Muslims (peaceful grannies included :-)) but say that violent Christians are either not christians or in some way do not represent all of christianity? Why the double-standard?

Second question, why do you not even begin to consider that the political situation (like their land being occupied) might not be a factor in Palestinian retaliation? Tell the truth here: if your country (the US I'm guessing) was occupied by hostile foreign armies, would you encourage your fellow citizens to fight back, or would you tell them to just accept it? If the latter, then do you think that the Revolutionary War was wrong? (after all, according to your earlier post all governments are God-ordained, therefore so was King George III and the Stamp Act)

Dear Snarf:

I do not know Paul Hill. Also, I wasn't around pre revolutionary war. Since you claim to be a Christian and you know so much about that time era and this Mr. Hill, why not tell us why you think those people did the awful things you say they did? Why not also tell me why Demoncrats who claim to be Christians - can also believe in murdering millions of innocent babies by abortion also. Tell me why you think it is ok for suicide bombers to operate - seemingly with your blessings? Tell me why it is ok for Muslims to kill innocent people and why the United States is wrong in everything it does - according to your opinions?

Despite whatever answer you might give, terrorism and killing innocent non-combatants is never right. Palestinians should have accepted a part of Israel as their own state, and chosen to live at peace - side by side next to Israel. Certainly both peoples have historical claims to the land of Israel/Palestine. They will have to learn to live in Peace - or they will eventually have to kill each other off - until one side is eliminated.

Now I notice Snarf that you have never answered the question - when would you have acted to take out Sadaam - had you been the President? How many terrorist families would he have to pay, to blow themselves up - in the process of killing many innocent people - before you would have done something to stop him? Why do you imply by your silence on the issue that it is ok for Palestinian children to blow themselves up - while their family received $25,000 from Sadaam?

It is the government's duty to seek vengeance against those who do evil and destroy peace. God gave this powerr to governments because of his mercy. Otherwise, evil people would dominate - like the Taliban did in Afghanistan prior to 9/11/01.

Snarf you have repeatedly been very critical of the United States. Why do you continue to live in the USA - if you are so opposed to it? You know Snarf - if our country never did anything to dispense justice - it would simply allow lawless people to dominate the world in a deadly fashion. Is that what you want?

Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist networks, must be destroyed to stop them from killing more innocent people. The terrorists have started a war of evil aggression, driven by human lust (James 4:2). That kind of war, rooted in wretched lust and evil desire, is the kind of war being waged by the terrorists - all over the world. It is by no stretch of the imagination a holy war.

In Habakkuk 2, God condemns wars of aggression. He pronounces woe against nations that plunder and loot and revel in causing panic and terror.
Snarf you can defend Islam all you want - but Millions of Muslims - not just the few that you mention - around the world are evil men, with an evil belief system, intent on causing death and destruction to all who do not share their corrupted passions. All over the world - in much of Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines and across the Middle East, in Russia and right here in the USA - the Muslim terrorist - in the name of their so-called "religion of peace" broke the peace by committing murderous acts of terrorism. They are nothing more than a bunch of gangsters - acting in the name of a false religion. They are the aggressors, and it is clear that they are evil. And Snarf - you appear to be one of their biggest supporters. Amazing!

[Krusader]

Dear Barryrob:

I've never heard of the "Christian Congregation" - as you seem to be using it. Is that a new sect? How is it connected with the Wathchtower/JW's? When did your "Christian Congregation" religion start? Where is its headquaters? Who is its founder?
By "Christian Congregation," JWs mean the anointed remnant (the 144,000), of which there are only a few left on earth. These are the only one, according to Watchtower teaching, that need to be "born-again," since they are the only ones going to heaven. Most JWs look forward to life after Armageddon on a renewed earth - that is after the buzzards pick the bones of Christians clean, and the faithful JWs clean up the mess.

How sad!

[raj215]

Mohammed cannot compare with Jesus, who laid down His life out of love that
we might have eternal life, guaranteed!

Who needs to follow a pedophile and murderer, who advocates body mutilation and other demonic acts. Jesus by contrast healed the sick,
comforted the broken hearted,and raised the dead, without asking for religious affiliaations. And Jesus is the central historical figure of the ages.
Dear friend, in your mind noone can campare to jesus. You must understand that jesus was a prophet just ike all the prophets before him but muhammad is the seal of the phophet. You have issued charges against muhammad, I hope you are prepared to support those charges. If not, you should reply to a question in which you have knowledge. It is better to be thought as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

[Jude3b]

dear brother, It seems like your are very popular on this site. If you are so confident in your attacks on Islam, why don't you give me a one on one on this open forum. I am quite sure that you would then see that you don not know what you are talking about. So far, I have not read any real substance in your attacts on islam. Just a lot of lip flapping. :eek:

ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?

[Jude3b]

Dear friend, in your mind noone can campare to jesus. You must understand that jesus was a prophet just ike all the prophets before him but muhammad is the seal of the phophet. You have issued charges against muhammad, I hope you are prepared to support those charges. If not, you should reply to a question in which you have knowledge. It is better to be thought as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

The Lord, Master and Savior JESUS CHRIST - IS GOD!! That's a whole lot more than "a prophet"!!!

[raj215]

[QUOTE=Jude3b]ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?[/QUOTE

YES, I AM TALKING TO YOU:attn:

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=Jude3b]ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?[/QUOTE

YES, I AM TALKING TO YOU:attn:

Dear raj215:

Say what you want, ask what you want. I'm not the smartest guy around, but I will do my best to honestly and fairly have a dialog with you.

Where shall we start? What shall we discuss? Here are some questions that I have for you and every Muslim, perhaps we could start here with you answering these questions for me??

1) Is it true that a principal goal of Islam is to bring Islamic law to every nation and more or less by any means possible?

2) raj215 perhaps you would allow this discussion to start with this question? Are you a Muslim who is willing to accept evidence that is true - even if your religion has taught you othewise?

3) raj215 have you been able to have a personal relatioship with God by being a Muslim? Do you long for a personal relationship with God, a relationship in which you know that God loves you? raj215, do you sincerely desire to know God personally and to know that your sins are forgiven and that you have a place reserved for you in heaven?

[Snarf]

Dear Snarf:

I do not know Paul Hill. Also, I wasn't around pre revolutionary war. Since you claim to be a Christian and you know so much about that time era and this Mr. Hill, why not tell us why you think those people did the awful things you say they did? Why not also tell me why Demoncrats who claim to be Christians - can also believe in murdering millions of innocent babies by abortion also. Tell me why you think it is ok for suicide bombers to operate - seemingly with your blessings? Tell me why it is ok for Muslims to kill innocent people and why the United States is wrong in everything it does - according to your opinions?

Despite whatever answer you might give, terrorism and killing innocent non-combatants is never right. Palestinians should have accepted a part of Israel as their own state, and chosen to live at peace - side by side next to Israel. Certainly both peoples have historical claims to the land of Israel/Palestine. They will have to learn to live in Peace - or they will eventually have to kill each other off - until one side is eliminated.

Now I notice Snarf that you have never answered the question - when would you have acted to take out Sadaam - had you been the President? How many terrorist families would he have to pay, to blow themselves up - in the process of killing many innocent people - before you would have done something to stop him? Why do you imply by your silence on the issue that it is ok for Palestinian children to blow themselves up - while their family received $25,000 from Sadaam?

It is the government's duty to seek vengeance against those who do evil and destroy peace. God gave this powerr to governments because of his mercy. Otherwise, evil people would dominate - like the Taliban did in Afghanistan prior to 9/11/01.

Snarf you have repeatedly been very critical of the United States. Why do you continue to live in the USA - if you are so opposed to it? You know Snarf - if our country never did anything to dispense justice - it would simply allow lawless people to dominate the world in a deadly fashion. Is that what you want?

Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist networks, must be destroyed to stop them from killing more innocent people. The terrorists have started a war of evil aggression, driven by human lust (James 4:2). That kind of war, rooted in wretched lust and evil desire, is the kind of war being waged by the terrorists - all over the world. It is by no stretch of the imagination a holy war.

In Habakkuk 2, God condemns wars of aggression. He pronounces woe against nations that plunder and loot and revel in causing panic and terror.
Snarf you can defend Islam all you want - but Millions of Muslims - not just the few that you mention - around the world are evil men, with an evil belief system, intent on causing death and destruction to all who do not share their corrupted passions. All over the world - in much of Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines and across the Middle East, in Russia and right here in the USA - the Muslim terrorist - in the name of their so-called "religion of peace" broke the peace by committing murderous acts of terrorism. They are nothing more than a bunch of gangsters - acting in the name of a false religion. They are the aggressors, and it is clear that they are evil. And Snarf - you appear to be one of their biggest supporters. Amazing!

Hello, sorry for the delay.

You still haven't answered why the US helped Saddam in perpetrating his evil.
Cat got your tongue?

BTW, there aren't "millions of Muslims" bent on terrorism. The total numbers of al Quaeda number in the thousands, maybe in the tens of thousands. Likewise, the membership of Hizbollah and Hamas make up a small proportion of Lebanese and Palestinians.

Paul Hill was a Presbyterian minister who was executed for the assasination of an abortion doctor and his wife. This happened only a few years ago. Paul was quite proud of what he did, and there are those who think that he was a martyr
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillLinks.html

Prior to the Revolutionary War, there were many who wanted to stay loyal to England, they were known as Tories. Because of their loyalty, they were terrorized, and after the war
"The war's aftermath brings severe reprisals upon the Tories and the suffering is particularly intense in Hempstead. The townspeople endure loss of all civil rights. They are barred from holding public office, totally disfranchised. Their lands are forfeited. They have neither the wherewithal nor the right to continue their businesses and professions. Many have a death sentence hanging over their heads. About one third of Queens County, according to one chronicler, is forced to leave at the end of the war. ("Colonial Hempstead," Bernice Schultz.) Branches of fine old families, the Seamans, the Pearsalls, the Smiths and others, depart for Canada, to escape the reprisals of the embittered victors. Some Tory refugees go to England and the West Indies. Daniel Kissam and Richard Hewlett go to Nova Scotia. (Hewlett's wife eventually returns to Hempstead to live out her years.) In the Spring of 1783, 3000 residents of Queens County leave for New Brunswick ("Long Island's Story", Jacqueline Overton)."

http://www.carman.net/it_begins.htm

Since these action were at least tolerated if not promoted by the Founding Fathers, who are the Christians that evangelicals tell us were the ones who made the US a Christian nation (e.g. Jerry Falwell), then can we assume that all Christians are terrorists based on the actions of Paul Hill and those who terrorized the Tories?

For terrorism of a different sort, read up on the Stern gang and Haganah, which were JEWISH terrorist groups who attacked British soldiers

Regarding abortion, the moderator has requested that abortion not be discussed here, and I will respect his wishes. However, I can say that one's Christianity does not depend on one's political beliefs. Apparantly you do, and this denies salvation by faith alone, but salvation based on faith and political belief.

I have never said that it is OK for terrorists to kill innocent people, nor have I ever said that the US is always wrong. What I am saying is that Islamic terrorists do not represent mainstream Islam, and also that oppressed Palestinians have a right to resist occupation by attacking those who stole and occupied their land (namely the settlers and the occupying Israeli forces).
Some Jewish groups violently resisted occupation by the British, the Palestinians can do the same to the Jewish occupiers. When Israel stops the military occupation of Palestine, then there will be no need for resistance. However, I do not think that resistance to occupation justifies killing innocent civilians in other parts of Israel, blowing up buses full of children, etc.

Regarding the question on Saddam, I did answer some time ago. I said that it would be possible to control him by means other than an invasion of Iraq by two countries. There might not be a need to "take him out," if he can be monitored and controlled.

" It is the government's duty to seek vengeance against those who do evil and destroy peace. God gave this powerr to governments because of his mercy. Otherwise, evil people would dominate - like the Taliban did in Afghanistan prior to 9/11/01. "

So, then, why did OUR government give help to Saddam and Osama?

Actually, for some years I lived outside the US and was very happy in Europe.
The world outside the US isn't as lawless as you seem to think, believe it or not other civilized countries exist, and they have many advantages over the US (like better health care). As a citizen, I have a right to criticize my country without feeling like I have to leave it for doing so. I like the US, but would live elsewhere if I could.

I agree with you that God condemns wars of aggression and terrorist violence. I'm sure that Native Americans would agree with me that the US is guilty of much aggression, as well as the Vietnamese. Iraqis never made an attack on the US, yet we invade their country. That is a war of US aggression, which as you say God condemns. I don't know why you support that which God condemns.

[Krusader]

Hello, sorry for the delay.

You still haven't answered why the US helped Saddam in perpetrating his evil.
Cat got your tongue?

BTW, there aren't "millions of Muslims" bent on terrorism. The total numbers of al Quaeda number in the thousands, maybe in the tens of thousands. Likewise, the membership of Hizbollah and Hamas make up a small proportion of Lebanese and Palestinians.

Paul Hill was a Presbyterian minister who was executed for the assasination of an abortion doctor and his wife. This happened only a few years ago. Paul was quite proud of what he did, and there are those who think that he was a martyr
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillLinks.html



Prior to the Revolutionary War, there were many who wanted to stay loyal to England, they were known as Tories. Because of their loyalty, they were terrorized, and after the war
"The war's aftermath brings severe reprisals upon the Tories and the suffering is particularly intense in Hempstead. The townspeople endure loss of all civil rights. They are barred from holding public office, totally disfranchised. Their lands are forfeited. They have neither the wherewithal nor the right to continue their businesses and professions. Many have a death sentence hanging over their heads. About one third of Queens County, according to one chronicler, is forced to leave at the end of the war. ("Colonial Hempstead," Bernice Schultz.) Branches of fine old families, the Seamans, the Pearsalls, the Smiths and others, depart for Canada, to escape the reprisals of the embittered victors. Some Tory refugees go to England and the West Indies. Daniel Kissam and Richard Hewlett go to Nova Scotia. (Hewlett's wife eventually returns to Hempstead to live out her years.) In the Spring of 1783, 3000 residents of Queens County leave for New Brunswick ("Long Island's Story", Jacqueline Overton)."

http://www.carman.net/it_begins.htm

Since these action were at least tolerated if not promoted by the Founding Fathers, who are the Christians that evangelicals tell us were the ones who made the US a Christian nation (e.g. Jerry Falwell), then can we assume that all Christians are terrorists based on the actions of Paul Hill and those who terrorized the Tories?

For terrorism of a different sort, read up on the Stern gang and Haganah, which were JEWISH terrorist groups who attacked British soldiers

Regarding abortion, the moderator has requested that abortion not be discussed here, and I will respect his wishes. However, I can say that one's Christianity does not depend on one's political beliefs. Apparantly you do, and this denies salvation by faith alone, but salvation based on faith and political belief.

I have never said that it is OK for terrorists to kill innocent people, nor have I ever said that the US is always wrong. What I am saying is that Islamic terrorists do not represent mainstream Islam, and also that oppressed Palestinians have a right to resist occupation by attacking those who stole and occupied their land (namely the settlers and the occupying Israeli forces).
Some Jewish groups violently resisted occupation by the British, the Palestinians can do the same to the Jewish occupiers. When Israel stops the military occupation of Palestine, then there will be no need for resistance. However, I do not think that resistance to occupation justifies killing innocent civilians in other parts of Israel, blowing up buses full of children, etc.

Regarding the question on Saddam, I did answer some time ago. I said that it would be possible to control him by means other than an invasion of Iraq by two countries. There might not be a need to "take him out," if he can be monitored and controlled.

" It is the government's duty to seek vengeance against those who do evil and destroy peace. God gave this powerr to governments because of his mercy. Otherwise, evil people would dominate - like the Taliban did in Afghanistan prior to 9/11/01. "

So, then, why did OUR government give help to Saddam and Osama?

Actually, for some years I lived outside the US and was very happy in Europe.
The world outside the US isn't as lawless as you seem to think, believe it or not other civilized countries exist, and they have many advantages over the US (like better health care). As a citizen, I have a right to criticize my country without feeling like I have to leave it for doing so. I like the US, but would live elsewhere if I could.

I agree with you that God condemns wars of aggression and terrorist violence. I'm sure that Native Americans would agree with me that the US is guilty of much aggression, as well as the Vietnamese. Iraqis never made an attack on the US, yet we invade their country. That is a war of US aggression, which as you say God condemns. I don't know why you support that which God condemns.
And, as I recall, Germany and Italy never attacked the United States, and we went to war against them! Sadaam was in the habit of grinding his enemies up in commercial grinders. He used gas against the Kurds. He paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinians who made themselves human bombs and blew up innocent Jews. What could be more just than removing this obscene human from power? As a Christian, I believe it was our duty to do so - to do nothing against evil makes us complicit in that evil! As far as I'm concerned, we would be fully justified in taking out the murderous regime in the Sudan, where innocent black victims are being murdered daily because of their skin color and religion.

[Snarf]

And, as I recall, Germany and Italy never attacked the United States, and we went to war against them! Sadaam was in the habit of grinding his enemies up in commercial grinders. He used gas against the Kurds. He paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinians who made themselves human bombs and blew up innocent Jews. What could be more just than removing this obscene human from power? As a Christian, I believe it was our duty to do so - to do nothing against evil makes us complicit in that evil! As far as I'm concerned, we would be fully justified in taking out the murderous regime in the Sudan, where innocent black victims are being murdered daily because of their skin color and religion.

You still haven't answered why the US has given aid to Saddam,or Osama, or other murderers. Why does the US support the corrupt Saudi regime? One reason: oil and money are more important reasons to help killers than morals.

[heaven]

To all'

As to Iraq, the US has not always had pristine dealings with other nations! However,
attacks against US citizens , Embassies, army barracks, the first wtc attack, then 9/11
have been ongoing and then finally the response under Bush to enter Afghanistan and
Iraq and knock out Saddam, who's mother was a witch, and who wanted revenge
against the US and Al Qaeda, every where. A No response would have brought more
attacks , since Islam glorifies the bully. At least Iran is surrounded.
I could never allow the UN to get involved in US military and security, the UN loves
terrorists, promotes terrorist country agendas and attacks the US and Israel, not to
say makes billions in Kofi scams.

As to the Quran, the book is read with the knowledge that the beginning surias are
nullified by the later terrorist surias.

[Jude3b]

Hello, sorry for the delay.

You still haven't answered why the US helped Saddam in perpetrating his evil.
Cat got your tongue?

BTW, there aren't "millions of Muslims" bent on terrorism. The total numbers of al Quaeda number in the thousands, maybe in the tens of thousands. Likewise, the membership of Hizbollah and Hamas make up a small proportion of Lebanese and Palestinians.

Paul Hill was a Presbyterian minister who was executed for the assasination of an abortion doctor and his wife. This happened only a few years ago. Paul was quite proud of what he did, and there are those who think that he was a martyr
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillLinks.html

Prior to the Revolutionary War, there were many who wanted to stay loyal to England, they were known as Tories. Because of their loyalty, they were terrorized, and after the war
"The war's aftermath brings severe reprisals upon the Tories and the suffering is particularly intense in Hempstead. The townspeople endure loss of all civil rights. They are barred from holding public office, totally disfranchised. Their lands are forfeited. They have neither the wherewithal nor the right to continue their businesses and professions. Many have a death sentence hanging over their heads. About one third of Queens County, according to one chronicler, is forced to leave at the end of the war. ("Colonial Hempstead," Bernice Schultz.) Branches of fine old families, the Seamans, the Pearsalls, the Smiths and others, depart for Canada, to escape the reprisals of the embittered victors. Some Tory refugees go to England and the West Indies. Daniel Kissam and Richard Hewlett go to Nova Scotia. (Hewlett's wife eventually returns to Hempstead to live out her years.) In the Spring of 1783, 3000 residents of Queens County leave for New Brunswick ("Long Island's Story", Jacqueline Overton)."

http://www.carman.net/it_begins.htm

Since these action were at least tolerated if not promoted by the Founding Fathers, who are the Christians that evangelicals tell us were the ones who made the US a Christian nation (e.g. Jerry Falwell), then can we assume that all Christians are terrorists based on the actions of Paul Hill and those who terrorized the Tories?

For terrorism of a different sort, read up on the Stern gang and Haganah, which were JEWISH terrorist groups who attacked British soldiers

Regarding abortion, the moderator has requested that abortion not be discussed here, and I will respect his wishes. However, I can say that one's Christianity does not depend on one's political beliefs. Apparantly you do, and this denies salvation by faith alone, but salvation based on faith and political belief.

I have never said that it is OK for terrorists to kill innocent people, nor have I ever said that the US is always wrong. What I am saying is that Islamic terrorists do not represent mainstream Islam, and also that oppressed Palestinians have a right to resist occupation by attacking those who stole and occupied their land (namely the settlers and the occupying Israeli forces).
Some Jewish groups violently resisted occupation by the British, the Palestinians can do the same to the Jewish occupiers. When Israel stops the military occupation of Palestine, then there will be no need for resistance. However, I do not think that resistance to occupation justifies killing innocent civilians in other parts of Israel, blowing up buses full of children, etc.

Regarding the question on Saddam, I did answer some time ago. I said that it would be possible to control him by means other than an invasion of Iraq by two countries. There might not be a need to "take him out," if he can be monitored and controlled.

" It is the government's duty to seek vengeance against those who do evil and destroy peace. God gave this powerr to governments because of his mercy. Otherwise, evil people would dominate - like the Taliban did in Afghanistan prior to 9/11/01. "

So, then, why did OUR government give help to Saddam and Osama?

Actually, for some years I lived outside the US and was very happy in Europe.
The world outside the US isn't as lawless as you seem to think, believe it or not other civilized countries exist, and they have many advantages over the US (like better health care). As a citizen, I have a right to criticize my country without feeling like I have to leave it for doing so. I like the US, but would live elsewhere if I could.

I agree with you that God condemns wars of aggression and terrorist violence. I'm sure that Native Americans would agree with me that the US is guilty of much aggression, as well as the Vietnamese. Iraqis never made an attack on the US, yet we invade their country. That is a war of US aggression, which as you say God condemns. I don't know why you support that which God condemns.

To be perfectly frank with you - you are the kind of person that I wish would leave, move away to where you can be happy. Southern Europe is very nice this time of the year. You obviously dislike our country very much. You are an insult to every God fearing Amerian that loves this great country.

And if you think that "being saved by grace" means that it is ok to take innocent life - because that is politics. Your Christianity in not of God for He states "Thou shalt NOT KILL!"

[Maimonides]

To be perfectly frank with you - you are the kind of person that I wish would leave, move away to where you can be happy. Southern Europe is very nice this time of the year. You obviously dislike our country very much. You are an insult to every God fearing Amerian that loves this great country.

And if you think that "being saved by grace" means that it is ok to take innocent life - because that is politics. Your Christianity in not of God for He states "Thou shalt NOT KILL!"
Snarf, you probably know by now that I agree with every word you say, more or less. Honestly, I don't think either of us is going to get any farther with this: we can keep talking but no one's paying us any attention. If America's reduced to this I will move away. Europe sounds VERY nice right about now.

[Rocky]

To be perfectly frank with you - you are the kind of person that I wish would leave, move away to where you can be happy. Southern Europe is very nice this time of the year. You obviously dislike our country very much. You are an insult to every God fearing Amerian that loves this great country.

And if you think that "being saved by grace" means that it is ok to take innocent life - because that is politics. Your Christianity in not of God for He states "Thou shalt NOT KILL!"
Sorry to break it to you Jude3b, but "America" isn't exactly what you would call innocent. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Americans, but rather the government and all the decisions it's making!Jude3b, I'm from Iraq and I was there last year, and let me just say that what I saw was beyond what I expected. Students started school one month late because their parents were afraid of sending them to school because war could brak out at any time! It doesn't really feel good to be living in a country when you your life is at danger all the time! I don't think that the people there can exactly paint a pretty picture of America. Also, NEVER JUDGE A RELIGION BY IT'S PEOPLE - JUDGE IT BY IT'S SCRIPTURE! My question to you is that if you consider muslims to be terrorists, then what exactly do you call the Americans that are doing this?

[Jude3b]

Sorry to break it to you Jude3b, but "America" isn't exactly what you would call innocent. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Americans, but rather the government and all the decisions it's making!Jude3b, I'm from Iraq and I was there last year, and let me just say that what I saw was beyond what I expected. Students started school one month late because their parents were afraid of sending them to school because war could brak out at any time! It doesn't really feel good to be living in a country when you your life is at danger all the time! I don't think that the people there can exactly paint a pretty picture of America. Also, NEVER JUDGE A RELIGION BY IT'S PEOPLE - JUDGE IT BY IT'S SCRIPTURE! My question to you is that if you consider muslims to be terrorists, then what exactly do you call the Americans that are doing this?

Dear Rocky:

Please explain a little about what you are asking me:

First- Are you an Iraq citizen - living in Iraq and are you a Muslim?

Second- Please explain exactly what you mean by: NEVER JUDGE A RELIGION BY IT'S PEOPLE - JUDGE IT BY IT'S SCRIPTURE! What religion are you speaking about - Islam? Roman Catholicism? and Which Scripture? The Koran?
The Bible?

Now you asked me a question. You said, "If I consider muslims to be terrorists (I'll answer that - yes some are and that is a fact) and than you say what do I call Americans that are doing this? (doing what?)

[Rocky]

Dear Rocky:

Please explain a little about what you are asking me:

First- Are you an Iraq citizen - living in Iraq and are you a Muslim?

Second- Please explain exactly what you mean by: NEVER JUDGE A RELIGION BY IT'S PEOPLE - JUDGE IT BY IT'S SCRIPTURE! What religion are you speaking about - Islam? Roman Catholicism? and Which Scripture? The Koran?
The Bible?

Now you asked me a question. You said, "If I consider muslims to be terrorists (I'll answer that - yes some are and that is a fact) and than you say what do I call Americans that are doing this? (doing what?)
First- No i'm not an Iraqi citizen, and yes I am a muslim.
Second- When I said to never judge a religion by its people- judge it by its scripture I was referring to Muslims,and that you shouldn't judge Islam by it's people, but rather then by what the Quran says.
What I meant by the question I asked you was what do you call the Americans who are killing innocent people in Iraq? Do you consider them to be terrorists?
Sorry if I wasn't clear about my questions before.

[Jude3b]

First- No i'm not an Iraqi citizen, and yes I am a muslim.
Second- When I said to never judge a religion by its people- judge it by its scripture I was referring to Muslims,and that you shouldn't judge Islam by it's people, but rather then by what the Quran says.
What I meant by the question I asked you was what do you call the Americans who are killing innocent people in Iraq? Do you consider them to be terrorists?
Sorry if I wasn't clear about my questions before.

Dear Rocky:

Thank you for clearing up my questions to what you asked me.

Let me first state that my biggest problem with Islam is what the Quran says. After reading the Koran - I find numerous places that it contradicts the Bible and teaches wrongly about Biblical issues and doctrines that had already existed and been time tested for hundreds of years before the Koran ever existed. The Word of God - the Holy Bible must not be added to or taken away from. That makes the Koran a false book, because it has done exaclty that - contradicted and wrongly stated things that are clearly taught in the Word of God - the Bible. That makes the author of the Koran a false prophet.

Your second question - do I consider the Americans who are killing "innocent people" in Iraq to be terrorist? First off, please tell me about the "innocent people" in Iraq who are being killed, by Americans? Please site facts and tell me who the "innocent people" are that Americans are killing and the times and dates and circumstances of their deaths. Thank you.

[Snarf]

Dear Rocky:

Thank you for clearing up my questions to what you asked me.

Let me first state that my biggest problem with Islam is what the Quran says. After reading the Koran - I find numerous places that it contradicts the Bible and teaches wrongly about Biblical issues and doctrines that had already existed and been time tested for hundreds of years before the Koran ever existed. The Word of God - the Holy Bible must not be added to or taken away from. That makes the Koran a false book, because it has done exaclty that - contradicted and wrongly stated things that are clearly taught in the Word of God - the Bible. That makes the author of the Koran a false prophet.

Your second question - do I consider the Americans who are killing "innocent people" in Iraq to be terrorist? First off, please tell me about the "innocent people" in Iraq who are being killed, by Americans? Please site facts and tell me who the "innocent people" are that Americans are killing and the times and dates and circumstances of their deaths. Thank you.

What proof do you have that the Bible is the Word of God and not the Koran?
(actually since religious Hindu texts predate the Bible, one could say that they are really the Word of God).

[Snarf]

Snarf, you probably know by now that I agree with every word you say, more or less. Honestly, I don't think either of us is going to get any farther with this: we can keep talking but no one's paying us any attention. If America's reduced to this I will move away. Europe sounds VERY nice right about now.

Thanks for the compliment, I agree with what you say too. Actually I stay in the US precisely because I love my country enough to keep fascists out of power,who believe that people who criticize the US should leave (apparantly they don't believe in freedom of speech).

[Snarf]

To be perfectly frank with you - you are the kind of person that I wish would leave, move away to where you can be happy. Southern Europe is very nice this time of the year. You obviously dislike our country very much. You are an insult to every God fearing Amerian that loves this great country.

And if you think that "being saved by grace" means that it is ok to take innocent life - because that is politics. Your Christianity in not of God for He states "Thou shalt NOT KILL!"

And you apparantly don't agree with the US constitution (First Amendment), which says that we can criticize our country. Too bad for you "love america or leave it" types, seems to me that by wanting to remove critics from the US, you want what fascist dictators want-a population of 'yes' people who are afraid to criticize their leaders, or else.

Remember, "Thou shalt not kill" also applies to war and the death penalty

Where in the words "thou shalt not kill" do you see the words "except for?"

Oh yes, you make up a justification from the Bible later (the part about stoning homosexuals) but didn't this same God say "thou shalt not kill?"
Now I see how you interpret the Bible- when a verse agrees with what you believe, you take it literally (pro-life-thou shalt not kill), but when the same verse contradicts another of your favorite beliefs (stoning adulterers, invading Iraq), you try to say that "thou shalt not kill" really means only SOME kinds of killing are forbidden (the ones that you think should be forbidden) but other kinds are OK (the ones you think are perfectly acceptable. Apparantly, you either can't understand or accept the words "thou shalt not kill." Apparantly, you seem to think that you can change the meaning of God's words according to your whims, doesn't revelations say something about not adding to or removing from the scriptures? Apparantly, you have elevated yourself to the role of Judge of God's Word, like deciding when "thou shalt not kill" really doesn't mean ""not kill," and deciding when it does.

(and now, let us turn to Hymn #33, "All Hail the Power of Jude's name"

Saving by grace means what it says, we are not saved by what we do. You apparantly believe that you are saved by being good, like being pro-life. So, you think that you can make yourself worthy for God because of your political sentiments?

[Jude3b]

And you apparantly don't agree with the US constitution (First Amendment), which says that we can criticize our country. Too bad for you "love america or leave it" types, seems to me that by wanting to remove critics from the US, you want what fascist dictators want-a population of 'yes' people who are afraid to criticize their leaders, or else.

Remember, "Thou shalt not kill" also applies to war and the death penalty

Where in the words "thou shalt not kill" do you see the words "except for?"

Oh yes, you make up a justification from the Bible later (the part about stoning homosexuals) but didn't this same God say "thou shalt not kill?"
Now I see how you interpret the Bible- when a verse agrees with what you believe, you take it literally (pro-life-thou shalt not kill), but when the same verse contradicts another of your favorite beliefs (stoning adulterers, invading Iraq), you try to say that "thou shalt not kill" really means only SOME kinds of killing are forbidden (the ones that you think should be forbidden) but other kinds are OK (the ones you think are perfectly acceptable. Apparantly, you either can't understand or accept the words "thou shalt not kill." Apparantly, you seem to think that you can change the meaning of God's words according to your whims, doesn't revelations say something about not adding to or removing from the scriptures? Apparantly, you have elevated yourself to the role of Judge of God's Word, like deciding when "thou shalt not kill" really doesn't mean ""not kill," and deciding when it does.

(and now, let us turn to Hymn #33, "All Hail the Power of Jude's name"

Saving by grace means what it says, we are not saved by what we do. You apparantly believe that you are saved by being good, like being pro-life. So, you think that you can make yourself worthy for God because of your political sentiments?

As I told you before Snarf, if you want to debate with me, you must not misquote me or state that I wrote something that I did not. Show me anything that I wrote about stoning homosexuals or adulterers. You won't find it. Is that what your problem is - are you a homosexual and your afraid someone is persecuting you?

[Rocky]

Dear Rocky:

Thank you for clearing up my questions to what you asked me.

Let me first state that my biggest problem with Islam is what the Quran says. After reading the Koran - I find numerous places that it contradicts the Bible and teaches wrongly about Biblical issues and doctrines that had already existed and been time tested for hundreds of years before the Koran ever existed. The Word of God - the Holy Bible must not be added to or taken away from. That makes the Koran a false book, because it has done exaclty that - contradicted and wrongly stated things that are clearly taught in the Word of God - the Bible. That makes the author of the Koran a false prophet.

Your second question - do I consider the Americans who are killing "innocent people" in Iraq to be terrorist? First off, please tell me about the "innocent people" in Iraq who are being killed, by Americans? Please site facts and tell me who the "innocent people" are that Americans are killing and the times and dates and circumstances of their deaths. Thank you.
Judeb3,
First of all I want to say that I agree that the word of god (his books) should not have things added or taken away from it. What I don't understand is why you think the Quran has things added to it, or taken away from it. You see Jude3b, Muslims only have one book to follow, The Quran. Every Quran has the exact same thing written in it, word for word. We believe that all the books that were given to prophets orginally had the same things written in them, for example the Bible. But throughout history people have changed the word of god. They have added to it, and taken things away. We Muslims believe that the last and final prophet's book (the Quran) was the only one that doesn't have anything changed in it. What I also don't understand is how the Bible is the word of god when there are so many different versions of it? They don't all say the exact same things. How can this really be the book of god?

[Rocky]

Dear Rocky:

Thank you for clearing up my questions to what you asked me.

Let me first state that my biggest problem with Islam is what the Quran says. After reading the Koran - I find numerous places that it contradicts the Bible and teaches wrongly about Biblical issues and doctrines that had already existed and been time tested for hundreds of years before the Koran ever existed. The Word of God - the Holy Bible must not be added to or taken away from. That makes the Koran a false book, because it has done exaclty that - contradicted and wrongly stated things that are clearly taught in the Word of God - the Bible. That makes the author of the Koran a false prophet.

Your second question - do I consider the Americans who are killing "innocent people" in Iraq to be terrorist? First off, please tell me about the "innocent people" in Iraq who are being killed, by Americans? Please site facts and tell me who the "innocent people" are that Americans are killing and the times and dates and circumstances of their deaths. Thank you. Jude3b,
Sorry, I submitted my answer to your question before, but I forgot to include the sites. I hope now you can answer my questions?
Below are some sites:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=841
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1726.shtml
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=346
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/photos/6503383.htm



Argument via web link is not allowed. If you want to use information from another web site in your argument, please quote only the relevant parts of that page in your post, along with the web link for the full article. But don't just post a link to the material

[Jude3b]

Judeb3,
First of all I want to say that I agree that the word of god (his books) should not have things added or taken away from it. What I don't understand is why you think the Quran has things added to it, or taken away from it. You see Jude3b, Muslims only have one book to follow, The Quran. Every Quran has the exact same thing written in it, word for word. We believe that all the books that were given to prophets orginally had the same things written in them, for example the Bible. But throughout history people have changed the word of god. They have added to it, and taken things away. We Muslims believe that the last and final prophet's book (the Quran) was the only one that doesn't have anything changed in it. What I also don't understand is how the Bible is the word of god when there are so many different versions of it? They don't all say the exact same things. How can this really be the book of god?

Dear Rocky:

Thank you for your questions. Your first question to me is about the Quran and it not being accurate. Here are two statements that you should become familiar with:

"... and We have sent down to thee the Book (the Koran) with the truth, confirming the Book (the Bible) that was before it, and assuring it." (Arberry, p. 135).

And as the Encyclopedia Britannica observes, "For the Muslims, the Koran is the Word of God, confirming and consummating earlier revealed books" (1958 edition).

Your second issue, including questions is about the Word of God, the Holy Bible and its accuracy. You stated that there are many different versions of the Bible and they don't all say the same thing. Actually there are many translations of the same Bible. The Bible is the all time best seller ever and is in hundreds of languages - throughout the entire World. It was the first book ever printed and every year still outsells every other book ever sold. You know I do not speak Greek or Hebrew or Latin or any other language than English. And my English is different than English spoken 400 years ago - in many ways. Bible translators - attempt to put the Bible into every language and every dialect - while remaining true to the oldest known manuscripts available.

If you do not mind, please present your proof that the Bible text we have today is corrupt.

Others that I have asked to do this, could not. They found that after a thorough evaluation of the textual evidence that a modern critical edition of the Bible says "exactly what the autographs contained - line for line, word for word, and even letter for letter."

When I have asked Muslims to show proof that the Bible is corrupted and they could not, I found it is because they believed the Koran to be God's perfect revelation and since the Bible contradicts it, they simply assumed the Bible must be corrupted. Is this what you have done? If so, than historical evidence has no relevance to the issue because you have assumed that it is impossible that the Koran could be wrong.

That is crazy thinking! One must first determine if the Bible is actually corrupted. If it is not, then the error must lie with the Koran. And historical facts prove that the Bible has not been corrupted. If you as a Muslim refuse to honestly examine and accept this evidence, you can hardly blame the Christian faith. And if you as a Muslim refuse to get a copy of the Bible and to read it from cover to cover and accept it as it truly is the Very Word of Almighty God - than you are really making one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make in this lifetime. Truth is important and eternity is to long a time to play around with.

If you have longed for a personal relationship with God, a relationship in which you know that God loves you, then take the time to read about Christ Jesus our Lord and His love for you and for me. (please see I John 5:9-13 and I Peter 1:4-5)

[Maimonides]

Dear Rocky:

Thank you for your questions. Your first question to me is about the Quran and it not being accurate. Here are two statements that you should become familiar with:

"... and We have sent down to thee the Book (the Koran) with the truth, confirming the Book (the Bible) that was before it, and assuring it." (Arberry, p. 135).

And as the Encyclopedia Britannica observes, "For the Muslims, the Koran is the Word of God, confirming and consummating earlier revealed books" (1958 edition).

Your second issue, including questions is about the Word of God, the Holy Bible and its accuracy. You stated that there are many different versions of the Bible and they don't all say the same thing. Actually there are many translations of the same Bible. The Bible is the all time best seller ever and is in hundreds of languages - throughout the entire World. It was the first book ever printed and every year still outsells every other book ever sold. You know I do not speak Greek or Hebrew or Latin or any other language than English. And my English is different than English spoken 400 years ago - in many ways. Bible translators - attempt to put the Bible into every language and every dialect - while remaining true to the oldest known manuscripts available.

If you do not mind, please present your proof that the Bible text we have today is corrupt.

Others that I have asked to do this, could not. They found that after a thorough evaluation of the textual evidence that a modern critical edition of the Bible says "exactly what the autographs contained - line for line, word for word, and even letter for letter."

When I have asked Muslims to show proof that the Bible is corrupted and they could not, I found it is because they believed the Koran to be God's perfect revelation and since the Bible contradicts it, they simply assumed the Bible must be corrupted. Is this what you have done? If so, than historical evidence has no relevance to the issue because you have assumed that it is impossible that the Koran could be wrong.

That is crazy thinking! One must first determine if the Bible is actually corrupted. If it is not, then the error must lie with the Koran. And historical facts prove that the Bible has not been corrupted. If you as a Muslim refuse to honestly examine and accept this evidence, you can hardly blame the Christian faith. And if you as a Muslim refuse to get a copy of the Bible and to read it from cover to cover and accept it as it truly is the Very Word of Almighty God - than you are really making one of the biggest mistakes you will ever make in this lifetime. Truth is important and eternity is to long a time to play around with.

If you have longed for a personal relationship with God, a relationship in which you know that God loves you, then take the time to read about Christ Jesus our Lord and His love for you and for me. (please see I John 5:9-13 and I Peter 1:4-5)
Now I am curious... specifically what historical facts "prove that the Bible has not been corrupted"? By this do you mean that the corpus of its texts has remained unaltered since canonization (save perhaps for issues of translation from Hebrew and Greek to English, necessitating shifting word usage)? That I might possibly accept. Prove it.

Or did you mean that historical facts prove the Bible to be factually correct? Because I firmly disagree with you there. There are many things in the Bible (i.e. Creation, Fall, Flood, Tower of Babel, etc. etc.) that are patently not factually, empirically accurate. Here is not the forum for an evolution/creation discussion, of course, but I would be more than happy to discuss this at length elsewhere on the site. (Or on "Internet Infidels", www.iidb.org (http://www.iidb.org) username same as here). Please clarify as I am greatly desirous of correctly ascertaining your pronouncement.

[Jude3b]

Now I am curious... specifically what historical facts "prove that the Bible has not been corrupted"? By this do you mean that the corpus of its texts has remained unaltered since canonization (save perhaps for issues of translation from Hebrew and Greek to English, necessitating shifting word usage)? That I might possibly accept. Prove it.

Or did you mean that historical facts prove the Bible to be factually correct? Because I firmly disagree with you there. There are many things in the Bible (i.e. Creation, Fall, Flood, Tower of Babel, etc. etc.) that are patently not factually, empirically accurate. Here is not the forum for an evolution/creation discussion, of course, but I would be more than happy to discuss this at length elsewhere on the site. (Or on "Internet Infidels", www.iidb.org (http://www.iidb.org) username same as here). Please clarify as I am greatly desirous of correctly ascertaining your pronouncement.

Dear Maimonides:

It is as I stated in my previous post. The translations of today are accurate - because the oldest original manuscripts show that to be true.

One other statement: Christianity is the only faith that has ever dared to base itself on prophecy, contented to stand or fall with its exact fulfilment. Everyonte reading this post: You owe it to your eternal future - to check it out! Get a Bible, or at least a New Testament and read it - find out the truth. Please Do not blindly accept the lies in the Koran about Christ and who He is.

[Snarf]

As I told you before Snarf, if you want to debate with me, you must not misquote me or state that I wrote something that I did not. Show me anything that I wrote about stoning homosexuals or adulterers. You won't find it. Is that what your problem is - are you a homosexual and your afraid someone is persecuting you?

Your words:
"The land of Canaan, which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the world before the flood. The people of Canaan were promiscuous, into incest, homosexuality, bestiality, even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god (Lev. 18:21) and blaspheming the true God.

God wanted his chosen people to "be holy" and the sins that were punishable by death was for the purpose of maintaining the holiness of the people as a nation set apart to God (Lev. 20:23-26)."

Notice specifically your words on allegedly wicked inhabitants:

"God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants"

Since you identify "promiscuous" and "homosexuality" among wicked acts, you therefore agree that promiscuous people and homosexuals should be
EXTERMINATED (your words).

So, where do you think God should set up the concentration camps?

[Jude3b]

Your words:
"The land of Canaan, which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the world before the flood. The people of Canaan were promiscuous, into incest, homosexuality, bestiality, even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god (Lev. 18:21) and blaspheming the true God.

God wanted his chosen people to "be holy" and the sins that were punishable by death was for the purpose of maintaining the holiness of the people as a nation set apart to God (Lev. 20:23-26)."

Notice specifically your words on allegedly wicked inhabitants:

"God was completely vindicated in ordering the extermination of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants"

Since you identify "promiscuous" and "homosexuality" among wicked acts, you therefore agree that promiscuous people and homosexuals should be
EXTERMINATED (your words).

So, where do you think God should set up the concentration camps?

You know snarf, we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. I deserve to be stoned - for I have sinned.

That is one of the reasons that I am ever so grateful that God looked down on me, an old sinner and sent His Son Jesus Christ - to die on the cross for me and He took the punishment that I should have been given. It is so wonderful to serve a gracious and fogiving God.

About concentration camps - it is already set up - its called HELL and it is reserved for the Devil and his Angels and those who would rather serve self and Satan, rather than receive and live the love of God for them in Christ Jesus. I pray that you will receive His love for you as well.

[heaven]

Rocky,

It is my understanding that moslems refer to books that have not been included in the
canon of the Bible, call same the Bible and then claim that the Quran was written to
remove the errors of the Bible. No similar claim is made about the Hindu scriptures.
Moslems also make the ambiguous statement that the Bible should be read by moslems.

[Maimonides]

You know snarf, we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. I deserve to be stoned - for I have sinned.

That is one of the reasons that I am ever so grateful that God looked down on me, an old sinner and sent His Son Jesus Christ - to die on the cross for me and He took the punishment that I should have been given. It is so wonderful to serve a gracious and fogiving God.

About concentration camps - it is already set up - its called HELL and it is reserved for the Devil and his Angels and those who would rather serve self and Satan, rather than receive and live the love of God for them in Christ Jesus. I pray that you will receive His love for you as well.
Sometimes I think being stoned wouldn't be so bad...:wink:

The whole notion of hell is troubling. Why would "God" send perfectly good people to hell solely because they didn't believe X Y Z? Makes no sense: many non-Christians aren't serving self or Satan any more than most Christians (and for some of them, probably a lot less). Furthermore, why hell? One would think an omnipotent deity capable of some other recourse. Why should "sin" lead to "Hell"? Furthermore, I don't believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve, so how could I have inherited Original Sin?

The concept of Hell is an affront. It sounds suspiciously barbaric, scarist and puerile, like a scary bedtime story told by parents to frighten their children. Certainly it's "worked," emotionally scarring or affronting a lot of people (including many Christians, including myself); one wonders about the nature of a deity that would feel the need to do that.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Remember, I grew up in church! But it seems illogical and absurd.

[Maimonides]

Dear Maimonides:

It is as I stated in my previous post. The translations of today are accurate - because the oldest original manuscripts show that to be true.

One other statement: Christianity is the only faith that has ever dared to base itself on prophecy, contented to stand or fall with its exact fulfilment. Everyonte reading this post: You owe it to your eternal future - to check it out! Get a Bible, or at least a New Testament and read it - find out the truth. Please Do not blindly accept the lies in the Koran about Christ and who He is.
The translations of today are accurate... But the purported historicity of said events? Therein lies the debate. Many of the myths in the Bible are not historic; they are beautiful stories but one cannot take them literally.

[Sparko]

Sometimes I think being stoned wouldn't be so bad...:wink:

The whole notion of hell is troubling. Why would "God" send perfectly good people to hell solely because they didn't believe X Y Z? Makes no sense Huh? sorry to get off topic - but as a Christian you should know better than that. God does not send people to hell for not believing certain things. People deserve hell because they SIN.

If I steal from you and am being sent to jail because of my thievery, and somehow you could allow me to get off scott-free if I accepted your forgiveness, but I refused to accept it, I would be going to jail for STEALING not for not believing in your forgiveness. The stealing would be the reason for my going to jail

Sin is the reason people go to hell. God would never send "perfectly good" people to hell no matter w