Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam

wolfsbane

A good gospel account in under 5 mins!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X9c_LNwqtU&feature=youtu.be

**********************************************************************
John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

MrStuffins

(Do you have any thoughts on this yourself?)

So wait............ i'm less that a minute in but has he already used the fact that a passage of the Qur'an has a contradiction as part of his argument? What about all the inconsistencies in The Bible? What is he thinking?

Now i'm at a minute and he's talking about Muhammed's Inconsistent Teachings.......... there are no inconsistent "teachings" in The Bible? If they are so clear and consistent in The Bible, do you follow them all to the letter of the "law" so to speak? As they appear in The Bible?

Now i'm 2 minutes through and i just can't stand to listen to him anymore. Why are some churches trying to preach through rap? it's cringeworthy!

PDN

MrStuffins wrote: »

(Do you have any thoughts on this yourself?)

So wait............ i'm less that a minute in but has he already used the fact that a passage of the Qur'an has a contradiction as part of his argument? What about all the inconsistencies in The Bible? What is he thinking?

Now i'm at a minute and he's talking about Muhammed's Inconsistent Teachings.......... there are no inconsistent "teachings" in The Bible? If they are so clear and consistent in The Bible, do you follow them all to the letter of the "law" so to speak? As they appear in The Bible?

Now i'm 2 minutes through and i just can't stand to listen to him anymore. Why are some churches trying to preach through rap? it's cringeworthy!

Please feel free to raise these 'inconsistencies' in the Bible on the Atheist/Christian debate thread where they might belong.

MrStuffins

PDN wrote: »

Please feel free to raise these 'inconsistencies' in the Bible on the Atheist/Christian debate thread where they might belong.

I was commenting on the content of the video and since the OP has not given any indication otherwise I presume they agree with the content of the video. Or perhaps the OP IS the guy in the video? I'm not too sure!

Why can't I ask here? It's one of his points in the video from 0:28 - 0:46.

Am I not allowed ask questions relating to the video?

PDN

MrStuffins wrote: »

I was commenting on the content of the video and since the OP has not given any indication otherwise I presume they agree with the content of the video. Or perhaps the OP IS the guy in the video? I'm not too sure!

Why can't I ask here? It's one of his points in the video from 0:28 - 0:46.

Am I not allowed ask questions relating to the video?

You can ask questions about the inconsistencies in the Quran here if you wish, if that is the subject of the video.

If you want to discuss alleged 'inconsistencies' in the Bible then take it to the Atheist/Christian debate thread.

If you want to discuss a moderator's decision or instruction then do so via PM rather than inthread.

I hope that is all clear.

hivizman

I think that this is more a Muslim/Christian issue than an Atheist/Christian issue.

The significance of the first minute or so of the video is that the rapper is inverting a common argument of Islamic apologetics, that the Bible is full of contradictions while the Qur'an is entirely without contradiction. The two verses referred to are as follows (I've used Yusuf Ali's translation):

Sura al-Baqara (2:136): Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

Sura al-An'am (6:34): Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.

Muslims believe that Allah provided Moses with a revelation, the "Tawrah", and Jesus with a revelation, the "Injil" (Evangelion), and that these communicate the same message as the Qur'an. However, subsequent generations of Jews and Christians distorted and corrupted the message of these revelations, so the Bible we now have has deviated from the original revelation.

However, if "there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah", how is this corruption possible? One can tell that some interpreters and translators are uneasy about this verse, because they translate the word likalimati in Sura 6:34 as "decree" or "decision" of Allah, whereas in most of the 75 contexts where this word (or variants based on the same Arabic root) appears in the Qur'an, reference is being made to the "word" or "speech" of Allah. The argument of apologists is that Sura 6:34 is about God's preordination of all that happens (which presumably must include allowing the Tawrah and Injil to be corrupted), not just that Allah's word is incorruptible (and hence the Qur'an we have today is exactly the Qur'an that Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad).

wolfsbane

MrStuffins wrote: »

(Do you have any thoughts on this yourself?)

So wait............ i'm less that a minute in but has he already used the fact that a passage of the Qur'an has a contradiction as part of his argument? What about all the inconsistencies in The Bible? What is he thinking?

Now i'm at a minute and he's talking about Muhammed's Inconsistent Teachings.......... there are no inconsistent "teachings" in The Bible? If they are so clear and consistent in The Bible, do you follow them all to the letter of the "law" so to speak? As they appear in The Bible?

Now i'm 2 minutes through and i just can't stand to listen to him anymore. Why are some churches trying to preach through rap? it's cringeworthy!

Since he is addressing Muslims, they may have an idea of how correct his allegation of contradiction is. I am more taken with his presentation of the gospel truths.

And rap is as valid as gospel singing as a means of presenting the gospel. The primary means is preaching, as in declaration in prose - but communication is not confined to that.

Is it you don't like rap - or you don't like the Truth?

*******************************************************************
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.

MrStuffins

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since he is addressing Muslims, they may have an idea of how correct his allegation of contradiction is. I am more taken with his presentation of the gospel truths.

So what are your views on the video's content?

And rap is as valid as gospel singing as a means of presenting the gospel. The primary means is preaching, as in declaration in prose - but communication is not confined to that.

I'm not saying it's not. But let's be honest here, Christianity and Rap Music hardly go hand in hand. It smells a little to me of trying to be "down with the kids".

Is it you don't like rap - or you don't like the Truth?

I never said I don't like rap. Good music is good music and although a ridiculous amount of rap music is racist, violent, hate-filled, mysogonistic trash, there is some amazing rap out there from people who actually have things to say on social issues etc and who are poets through the medium of rap.

I'm not sure what you mean by the truth comment though. I don't know what truth you think i'm afraid of.

whydoc

hivizman wrote: »

However, if "there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah", how is this corruption possible? One can tell that some interpreters and translators are uneasy about this verse, because they translate the word likalimati in Sura 6:34 as "decree" or "decision" of Allah, whereas in most of the 75 contexts where this word (or variants based on the same Arabic root) appears in the Qur'an, reference is being made to the "word" or "speech" of Allah. The argument of apologists is that Sura 6:34 is about God's preordination of all that happens (which presumably must include allowing the Tawrah and Injil to be corrupted), not just that Allah's word is incorruptible (and hence the Qur'an we have today is exactly the Qur'an that Muslims believe was revealed to Muhammad).

This is not related to apologist, it's related to exegesis, I don't need to say that 1 word in arabic may have more that 10 meanings, it's all depend on context.

The point emphasized here is that no one has the power to change God's Law regarding the conflict between Truth and falsehood. Lovers of Truth must of necessity pass through trials and persecutions so as to be gradually tempered. Their endurance, their honesty of conviction, their readiness to sacrifice and to undertake all risks for their cause, the strength of their faith and the extent of their trust in God must be tested. They must pass through this phase of persecution to develop in themselves those qualities which can be developed nowhere else but on earth. They are also required to defeat the forces of Ignorance by virtue of their moral excellence and the nobility of their character. Only after they have established their moral superiority over the adversaries will God's help arrive. No one can secure that help beforehand.

(Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, The Islamic Foundation 1995, vol. 2, p.227 fn. 22)

This is the understood meaning from context. If we assumed it means a word-which is not true from the context - Sami Zaatari wrote

Yes none can change HIS WORDS. What they can do is copy his words and with that add their own lies to the text. For instance God's original scripture stated that: Jews are good people but there are bad ones among them. A person can corrupt this by copying it down and writing it with his own hands and say: Jews are good people but there are NO bad ones among them.
He has added his own words, his own desire, his own lie, he has not changed THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE, he now has his own corrupted message which is not from God. No one can ever change Allah's words, they can make copies of the original book and write their own lies to it and say it is from Allah. That is a different story.

So this point is meaningless.

3men1mission

Lucy8080

what does the name mohammed mean?

whydoc

Lucy8080 wrote: »

what does the name mohammed mean?

Something like "The (most) praised one".

ISAW

I have tried asking this on the islam forum but never got a denial and in fact was banned for discussing it. It was suggested people don't discuss such things.
Since then I noticed a programme on TV with a Muslim visiting a Mosque. Before entering for prayer he washed his hands three times. when asked "why not once?" He said it was because The Prophet ( Mohammed) did that and it was an Islamic tradition to do as the Prophet did.

Which got me back to the question I asked
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives

Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.[11][15][16] Traditional sources state that she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine when the marriage was consummated in Medina,[16][17][18][19] with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten.[15]

11. Watt, "Aisha bint Abu Bakr", Encyclopaedia of Islam Online
15. D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40
16. Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, p. 157.
17. Barlas (2002), p.125-126
18. Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64, 7:62:65, 7:62:88, Sahih Muslim, 8:3309, 8:3310, 8:3311, 41:4915, Sunnan Abu Dawud, 41:4917
19. Tabari, Volume 9, Page 131; Tabari, Volume 7, Page 7

Barlas isn't in that article but can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
Barlas, Asma, Believing Women in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an

My question is if it is always a good think to replicate the prophet Mohammed, is sex between a grown man and a nine year old therefore an acceptable thing?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The thread being "Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam"
and acceptance of Islam being = replication of the life of the prophet Mohammed
And loving Jesus being = replication of the life of Jesus.

could you expand maybe on how that is a derailment.
I mean i did not think the thread was confined to discussing whether certain scripture passages in Islam or Christianity are inerrant because that isn't the thread title.

hivizman

For information, if anyone wants to read the extensive debates on the Islam forum about Muhammad and his wife A'isha, go to our Frequently Asked Questions thread and follow the links there.

There are various views among Muslims as to how far it is necessary or desirable to imitate the actions of Muhammad. Many Muslims distinguish between acts of worship and day-to-day life. As regards acts of worship, the Qur'an is not always specific on precisely what Muslims should do. So Muslims try to ascertain what Muhammad did, and follow that. For example, the ritual washing before prayer is required in the Qur'an (sura al-Maidah 5:6 - quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation, first two sentences only):

"O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body."

This verse doesn't say how many times one should wash the parts of the body or the precise sequence to follow - such matters, for example washing the hands three times, have been determined by reports of the practice of Muhammad, and because they relate to matters of worship, they are considered mandatory.

However, Muhammad himself said that he could get day-to-day matters wrong. There is a story (reported by the eminent traditionist Muslim) that he advised date palm growers how they should prune their trees, but this turned out to be bad advice, and Muhammad conceded that the experience of those who knew about growing palm trees should take precedence even over Muhammad's own advice.

Some Muslims believe that they should imitate Muhammad in everything they do, but even if Muhammad approved of a particular action in day-to-day life, this does not make it mandatory.

ISAW

hivizman wrote: »

For information, if anyone wants to read the extensive debates on the Islam forum about Muhammad and his wife A'isha, go to our Frequently Asked Questions thread and follow the links there.

and one link is to 5the age of Aisha when married i.e. having sex with the Prophet Mohammad and the age given is nine years old in all cases except one where it is ten. This thread is still open and nobody has stated the age is wrong.

There are various views among Muslims as to how far it is necessary or desirable to imitate the actions of Muhammad.

Many Muslims distinguish between acts of worship and day-to-day life. As regards acts of worship, the Qur'an is not always specific on precisely what Muslims should do. So Muslims try to ascertain what Muhammad did, and follow that. For example, the ritual washing before prayer is required in the Qur'an (sura al-Maidah 5:6 - quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation, first two sentences only):

"O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body."

This verse doesn't say how many times one should wash the parts of the body or the precise sequence to follow - such matters, for example washing the hands three times, have been determined by reports of the practice of Muhammad, and because they relate to matters of worship, they are considered mandatory.

However, Muhammad himself said that he could get day-to-day matters wrong. There is a story (reported by the eminent traditionist Muslim) that he advised date palm growers how they should prune their trees, but this turned out to be bad advice, and Muhammad conceded that the experience of those who knew about growing palm trees should take precedence even over Muhammad's own advice.

Okay so your argument is one does not have to do as Mohammad did in anything except worship. i donj't know if that is true. But the question remains was what he did acceptable?
do you think it is acceptable for Mohammad Jesus or any grown man to have sexual relations with a nine year old girl? If someone thinks it is never acceptable is that not grounds for rejecting Islam?

Some Muslims believe that they should imitate Muhammad in everything they do, but even if Muhammad approved of a particular action in day-to-day life, this does not make it mandatory.

Fair enough you claim Muslims don't need to copy Mohammad. But was his sexual practice morally wrong or is it acceptable that he had sex with a none year old? I do not believe any christian would think it is acceptable for Jesus or any other man to have sex with a nine year old girl at any state in history. Indeed ther are Christian laws against it dating from before Islam began. Is that not a difference?

Zorbas

Is it a good idea to have two religions slug it out with so many imponderables in translation involved? Is it not better to let sleeping dogs lie?
If its for reinforcement of ones faith - why is this necessary?
If its to prove someone elses faith faulty (not the one and only true faith) - is that to the benefit of mankind?
Just asking.

wolfsbane

MrStuffins said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since he is addressing Muslims, they may have an idea of how correct his allegation of contradiction is. I am more taken with his presentation of the gospel truths.
So what are your views on the video's content?

I'm pleased with the truths about Christ and His gospel that are presented.

Quote:
And rap is as valid as gospel singing as a means of presenting the gospel. The primary means is preaching, as in declaration in prose - but communication is not confined to that.
I'm not saying it's not. But let's be honest here, Christianity and Rap Music hardly go hand in hand. It smells a little to me of trying to be "down with the kids".

If it was someone of my generation doing it, I would agree. Since it is a young man speaking to his generation, I've no problem with it.

Quote:
Is it you don't like rap - or you don't like the Truth?
I never said I don't like rap. Good music is good music and although a ridiculous amount of rap music is racist, violent, hate-filled, mysogonistic trash, there is some amazing rap out there from people who actually have things to say on social issues etc and who are poets through the medium of rap.

We agree on that, then.

I'm not sure what you mean by the truth comment though. I don't know what truth you think i'm afraid of.

The truths about Christ and the gospel - which are totally against Islam - that are presented in the video. Since you strongly disliked the video, I assumed it must be either the medium or the message. You have now made it clear you have no problem with the medium.

******************************************************************
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.

wolfsbane

Zorbas wrote: »

Is it a good idea to have two religions slug it out with so many imponderables in translation involved? Is it not better to let sleeping dogs lie?
If its for reinforcement of ones faith - why is this necessary?
If its to prove someone elses faith faulty (not the one and only true faith) - is that to the benefit of mankind?
Just asking.

Yes, it is good for mankind to learn that one of the main claimants to Truth is actually - and fatally - wrong. Our eternal welfare depends on us believing the Truth about God and His salvation.

**********************************************************************
John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Zombrex

This inter-religious argument threads are always amusing from an atheists perspective.

The internet is awash with lists of the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors in the Christian Bible (which we do not need to get into, as PDN says there are threads for that). There are any number of Jewish websites and resources for example that will go into specific detail about how, according to them, Jesus cannot be the messiah based on the Old Testament.

Strangely this has little effect on your faith.

Non-Christians telling Christians they have got it wrong doesn't seem to do very much, so I suspect that non-Muslims telling Muslims they have got it wrong probably won't do very much either.

All these problems have apologetic answers, just like all the problems with Christianity have apologetic answers. I would be very surprised if there is anything this guy said in that video that any Imam worth his salt couldn't demolish for faithful Muslims in about 3 minutes.

Since nothing is testable or demonstratable beyond personal private interpretation everyone is left to make up their own minds as to what is really meant by passage X or chapter Y of any holy book, and more often than not external factors such as change in lifestyle after becoming a member of religion X has far more sway over acceptance of one interpretation than any arguments to internal consistence.

These types of videos seem more to reassure the followers of the other religions (in this case Christianity), that religion X is not something to be concerned about and that followers of religion X are deluded, misguided, mistaken, or worse corrupt and evil.

I see little genuine attempt in this video to convince Muslims of anything. It is a video to reassure Christians that there is nothing in what Muslims say about Christian religion and Jesus.

Zorbas

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is good for mankind to learn that one of the main claimants to Truth is actually - and fatally - wrong. Our eternal welfare depends on us believing the Truth about God and His salvation.

**********************************************************************
John 8:31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Problem is - how can you be sure that the religion you happen to be born into and which you therefore happen to feel is the truth about God and His salvation. Suppose you were born a Muslim - would you not hold the beliefs of Islam just as fervently and just as convincingly espouse them as the one true faith?
I am not saying you are doing anything wrong or that you are harming yourself or anyone by your beliefs so good luck to you but do you consider that it may be somehow arrogant to believe that you are right while others are deluded?
Do you think that people who have good morals and behave well whilst not having a religion as such are dammed?

wolfsbane

Zorbas said:

Problem is - how can you be sure that the religion you happen to be born into and which you therefore happen to feel is the truth about God and His salvation.

I was born into a non-religious family. I did not become a Christian until I was 17.

Suppose you were born a Muslim - would you not hold the beliefs of Islam just as fervently and just as convincingly espouse them as the one true faith?

Usually. But there are many Muslims who do not really believe - nominal Muslims, like nominal Christians, nominal Jews, etc. Agnostics at best.

I am not saying you are doing anything wrong or that you are harming yourself or anyone by your beliefs so good luck to you but do you consider that it may be somehow arrogant to believe that you are right while others are deluded?

Not really. It would be if I had no evidence of the truth of my religion, but I do have such evidence.

Do you think that people who have good morals and behave well whilst not having a religion as such are dammed?

Yes. For their good morals and behaviour are not good enough. Only perfect holiness merits acceptance with God. Would you accept a delicious cheesecake if it had one pubic hair in it? Why not? 99% would be 'good'.

God sees even our best efforts as spiritually vile:
Isaiah 64:But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.

*********************************************************************
John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

This inter-religious argument threads are always amusing from an atheists perspective.

The internet is awash with lists of the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors in the Christian Bible (which we do not need to get into, as PDN says there are threads for that). There are any number of Jewish websites and resources for example that will go into specific detail about how, according to them, Jesus cannot be the messiah based on the Old Testament.

Strangely this has little effect on your faith.

Non-Christians telling Christians they have got it wrong doesn't seem to do very much, so I suspect that non-Muslims telling Muslims they have got it wrong probably won't do very much either.

All these problems have apologetic answers, just like all the problems with Christianity have apologetic answers. I would be very surprised if there is anything this guy said in that video that any Imam worth his salt couldn't demolish for faithful Muslims in about 3 minutes.

Since nothing is testable or demonstratable beyond personal private interpretation everyone is left to make up their own minds as to what is really meant by passage X or chapter Y of any holy book, and more often than not external factors such as change in lifestyle after becoming a member of religion X has far more sway over acceptance of one interpretation than any arguments to internal consistence.

These types of videos seem more to reassure the followers of the other religions (in this case Christianity), that religion X is not something to be concerned about and that followers of religion X are deluded, misguided, mistaken, or worse corrupt and evil.

I see little genuine attempt in this video to convince Muslims of anything. It is a video to reassure Christians that there is nothing in what Muslims say about Christian religion and Jesus.

I've a lot of sympathy with much of what you say.

The weakest part in the video is the argument on contradiction in the Koran. It may well have such, but to prove it one needs to have an exhaustive knowledge of the book. I've learnt that from experiences with the many attempts to show contradictions in the Bible. Many of the arguments against the Bible are simplistic and in ignorance of details and internal arguments that actually remove the contradictions. So I would not use that tactic myself, rather focus on presenting the Truth of the gospel.

That's the key. Why? Because it is God who uses it to open the hearts of the hearer. The Holy Spirit brings the message in power to the heart of the sinner. We only bring the message to his/her ears.

And I'm happy the preacher here delivers the message.


*******************************************************************
John 8:47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Zorbas

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zorbas said:

Would you accept a delicious cheesecake if it had one pubic hair in it?
*********************************************************************
.”

Yes for sure I would and enjoy it thoroughly.
I do not believe you that you were not born a christian - not because it is impossible but because there is a 99.9999% chance that you are telling me a falsehood. Common Sense.
Common sense also dictates that I cannot believe in things unproven or which defy belief.
I hope you continue to live in confidence that you are right because it would be difficult for you to have no crutch, real or imagined, to lean on. Anyhow its good that you have something that hopefully will have a postive rather than a negative impact on your life whatever it may be.,
good luck to you.

wolfsbane

Zorbas said:

Yes for sure I would and enjoy it thoroughly.

Good luck to you! Each to his own.;)

I do not believe you that you were not born a christian - not because it is impossible but because there is a 99.9999% chance that you are telling me a falsehood. Common Sense.

You mustn't know many Evangelicals.

Common sense also dictates that I cannot believe in your tooth fairy.

Not much sense about denying a Creator. Just an innate hostility to God.

I hope you continue to live in confidence that you are right because it would be difficult for you to have no crutch, real or imagined, to lean on.

It would indeed be awful for me to conclude there is no God. As a rational being I would be forced to accept there is no meaning to life, no justice, no right or wrong. Only personal whims. The paedophile is as moral as the charity worker. I would of course have the benefit of knowing there is no eternal consequences for my actions, and that whatever I choose to do is as moral as anything else. If I'm in the right place to profit from such free thought, I could make a real killing!

But since I know there is a God and that such selfish desires are evil, I look to Him to deliver me from them and make me fit for His eternal kingdom.

Anyhow its good that you have something that hopefully will have a postive rather than a negative impact on your life whatever it may be.,
good luck to you.

And I pray you too will find this Something in this life, before you meet Him in the next. Truly, that is my prayer. Best wishes to you.

********************************************************************
John 8:47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Zorbas

wolfsbane wrote: »

Zorbas said:

You mustn't know many Evangelicals.



MY PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT I HAVE KNOWN TOO MANY AND THEY HAVE ALL TOO OFTEN BEEN CHARLATONS, HOMOPHOBIC, MONEY (TITHE) MOTIVATED, ARROGANT (we only have the secret to life) AND IRRATIONAL.





Not much sense about denying a Creator. Just an innate hostility to God.



LONG AGO SUCH PEOPLE BELIEVED THE WORLD WAS FLAT. NOW THEY STILL DENY THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION - SHAME.

It would indeed be awful for me to conclude there is no God. As a rational being I would be forced to accept there is no meaning to life, no justice, no right or wrong. Only personal whims.

AS I SAID YOU NEED THE CRUTCH OF THE YOUR FORM OF CERTAINTY WHEREAS THERE IS A FANTASTIC WORLD OUT THERE WHICH NOONE YET UNDERSTANDS. RELIGION IS THE POISON WHICH MAKE PEOPLE HATE OTHERS AND ONLY LOOK TO DO GOOD IF THERE IS SOME REWARD IN THE HEREAFTER WHEREAS PEOPLE LIKE ME REJOICE IN DOING GOOD WITHOUT REWARD (20 VIRGINS, HEAVEN OR WHATEVER?). I DONT KNEED RELIGION TO TELL ME WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG.

The paedophile is as moral as the charity worker.

ITS JUST POSSIBLE - MORALITY DOES NOT COME WITH WHAT YOUR JOB IS AND SOME CHARITY WORKERS HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF SUFFERING - AGAIN CONFUSED THINKING!

I would of course have the benefit of knowing there is no eternal consequences for my actions, and that whatever I choose to do is as moral as anything else. If I'm in the right place to profit from such free thought, I could make a real killing!

ONLY A CHRISTIAN COULD COME OUT WITH SUCH BILE - HOW CAN ANYONE THINK OF OTHER PEOPLE (without their belief system) IN SUCH A HORRIBLE WAY. I THINK YOU SHOULD REPENT.

But since I know there is a God and that such selfish desires are evil, I look to Him to deliver me from them and make me fit for His eternal kingdom.

AS I SAY - JUST KEEP LIVING IN YOUR WORLD AND LETS HOPE FOR YOUR SAKE THERE IS A NEXT BUT LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU KNOW.



And I pray you too will find this Something in this life, before you meet Him in the next. Truly, that is my prayer. Best wishes to you.

THE THREAT OF FACING ETERNAL DAMNATION - WELL WHO CAN TRUMP THAT - SO END OF DISCUSSION I GUESS.

wolfsbane

Zorbas said:

MY PROBLEM HAS BEEN THAT I HAVE KNOWN TOO MANY AND THEY HAVE ALL TOO OFTEN BEEN CHARLATONS, HOMOPHOBIC, MONEY (TITHE) MOTIVATED, ARROGANT (we only have the secret to life) AND IRRATIONAL.

My point was that no Evangelical accepts they were born a Christian. All come to faith later. So your basis for assuming, with 99.95 assurance, that I was born a Christian is, er, delusional.

But I'm sure you have indeed met professing Evangelicals who fell far short of their profession. So have I.

LONG AGO SUCH PEOPLE BELIEVED THE WORLD WAS FLAT.

That's a bit of a myth.

NOW THEY STILL DENY THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION - SHAME.

If Evolution had been proved, it would indeed be a shame to deny it. Since it hasn't - the ideology of scientists should be separated from the facts of science - the only shame is the gullibility and intolerance of the scientific establishment in defending its dogma.

AS I SAID YOU NEED THE CRUTCH OF THE YOUR FORM OF CERTAINTY WHEREAS THERE IS A FANTASTIC WORLD OUT THERE WHICH NOONE YET UNDERSTANDS. RELIGION IS THE POISON WHICH MAKE PEOPLE HATE OTHERS

I don't hate anyone. And it was the non-religious who imprisoned, tortured and killed millions in the Gulags and Re-education Camps.

AND ONLY LOOK TO DO GOOD IF THERE IS SOME REWARD IN THE HEREAFTER

Even if there was no reward, I would seek to do good to others - for that is pleasing to God and He deserves to be obeyed.

WHEREAS PEOPLE LIKE ME REJOICE IN DOING GOOD WITHOUT REWARD (20 VIRGINS, HEAVEN OR WHATEVER?). I DONT KNEED RELIGION TO TELL ME WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG.

Glad to hear of your good deeds. But I'm puzzled as to how you know what is good and what is bad. Is it just what you feel? Like the racist feels it is good to cleanse his country of blacks? Or do you take your morals from the current consensus of your nation? What if they change their mind - will you change yours?

If I believed we were just the result of material forces working through Evolution, I would view your 'morality' as a comforting delusion. The truth would be there is no good or evil. Just matter/energy.

ITS JUST POSSIBLE - MORALITY DOES NOT COME WITH WHAT YOUR JOB IS AND SOME CHARITY WORKERS HAVE CAUSED A LOT OF SUFFERING - AGAIN CONFUSED THINKING!

Don't be so pedantic - you know what I meant. But let me spell it out for you - a charity worker who only does good, from the compassion she has in her heart. If your godless universe is true, the paedophile is as moral as she is.

ONLY A CHRISTIAN COULD COME OUT WITH SUCH BILE - HOW CAN ANYONE THINK OF OTHER PEOPLE (without their belief system) IN SUCH A HORRIBLE WAY. I THINK YOU SHOULD REPENT.

The Truth must be biting!

AS I SAY - JUST KEEP LIVING IN YOUR WORLD AND LETS HOPE FOR YOUR SAKE THERE IS A NEXT BUT LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU KNOW.

I know now. God has revealed it to every Christian.

THE THREAT OF FACING ETERNAL DAMNATION - WELL WHO CAN TRUMP THAT - SO END OF DISCUSSION I GUESS.

Sorry to have you drop out. Feel free to change your mind.

*****************************************************************
John 8:47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Zorbas

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quote [My point was that no Evangelical accepts they were born a Christian. All come to faith later.]
A bit pedantic! You were born a Christian – nothing to do with faith - that comes or doesn’t come later.
Quote: [If Evolution had been proved, it would indeed be a shame to deny it. Since it hasn't - the ideology of scientists should be separated from the facts of science - the only shame is the gullibility and intolerance of the scientific establishment in defending its dogma.]
Christian and Islamic fundamentalists remain in denial about evolution and this explains why the US and Turkey have the highest numbers of people refusing to acknowledge scientific proof. The export of Christian fundamentalism and poor scientific literacy explains why you can still find people in the rest of Europe who hold onto creationism and remain vulnerable to pseudoscience and other forms of misinformation.
I do not hold my convictions dogmatically but am open to the wonders of science and this wonderful world. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for that certainty, belongs now to the infancy of the species – don’t you think?
Quote: [it was the non-religious who imprisoned, tortured and killed millions in the Gulags and Re-education Camps.]
It is good that I can criticise such belief systems as you espouse (what is the name of it by the way?) without as in the past being burnt at the stake or hunted down as in the inquisition by the RCC or by the Calvinists of the Protestant faith. Even today the Christian evangelicals in Uganda are trying to have death sentences introduced for plasticising homosexuals. Wonder why do Christians and “born agains” not beg forgiveness for the past deeds of their religions or oppose those of today?
L. Ron Hubbard once wrote, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion" (Reader's Digest reprint, May 1980,
Quote:[I'm puzzled as to how you know what is good and what is bad. Is it just what you feel?]
It’s no big puzzle friend: Religion is man-made and that is why there is so much disagreement amongst you all - not about whether God exists , created etc but to know what he demands of us – how arrogant is that? Religion has been an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred with members of each group talking of the other in precisely the language of the bigot. Without religion it’s easy to know what is good and what is bad.
Quote: [Like the racist feels it is good to cleanse his country of blacks? Or do you take your morals from the current consensus of your nation? What if they change their mind - will you change yours?]
In the twentieth century, however, several Christian churches actively promoted racial divisions through the political philosophy of apartheid. The largest of these denominations was the Dutch Reformed Church which came to be known as the "official religion" of the National Party during the apartheid era. It had self proclaimed ( as does most faiths) itself as the "community of the elect" in 1619 and that conviction of “being right” impeded political and social reform in SA for centuries to come. In the 1990’s a group of Catholics formed the South African Catholic Defence League to condemn the church's political involvement and, in particular, to denounce school integration.
Many Christians believed that apartheid could be justified on religious grounds and only for people like Desmond Tutu and SACC , Christianity would have continued to support apartheid. Christianity has a very chequered history in terms of apartheid of which you are clearly unaware.

Quote: [I know now (heaven exits) God has revealed it to every Christian.]
Not many now mention heaven much except for evangelical Baptists and “born agains” so that sort of isolates you from the mainstream. No space for the rich there by the way – easier for a camel and all that.

The current generic heaven still delivers now but only — at the death of a loved one so most say why bother with it at any other time ‘cept for those who want to scare people into conversion of course
-

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Not many now mention heaven much except for evangelical Baptists and “born agains”

Faced with such appalling ignorance and misinformation I wonder why Wolfsbane even bothers.

The concept of heaven is mentioned every time the Apostles Creed is recited in Catholic, Anglican churches etc.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

Faced with such appalling ignorance and misinformation I wonder why Wolfsbane even bothers.

The concept of heaven is mentioned every time the Apostles Creed is recited in Catholic, Anglican churches etc.

My point with above is that wereas "heaven and hell" preaching was very much used in the last century, it is now less in vogue. Just think when did you last hear about it other than in recited litagy.
Ignorance is a cheap shot for a moderator and I could cite plenty of yours if you wish from another thread but I would hope that we are above that and genuinely intersted in the subject even though some are so partisan that any conflict of belief is seen as a slight on themselves.
If you are genuine in your remark - why not show up my "appalling ignorance" or is it your intention to dismiss all views that so obviously grate on your selected sensitivity?

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

My point with above is that wereas "heaven and hell" preaching was very much used in the last century, it is now less in vogue. Just think when did you last hear about it other than in recited litagy.
Ignorance is a cheap shot for a moderator and I could cite plenty of yours if you wish from another thread but I would hope that we are above that and genuinely intersted in the subject even though some are so partisan that any conflict of belief is seen as a slight on themselves.
If you are genuine in your remark - why not show up my "appalling ignorance" or is it your intention to dismiss all views that so obviously grate on your selected sensitivity?

Then learn to make your point instead of saying something entirely different. Christians of all denominations mention heaven with great regularity. Heaven is an integral part of the belief system of virtually all Christian denominations.

The only 'cheap shot' was your gratuitous jibe about evangelical Baptists and "born agains" separating Wolfsbane from the mainstream.

As to a discussion of something you think you saw in another thread, then feel free to post in that particular thread instead of derailing this one.

Btw, my 'sensibilities' have nothing to do with it. If I see youposting statements that are untrue then I'm perfectly free to point that out. That's how internet discussion fora work.

If you wish to address my posts as a poster then I'm happy to engage in discussion. If you want to vent your opinion of how I should behave 'as a moderator' then I suggest you raise it with a CatMod or take it to Feedback.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

Then learn to make your point instead of saying something entirely different.]

I disagree - you misunderstood and jumped to judgement. Thats ok -we all make mistakes - and we can all learn by them.

[The only 'cheap shot' was your gratuitous jibe about evangelical Baptists and "born agains" separating Wolfsbane from the mainstream.]

The remarks made by Wolfsbane were typical of those who claim to be "born again" and are evangelical as you probally know. I dont think they take that as a jibe and wasnt meant to be one but rather it accurately described a certain mind-set which perhaps you share. In any case why be so sensitive when many boast about being "born again" a concept that to me is somewhat amusing.


[Btw, my 'sensibilities' have nothing to do with it. If I see youposting statements that are untrue then I'm perfectly free to point that out. That's how internet discussion fora work].
I again invite you to point out my untrue statements - still waiting.

[If you wish to address my posts as a poster then I'm happy to engage in discussion. If you want to vent your opinion of how I should behave 'as a moderator' then I suggest you raise it with a CatMod or take it to Feedback.]

Hey its no big deal and just thought it was worth a comment that moderators should be a little more moderate in expressing their opinion and not sound so dictatorial but chill - no need to get hot and bothered. Its not as if its a case of life and death and people, especially the overtly religious, need to lighten up dont you think?

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Hey its no big deal and just thought it was worth a comment that moderators should be a little more moderate in expressing their opinion and not sound so dictatorial but chill - no need to get hot and bothered. Its not as if its a case of life and death and people, especially the overtly religious, need to lighten up dont you think?

I'm not hot and bothered at all. But thanks for the concern.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

I'm not hot and bothered at all. But thanks for the concern.

Repeat: I again invite you to point out my untrue statements - still waiting.
Why is it taking you so long to back up your accussation?

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Repeat: I again invite you to point out my untrue statements - still waiting.
Why is it taking you so long to back up your accussation?

Posting as a mod now, not as a poster

Don't ever goad another poster if they don't answer a question within a few minutes or hours of you posting. People have these things called jobs that they have to do to feed their families. That means they don't spend every minute on boards.ie.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Repeat: I again invite you to point out my untrue statements - still waiting.

You said not many Christians now mention heaven much, except Baptists and evangelicals. That is untrue. Anglicans talk about heaven pretty frequently, as do Catholics, as do Methodists, as do Orthodox, as do Lutherans.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

You said not many Christians now mention heaven much, except Baptists and evangelicals. That is untrue. Anglicans talk about heaven pretty frequently, as do Catholics, as do Methodists, as do Orthodox, as do Lutherans.

What an authority you are!

Not sure that you can say a statement of opinion can be proven true or untrue.
I do believe along with others that religions are much more sophisticated in the recent past within my memory when “heaven and damnation” preaching was common.
Some internet comments:-
“When we share the gospel we don’t have to give a tantalizing view of heaven like placing a carrot on a stick in front of a rabbit. We also don’t have to scare our audience by describing the horrors of hell. There may be a time and place to mention heaven and hell but in any presentation of the gospel the emphasis should be on getting right with God.”
http://www.bible-bridge.com/talking-heaven-hell/
A survey of 750 denominational preachers in Scotland in December 2005 found, “The doctrine of hell is downplayed by most of today's churches, even by those who still believe in it.” It concluded: “The fire and brimstone of the past may largely have been extinguished.” [“Church Survey Shows Hell Beliefs”, BBC News, December 4, 2005]
I think many Christians generally believe that the beliefs of the authors of the Bible evolved greatly over the approximately one millennia during which the Bible was written. Thus, there is little consistency in the Bible about the afterlife. While many more Christians would refer to heaven, fewer mention hell as the place where the ungodly will end up.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

What an authority you are!

Not sure that you can say a statement of opinion can be proven true or untrue.
I do believe along with others that religions are much more sophisticated in the recent past within my memory when “heaven and damnation” preaching was common.
Some internet comments:-
“When we share the gospel we don’t have to give a tantalizing view of heaven like placing a carrot on a stick in front of a rabbit. We also don’t have to scare our audience by describing the horrors of hell. There may be a time and place to mention heaven and hell but in any presentation of the gospel the emphasis should be on getting right with God.”
http://www.bible-bridge.com/talking-heaven-hell/
A survey of 750 denominational preachers in Scotland in December 2005 found, “The doctrine of hell is downplayed by most of today's churches, even by those who still believe in it.” It concluded: “The fire and brimstone of the past may largely have been extinguished.” [“Church Survey Shows Hell Beliefs”, BBC News, December 4, 2005]
I think many Christians generally believe that the beliefs of the authors of the Bible evolved greatly over the approximately one millennia during which the Bible was written. Thus, there is little consistency in the Bible about the afterlife. While many more Christians would refer to heaven, fewer mention hell as the place where the ungodly will end up.

I'm enough of an authority that I am a Christian who speaks with thousands of other Christians from various denominations rather than quote mining 'some internet comments'.

So you support your false statement about mainsteam Christians talking about heaven by changing the subject and talking about hell?

Sometimes when you're in a hole it's better to stop digging.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

I'm enough of an authority that I am a Christian who speaks with thousands of other Christians from various denominations rather than quote mining 'some internet comments'.

So you support your false statement about mainsteam Christians talking about heaven by changing the subject and talking about hell?

Sometimes when you're in a hole it's better to stop digging.

Perhaps you have lost it:
1st you accuse me of ignorance and telling untruths while advising another poster not to engage in what was a good discussion until your contribution.
Then you fail to prove any untruths and confuse difference of opinion with an untruth.
You then claim to speak to thousands of Christians (unsure about timeframe) and deride the use of comments from the internet.
The you say I changed the subject by talking about hell - Not true - its the same as talking about damnation as per previous.
Your interventions appear to have had the intention of derailing a thread because you felt the argument was going agaiinst your opinion and the only way to counter it was perhaps to try some old-fashioned bullying.
Am not interested in such posts.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

The reason I quoted from internet souces because of your disrespect for what I have had to say in the past. Its not speaking to thousands that makes for credibility on this issue but on the number you listen to and I feel you may be disinclined to listen to anyone but yourself speaking.
I referred to heaven and then extended my remarks to include hell as they go hand in hand (even Black Sabbath used the connection).

I am still waiting to hear you indentify my untruths which as you should know are not opinions. The idea is that you can express opinions and anyone can dismiss them in whatever way they feel but its so much better if there is genuine dialogue - but that is a two way process.
I do not intend to trump the "I talk to 1000's" claim. Something about trumpet blowing comes to mind.

So, let's get this right.

You have a chip on your shoulder about something I said to you in another thread that is nothing to do with the issue we're discussing in this thread. Therefore you quote what someone said on a blog as an authority?

You make comments about mainstream Christians and their mention of heaven, then when challenged by someone who has direct experience of hearing mainstream Christians in this area, you change the subject to hell instead. And this is OK because Black Sabbath connect the two?

You ask me to demonstrate that what you said was wrong. Therefore I cite my direct experience to the contrary with thousands of people. So you accuse me of blowing my own trumpet?

Do you see why posting this kind of 'reasoning' in the Christianity Forum might, just possibly, be less than convincing?

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

1st you accuse me of ignorance and telling untruths while advising another poster not to engage in what was a good discussion until your contribution.

If your post betrays ignorance of what Christians actually talk about, then expect to be challenged.

As to advising a poster not to engage in discussion, I don't think I did that as a poster, did I?

Put Mod Hat On
(If you're referring to a moderating decision then stop the back-seat modding. You don't discuss mod decisions inthread)


Take Mod Hat Off

Your interventions appear to have had the intention of derailing a thread because you felt the argument was going agaiinst your opinion and the only way to counter it was perhaps to try some old-fashioned bullying.

Now, now. Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to bullying.

Actually, when it became clear you wanted to personalise this by making comments about me being a mod and stating that I was somehow getting hot and bothered, I tried to disengage from this interaction. You were the one who continued to press me for a response. Now, when you get your response, you claim you're being bullied.

Am not interested in such posts.

And that's the beauty of boards.ie. Nobody is forced to respond to any post if they don't want to.

Zorbas

Perhaps you have lost it:
1st you accuse me of ignorance and telling untruths while advising another poster not to engage in what was a good discussion until your contribution.
Then you fail to prove any untruths.
You then claim to speak to thousands of Christians (unsure about timeframe) and deride the use of comments from the internet.

Just to repeat in case this got out of order.
Your presumptions in your last post are again incorrect so lets leave the silliness alone.
Clearly the Black Sabbath comment means there is a lack of sense of humour - no problem . Again chill and dont take it so seriously.

wolfsbane

Zorbas said:

QUOTE=wolfsbane
My point was that no Evangelical accepts they were born a Christian. All come to faith later.
A bit pedantic! You were born a Christian – nothing to do with faith - that comes or doesn’t come later.

What nonsense! Where did you get that idea? Like every other Christian, I was born a child of wrath, not a child of God. I had to be converted.

Quote: If Evolution had been proved, it would indeed be a shame to deny it. Since it hasn't - the ideology of scientists should be separated from the facts of science - the only shame is the gullibility and intolerance of the scientific establishment in defending its dogma.
Christian and Islamic fundamentalists remain in denial about evolution and this explains why the US and Turkey have the highest numbers of people refusing to acknowledge scientific proof.

A bit of a circular argument!

The export of Christian fundamentalism and poor scientific literacy explains why you can still find people in the rest of Europe who hold onto creationism and remain vulnerable to pseudoscience and other forms of misinformation.

Strange how 'poor scientific literacy' includes many leading scientists!

I do not hold my convictions dogmatically but am open to the wonders of science and this wonderful world. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for that certainty, belongs now to the infancy of the species – don’t you think?

No, I don't. They can belong to those who have encountered God, and for whom to deny Him would be both irrational and irreverent.

However, you seem to have found real certainty in science.

it was the non-religious who imprisoned, tortured and killed millions in the Gulags and Re-education Camps.
It is good that I can criticise such belief systems as you espouse (what is the name of it by the way?) without as in the past being burnt at the stake or hunted down as in the inquisition by the RCC or by the Calvinists of the Protestant faith. Even today the Christian evangelicals in Uganda are trying to have death sentences introduced for plasticising homosexuals. Wonder why do Christians and “born agains” not beg forgiveness for the past deeds of their religions or oppose those of today?

My 'belief system' is commonly called Calvinism, a sub-set of the wider Christian Church. Yes, there have been many sinful actions done by Christians, persecuting heretics and others. That came from a failure to hold to Biblical teaching on the nature of Christ's kingdom. But I never denied it. Only objected to your self-righteous claim about Atheism v Christianity, pointing out the reality of atheism in power.

L. Ron Hubbard once wrote, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion" (Reader's Digest reprint, May 1980,

Very true. Many profitable false religions about, including his.

I'm puzzled as to how you know what is good and what is bad. Is it just what you feel?
It’s no big puzzle friend: Religion is man-made and that is why there is so much disagreement amongst you all - not about whether God exists , created etc but to know what he demands of us – how arrogant is that? Religion has been an enormous multiplier of tribal suspicion and hatred with members of each group talking of the other in precisely the language of the bigot. Without religion it’s easy to know what is good and what is bad.

You haven't answered my question - just made another assertion.

Like the racist feels it is good to cleanse his country of blacks? Or do you take your morals from the current consensus of your nation? What if they change their mind - will you change yours?
In the twentieth century, however, several Christian churches actively promoted racial divisions through the political philosophy of apartheid. The largest of these denominations was the Dutch Reformed Church which came to be known as the "official religion" of the National Party during the apartheid era. It had self proclaimed ( as does most faiths) itself as the "community of the elect" in 1619 and that conviction of “being right” impeded political and social reform in SA for centuries to come. In the 1990’s a group of Catholics formed the South African Catholic Defence League to condemn the church's political involvement and, in particular, to denounce school integration.
Many Christians believed that apartheid could be justified on religious grounds and only for people like Desmond Tutu and SACC , Christianity would have continued to support apartheid. Christianity has a very chequered history in terms of apartheid of which you are clearly unaware.

I am very aware of the compromise and heresy of Christian Churches with regard to racism. But what has that got to do with how you know what is good and what is bad? Please answer the question.

I know now (heaven exits) God has revealed it to every Christian.
Not many now mention heaven much except for evangelical Baptists and “born agains” so that sort of isolates you from the mainstream. No space for the rich there by the way – easier for a camel and all that.

It is true many churches have abandoned the faith for a religious humanism. But even so, most churches still preach about heaven (and always at funerals). The main churches even hold to hell as well.

But even if almost all no longer believed, what has that got to do with the reality of heaven and hell? Would it cease to exist if no one believed in it? Sounds very 'If a tree feel in the forest and no one was there to hear, would it still make a noise'. Reality exists, no matter who believes otherwise.

The current generic heaven still delivers now but only — at the death of a loved one so most say why bother with it at any other time ‘cept for those who want to scare people into conversion of course

Failure to believe what God says does not excuse you from the consequences. That's why we preach the need of repentance toward and belief in Jesus Christ.

******************************************************************
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men...

3men1mission

Hi ISAW ,I'm Muslim and I will answer you clearly your question,since you get your information from wikipedia,this is a clear insure from: British scholar Colin Turner ( Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin societies at the time, and remain common in some societies even today.[15] British scholar Colin Turner suggests that such marriages were not seen as improper in historical context, and that individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the modern West.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Plus at least AISHA was married with her own will and here father will,and for you knowledge it was an order by God,and his first wife was 15 years older then him,and the rest where widows and divorcees,and all his marriages where ordered by God as special cases.and had meaning behind them.

Talking about polygamy most of the prophets have more the 20 wives.this according to your bible.and it was recommended by God,as we believe too.

And my question to you do you prefer you daughter to get married by here will and your will,or to get raped by a priest without your knowledge.
Im not trying to offend you here,Im trying to enlighten you.

Taking in consideration that celibacy is a against the will of God and human nature ,specially for priest who claim to be the closest to God.

And I'm giving you this quotation from the bible, I hope if you can explain to me who are the evil doers Jesus is talking about.

*Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Mathew: 7:21-23

Us the muslims we are doing the will of ALLAH (GOD) the create of jesus (peace be upon him) ,we never claim that jesus (peace be upon him) was GOD,in fact on that day jesus will reject any body calling him lord,and calling them evildoers.
And this small gift from an American revert to Islam and peace from a true follower of Jesus.

3men1mission

Hi ISAW ,I'm Muslim and I will answer you clearly your question,since you get your information from wikipedia,this is a clear insure from: British scholar Colin Turner ( Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin societies at the time, and remain common in some societies even today.[15] British scholar Colin Turner suggests that such marriages were not seen as improper in historical context, and that individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the modern West.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Plus at least AISHA was married with her own will and here father will,and for you knowledge it was an order by God,and his first wife was 15 years older then him,and the rest where widows and divorcees,and all his marriages where ordered by God as special cases.and had meaning behind them.

Talking about polygamy most of the prophets have more the 20 wives.this according to your bible.and it was recommended by God,as we believe too.

And my question to you do you prefer you daughter to get married by here will and your will,or to get raped by a priest without your knowledge.
Im not trying to offend you here,Im trying to enlighten you.

Taking in consideration that celibacy is a against the will of God and human nature ,specially for priest who claim to be the closest to God.

And I'm giving you this quotation from the bible, I hope if you can explain to me who are the evil doers Jesus is talking about.

*Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Mathew: 7:21-23

Us the muslims we are doing the will of ALLAH (GOD) the create of jesus (peace be upon him) ,we never claim that jesus (peace be upon him) was GOD,in fact on that day jesus will reject any body calling him lord,and calling them evildoers.
And this small gift from an American revert to Islam and peace from a true follower of Jesus.

dead one

wolfsbane wrote: »

So I would not use that tactic myself, rather focus on presenting the Truth of the gospel.

hiya wolf
it is also a tactic to present the truth of the gospel.

Zorbas

As this post is pro Jesus and rejection of Islam, I wonder how modern day Christians explain away the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Slavery and Witch hunts that were for many years a test of Christianity. Is there a comparable history of conviction led atrocity with the followers of Mohammed I wonder?
Would there be any difference between Christian and Muslim in interpretation and application of the following from Deuteronomy 22:20-21:
“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you”
To know right from wrong for both Muslims and evangelicals is not a matter of judgement but of obedience whereas morality for most social mammals comes from having a prefrontal cortex which is what gives us our morality. We know this because Christians and Muslims work that way too.
Few think it’s OK to stone children or people who work on the Sabbath or rape young girls providing you marry them afterwards even though the bible says it is. If you depend on a book to tell you right from wrong, you’ve got issues.
Evolution armed ALL true humans with a sense of morality which overrides our basic primal instincts to induce right from wrong.
Because if would be so unlikely for someone born into Christianity to become a Muslim or for someone born into Islam to become a Christian (of whatever type) – do you think God will be understanding of how difficult it was for people to know what he really wants? Is it likely that God will reward true believers and/or severely punish infidels?
For my part, I have had the good pleasure of knowing brilliant and inspirational people from both beliefs.

Is it not a vulgar paradox that there is so much judgement of others for believing differently on this thread?

ISAW

3men1mission wrote: »

Hi ISAW ,I'm Muslim and I will answer you clearly your question,since you get your information from wikipedia,

thank you for your considered reply.

as far as i am aware my sources are Hadiths.
I supplied references to them
do you want me to supply them again? From memory five Hadiths saying nine and a sixth one saying ten as the age of connsumation of marriage for Aisha.
Hadiths as far as i know are official Islamic history and are the source for sharia Law.
do you find any errors in my sources or are you saying the Hadiths are wrong?

this is a clear insure from: British scholar Colin Turner ( Child marriages such as this were relatively common in Bedouin societies at the time, and remain common in some societies even today.[15] British scholar Colin Turner suggests that such marriages were not seen as improper in historical context, and that individuals in such societies matured at an earlier age than in the modern West.)

But all that is saying is much the same i.e. that Muslims dont have to do things Mohammad did or dont have to do things as they did them in the past.
so why not drink alcohol or eat pork? Why wash hands three times just because Mohammed did it?
One other poster has partially answered this. He stated that Muslims should copy Mohammad in matters of worship only and not have to do so in any other matter. so why are they still washing their hands three times or having sex with children?


Yes it would seem in some islamic societies child brides are common and stoning of women also occurs and women are not allowed to drive cars. I am not saying it happens everywhere. i am asking whether Muslims think such practices are wrong today? It also happens in some christian cults but not on a country basis like Saudi Arabia for example.

so if laws are not absolute where does that leave sharia Law if you have to interpret it in todays terms? Im wondering for example what laws never change and what ones can be interpreted in todays terms.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Plus at least AISHA was married with her own will and here father will,and for you knowledge it was an order by God,and his first wife was 15 years older then him,and the rest where widows and divorcees,and all his marriages where ordered by God as special cases.and had meaning behind them.

there is NO PLUS involved! If a grown Middle Age Man is having sex with a nine year old then i do not believe God would order that! Do you? do you really believe sex with a nine year old is ever acceptable?

Talking about polygamy most of the prophets have more the 20 wives.this according to your bible.and it was recommended by God,as we believe too.

i never raised the issue of polygamy. It is off topic

And my question to you do you prefer you daughter to get married by here will and your will,or to get raped by a priest without your knowledge.
Im not trying to offend you here,Im trying to enlighten you.

Married or not, sex with a nine year old cant be justified!

Taking in consideration that celibacy is a against the will of God and human nature ,specially for priest who claim to be the closest to God.

Again you are going off the topic which is -sex between a grown man and a child of nine!

I do not accept either that celibacy is against the will of God. I apply this also to Hindus Buddhists etc. not only to Chrisatians. Indeed Sufi tradition elevates celibacy.

[/quote]

And I'm giving you this quotation from the bible, I hope if you can explain to me who are the evil doers Jesus is talking about.
[/quote}

Ill try . I hope it is not off topic again and has something to d with Mohammad having sex with a nine year old Aisha.

*Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” Mathew: 7:21-23

It would seem he is referring to false Prophets. People who claimed to act in his name but didnt and suited themselves sand set up their own operations - possibly even their own religions?

Jesus is not the one interrogated by the Judge as depicted in the Qur'an (5:116-118), but he is Himself the Judge.

But what has this to do with child sex?

Us the muslims we are doing the will of ALLAH (GOD) the create of jesus (peace be upon him) ,we never claim that jesus (peace be upon him) was GOD,in fact on that day jesus will reject any body calling him lord,and calling them evildoers.
And this small gift from an American revert to Islam and peace from a true follower of Jesus.

This isnt an argument about whether Christ was God -which I am happy to conduct in another thread should you wish. This is about whether sex with a child is wrong or not and whether you believe Mohammad actually had sex with a nine year old Aisha -as the Hadiths say. do you believe it is true or not? If not why not?

PDN

Thread officially train-wrecked.