Just some elementary questions, more likely than not, but questions nonetheless.
1 I have heard it said by a Muslim that those who kill others in the name of Allah are not following the teachings of Allah (such as the WTC disaster). What does the Qur'an actually teach regarding this subject? Does a servant of Allah have the authority to execute people/infidels?
2 What is Jihad? I believe it is a defensive struggle, right? If it is defensive, why do so many go on the offensive in the name of Jihad? Is this consistent with the Qur'an? If Jesus was a prophet, how can his message of love for your enemies go so starkly against the actual application of Allah?
Thank you very much.
Sorry for my late reply, I am busy these days with study.
Quote:
Just some elementary questions, more likely than not, but questions nonetheless.
1 I have heard it said by a Muslim that those who kill others in the name of Allah are not following the teachings of Allah (such as the WTC disaster). What does the Qur'an actually teach regarding this subject? Does a servant of Allah have the authority to execute people/infidels?
First of all, it should be known how Islam views Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam does not see the world divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. It sees mankind as equal except in piety. In other words, everyone is equal except in terms of their love for God.
Second, an infidel is not a non-Muslim as commonly portrayed. In-fact the word kuffar which is often translated by the media as infidel, doesn't even mean infidel! http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/ShariahAndHumanity/articles/2006-06/01d.shtml That link will explain in depth all the possible meanings of kuffar.
Third, violence is forbidden in Islam in all cases except self-defence and war. No-one has authority to order others to kill, and no-one has the authority to kill, unless given directly from God or an angel (e.g. story of Abraham, peace be upon him).
Fourth, Islam means submission to God with your whole heart. It is impossible to be a good servant to God, if you go around killing people! So, obviously, anyone who goes killing in the name of God, is not a very good believer.
Quote:
2 What is Jihad? I believe it is a defensive struggle, right? If it is defensive, why do so many go on the offensive in the name of Jihad? Is this consistent with the Qur'an? If Jesus was a prophet, how can his message of love for your enemies go so starkly against the actual application of Allah?
Jihad is not even a defensive struggle. You misunderstand the word struggle. Jihad means "struggle" in the sense of "to struggle to make your relationship with God better"...to increase your spirituality. Jihad is all about making yourself a better Muslim and to improve your connection with God. For example, if i smoked (which i do not), then i could make a Jihad to stop smoking for the sake of God.
Because of the many number of Jihads you can do, there are categories. The only Jihad connected with any violence is one of the forms of lesser Jihad which is either to fight in self-defence or to free the oppressed. Muslims are allowed to fight to help those who are persecuted. However, violence is always a last resort.
Jesus, peace be upon him, was a prophet of God who preached love. This is within Islam. In Islam, one should always try to have the best manners, to help others, to prevent persecution, to spread knowledge, and to make friends with all except those who continually insult Islam and God.
I hope I have answered these questions. Please tell me if I have been unclear.
Please feel free to ask more questions, as I am happy to answer them.
Thank you very much.
Sorry for my late reply, I am busy these days with study.
Back atcha.
Quote:
Quote:
Just some elementary questions, more likely than not, but questions nonetheless.
1 I have heard it said by a Muslim that those who kill others in the name of Allah are not following the teachings of Allah (such as the WTC disaster). What does the Qur'an actually teach regarding this subject? Does a servant of Allah have the authority to execute people/infidels?
First of all, it should be known how Islam views Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam does not see the world divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. It sees mankind as equal except in piety. In other words, everyone is equal except in terms of their love for God.
?
So what would a Christian be? In comparison to the ideal Muslim? What would an atheist be? Is a Christian struggling with a sinful habit lesser than a "good, upright" atheist who is pretty righteous, as far as "goodness" is concerned?
How is a Muslim "more good" than a Christian? The difference is in beliefs and values, not necessarily "love for God."
(when I say "Christian", assume I'm talking about a non-Muslim Christian)
Third, violence is forbidden in Islam in all cases except self-defence and war. No-one has authority to order others to kill, and no-one has the authority to kill, unless given directly from God or an angel (e.g. story of Abraham, peace be upon him).
1st off, I agree: no one has a right to kill anyone unless given direct mandate by God. Hence, Israel had wars justified by God, while America does not.
But...I'm getting conflicting messages from what you just said. Violence is forbidden except in self-defence and war, and then in the same breath you say no one has the authority to kill or order others to kill.
So which is it?
To borrow from Joyful's phraseology, you sound like those hypocrite Trinitarian churches: saying "Love your enemy" and then "killing in self-defence/war is okay, so long as it's justified." (Whatever the heck "justified" means).
Not to be attacking, but the similarities are interesting.
Quote:
Fourth, Islam means submission to God with your whole heart. It is impossible to be a good servant to God, if you go around killing people! So, obviously, anyone who goes killing in the name of God, is not a very good believer.
That's cool terminology.
*laughs* You know, sometimes I think that atheists and non-Christians (no offense to you) understand some parts of the Bible better than most so-called Christians. You'd think it makes so much simple sense, but...
Quote:
Quote:
2 What is Jihad? I believe it is a defensive struggle, right? If it is defensive, why do so many go on the offensive in the name of Jihad? Is this consistent with the Qur'an? If Jesus was a prophet, how can his message of love for your enemies go so starkly against the actual application of Allah?
Jihad is not even a defensive struggle. You misunderstand the word struggle. Jihad means "struggle" in the sense of "to struggle to make your relationship with God better"...to increase your spirituality. Jihad is all about making yourself a better Muslim and to improve your connection with God. For example, if i smoked (which i do not), then i could make a Jihad to stop smoking for the sake of God.
Okay.
Quote:
Because of the many number of Jihads you can do, there are categories. The only Jihad connected with any violence is one of the forms of lesser Jihad which is either to fight in self-defence or to free the oppressed. Muslims are allowed to fight to help those who are persecuted. However, violence is always a last resort.
What's "last resort"?
If a man held a gun to your head, and you had a gun in your hand, would you kill the killer before he killed you? Is this acceptible, according to the teachings of Islam?
Quote:
Jesus, peace be upon him, was a prophet of God who preached love. This is within Islam. In Islam, one should always try to have the best manners, to help others, to prevent persecution, to spread knowledge, and to make friends with all except those who continually insult Islam and God.
What about His claims of being the Messiah?
Quote:
I hope I have answered these questions. Please tell me if I have been unclear.
Please feel free to ask more questions, as I am happy to answer them.
may God bless you.
Cool.
I think the above about covers it.
...just for the sake of some perspective, what is the Qur'an's teaching on, say, what the 9/11 kamikazi's executed? What is the Qur'an's teaching, and then what is the general Muslim population's view of it?
First of all, it should be known how Islam views Muslims and non-Muslims. Islam does not see the world divided into Muslims and non-Muslims. It sees mankind as equal except in piety. In other words, everyone is equal except in terms of their love for God.
?
So what would a Christian be? In comparison to the ideal Muslim? What would an atheist be? Is a Christian struggling with a sinful habit lesser than a "good, upright" atheist who is pretty righteous, as far as "goodness" is concerned?
An ideal Christian is equal to an ideal Muslims. Remember all are equal except in piety.
Quote:
Is a Christian struggling with a sinful habit lesser than a "good, upright" atheist who is pretty righteous, as far as "goodness" is concerned?
It is not some sort of measure. Christians seem to think things have to be exact and measured. But they don't. A Christian who is struggling with a sinful habit is already doing good, because he is struggling to cleanse his body and soul of the sin. In-fact, if he were Muslim, the Christian might even to an extent be described as doing Jihad; an attempt to become more spiritual.
An atheist who is good will have his deeds weighed against his disbelief. The atheist still needs to have belief. Belief is still important.
Quote:
How is a Muslim "more good" than a Christian? The difference is in beliefs and values, not necessarily "love for God."
A Muslim is not "more good" than a Christian. They are equal.
However it should be noted that the trinity is regarded as almost pagan and trinitarian Christians are not seen as true Christians by Islam.
1) One who knows the truth of Islam and then rejects it. 2) Someone who does some gravely wrong, regardless of being Muslim or not 3) Someone who is ungrateful for God's blessings.
Quote:
Quote:
Third, violence is forbidden in Islam in all cases except self-defence and war. No-one has authority to order others to kill, and no-one has the authority to kill, unless given directly from God or an angel (e.g. story of Abraham, peace be upon him).
1st off, I agree: no one has a right to kill anyone unless given direct mandate by God. Hence, Israel had wars justified by God, while America does not.
But...I'm getting conflicting messages from what you just said. Violence is forbidden except in self-defence and war, and then in the same breath you say no one has the authority to kill or order others to kill.
So which is it?
I should have made myself more clear. I apologise.
Violence is forbidden in self-defence and war. Outside of these circumstances, no-one has the authority to kill or kill.
The reason i say the second sentence is because occasionally you get an extremist Muslim with alot of political power who will order Muslims to kill. E.g. the fatwa that ordered Muslims to kill salman rushdie (one should note that that particular fatwa was condemned by almost all Muslim countries).
Quote:
To borrow from Joyful's phraseology, you sound like those hypocrite Trinitarian churches: saying "Love your enemy" and then "killing in self-defence/war is okay, so long as it's justified." (Whatever the heck "justified" means).
Not to be attacking, but the similarities are interesting.
There is no such rule in Islam where you have to love your enemy. It's upto you. And that's better because there are some circumstances where, let's say, you might be fighting a family member in ww2 who has gone insane and joined the nazis and is trying to put you in a concentration camp; In that circumstance you would still love that family member.
But Muslims do not love all their enemies. For example, no Muslim loves satan.
Justification might be self-defence.
Quote:
That's cool terminology.
*laughs* You know, sometimes I think that atheists and non-Christians (no offense to you) understand some parts of the Bible better than most so-called Christians. You'd think it makes so much simple sense, but...
Yeah, i agree.
Quote:
Quote:
Because of the many number of Jihads you can do, there are categories. The only Jihad connected with any violence is one of the forms of lesser Jihad which is either to fight in self-defence or to free the oppressed. Muslims are allowed to fight to help those who are persecuted. However, violence is always a last resort.
What's "last resort"?
If a man held a gun to your head, and you had a gun in your hand, would you kill the killer before he killed you? Is this acceptible, according to the teachings of Islam?
Depends if he was going to kill you. If he was definitely going to kill you, and you had tried as hard as you can to talk him out of it, it would be better to kill him, then to be killed, and have a possibly unrepentful murderer running around threatening and harming society.
Quote:
What about His claims of being the Messiah?
Jesus will save the believers in his second coming when he will fight against the antichrist. So yes, he is a Messiah.
Also, one should note the word Messiah means anointed. So, in the literal sense, quite alot of prophets are messiahs.
Also, if i remember correctly, Cyrus was called anointed by God. So one could call him messiah arguably.
Quote:
I think the above about covers it.
...just for the sake of some perspective, what is the Qur'an's teaching on, say, what the 9/11 kamikazi's executed? What is the Qur'an's teaching, and then what is the general Muslim population's view of it?
Take care.
-Peter
All sane Muslims hate 911, just like the rest of the world does. 911 was a terriible event performed by the crazy extremist al quida. Many Imams, scholars, and average Muslims condemed 911 a short time after the news of the event spread to the Muslim word, however typical of the media, none of this was reported.
Also, even from an extremist point of view, 911 was wrong, because 500 Muslims died from the attacks. Ironically, 911 made the american people support bush going to war which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq. So if al qudia were trying to kill non-Muslims with 911, they not only failed, but ensured that hundreds of thousands of Muslims died. Ironic, eh?
The Qur'an and Islam forbid the hurting of innocent people. Killing people just because they are not Muslim is not only forbidden but illogical. Islam allows people to choose their own religion (2:256). I say it is illogical because the Qur'an says that a person who converts to Islam, then from, then to again, then does repeatedly is one who is lost and confused. If it was a command to kill all non-Muslims or apostates, then people would not have the ability to reconvert back to Islam!
The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, forbade the hurting of civilians and the Qur'an says that only the guilty party (usually the army because they are the ones fighting you) can be attacked. The prophet was very clear that hurting women and children is forbidden, and that even damaging a tree just because you are in war is wrong.
As a last note, suicide bombing is forbidden, because a) innocent people get hurt b) the Qur'an says you are not allowed to kill yourself and c) it's just plan wrong!
I hope you have found my answers satisfactory. I hope to hear from you soon. Feel free to ask more questions.
An ideal Christian is equal to an ideal Muslims. Remember all are equal except in piety.
(An ideal non-muslim Christian is equal to an ideal Muslim, is what you're saying, right?)
How is that possible, if the two believe very, very different things?
Or does the actual believed material not factor into "piety/love of God"?
Define "love of God".
Quote:
It is not some sort of measure. Christians seem to think things have to be exact and measured. But they don't. A Christian who is struggling with a sinful habit is already doing good, because he is struggling to cleanse his body and soul of the sin. In-fact, if he were Muslim, the Christian might even to an extent be described as doing Jihad; an attempt to become more spiritual.
An atheist who is good will have his deeds weighed against his disbelief. The atheist still needs to have belief. Belief is still important.
Ah. Belief in what?
Quote:
A Muslim is not "more good" than a Christian. They are equal.
However it should be noted that the trinity is regarded as almost pagan and trinitarian Christians are not seen as true Christians by Islam.
I personally don't nit-pick on techincalities, as much as I count love for God. Someone who loves God will do what is right: Trinitarianism is a technicality, as to what you call Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It's quabbling over words, in its root. And people do it to the point where they believe that someone IS or ISN'T a servant of God simply because of belief/disbelief in trinitarianism/unitarianism. Sure, biblicality is one thing, and being open to Biblical reason is another, but pure belief being the benchmark? Not so much.
But that's a little off-topic: just synthesize that issue into the whole "belief in what" business, please. =)
Quote:
Quote:
What is the practical definition?
1) One who knows the truth of Islam and then rejects it. 2) Someone who does some gravely wrong, regardless of being Muslim or not 3) Someone who is ungrateful for God's blessings.
How wrong must something be to be "gravely wrong"? Or what constitutes "ungratefulness for God's blessings"?
And how does one deal with an "infidel", presuming that an infidel is what you just described?
Quote:
Quote:
1st off, I agree: no one has a right to kill anyone unless given direct mandate by God. Hence, Israel had wars justified by God, while America does not.
But...I'm getting conflicting messages from what you just said. Violence is forbidden except in self-defence and war, and then in the same breath you say no one has the authority to kill or order others to kill.
So which is it?
I should have made myself more clear. I apologise.
Violence is forbidden in self-defence and war. Outside of these circumstances, no-one has the authority to kill or kill.
The reason i say the second sentence is because occasionally you get an extremist Muslim with alot of political power who will order Muslims to kill. E.g. the fatwa that ordered Muslims to kill salman rushdie (one should note that that particular fatwa was condemned by almost all Muslim countries).
(No problem, so long as you stay patient and clear it up afterwards. ;D)
...I think you misspoke again. ? Could you elaborate?
Quote:
Quote:
To borrow from Joyful's phraseology, you sound like those hypocrite Trinitarian churches: saying "Love your enemy" and then "killing in self-defence/war is okay, so long as it's justified." (Whatever the heck "justified" means).
Not to be attacking, but the similarities are interesting.
There is no such rule in Islam where you have to love your enemy.
Ah, but it is a teaching of Christ. Wasn't Christ a prophet?
Quote:
It's upto you. And that's better because there are some circumstances where, let's say, you might be fighting a family member in ww2 who has gone insane and joined the nazis and is trying to put you in a concentration camp; In that circumstance you would still love that family member.
But Muslims do not love all their enemies. For example, no Muslim loves satan.
Justification might be self-defence.
No Muslim loves Satan, true, but does that mean one is justified in executing judgment on someone you think is following Satan?
I thought God was the Judge.
Anyway, Jesus never taught "love" being a feeling: love is an action: His command isn't JUST "love your enemy." His command is "Love your enemy: do good to those who hate you."
Quote:
Quote:
What's "last resort"?
If a man held a gun to your head, and you had a gun in your hand, would you kill the killer before he killed you? Is this acceptible, according to the teachings of Islam?
Depends if he was going to kill you.
*cough* Holding gun to head, remember.
Quote:
If he was definitely going to kill you, and you had tried as hard as you can to talk him out of it, it would be better to kill him, then to be killed, and have a possibly unrepentful murderer running around threatening and harming society.
Um, wouldn't that be you, too? You've just killed a man ("murderer"), justified in your own eyes with what you did ("unrepentful"), willing to move along in your life ("running around"), and perfectly willing to do it again ("threatening and harming society").
So evil is fine as long as it's done against someone who is evil?
Quote:
Quote:
What about His claims of being the Messiah?
Jesus will save the believers in his second coming when he will fight against the antichrist. So yes, he is a Messiah.
Also, one should note the word Messiah means anointed. So, in the literal sense, quite alot of prophets are messiahs.
Also, if i remember correctly, Cyrus was called anointed by God. So one could call him messiah arguably.
No, I mean the whole "come-to-earth-to-be-the-propitiation-for-our-sins"-deal.
*groan* Yeah, yeah. That's not what I meant, though. He claimed to be a specific Annointed One. The Lamb of God.
Quote:
All sane Muslims hate 911, just like the rest of the world does. 911 was a terriible event performed by the crazy extremist al quida. Many Imams, scholars, and average Muslims condemed 911 a short time after the news of the event spread to the Muslim word, however typical of the media, none of this was reported.
So the kamikazis were not justified by the Qur'an?
Quote:
Also, even from an extremist point of view, 911 was wrong, because 500 Muslims died from the attacks. Ironically, 911 made the american people support bush going to war which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq. So if al qudia were trying to kill non-Muslims with 911, they not only failed, but ensured that hundreds of thousands of Muslims died. Ironic, eh?
Sadly.
Quote:
The Qur'an and Islam forbid the hurting of innocent people. Killing people just because they are not Muslim is not only forbidden but illogical. Islam allows people to choose their own religion (2:256). I say it is illogical because the Qur'an says that a person who converts to Islam, then from, then to again, then does repeatedly is one who is lost and confused. If it was a command to kill all non-Muslims or apostates, then people would not have the ability to reconvert back to Islam!
Then why do so many find the justification to do so?
Quote:
As a last note, suicide bombing is forbidden, because a) innocent people get hurt b) the Qur'an says you are not allowed to kill yourself and c) it's just plan wrong!
Okay.
You'll have to understand if I don't allow myself to agree with ambiuous statements, like "it's just plain wrong", though. My understanding of right and wrong come from the Bible almost exclusively: something may be right to you but wrong to me for that reason alone.
Quote:
I hope you have found my answers satisfactory. I hope to hear from you soon. Feel free to ask more questions.
Have a nice day!
may God bless you.
Thanks for being patient. But it's good to be challenged about what you believe.
(An ideal non-muslim Christian is equal to an ideal Muslim, is what you're saying, right?)
How is that possible, if the two believe very, very different things?
Or does the actual believed material not factor into "piety/love of God"?
Define "love of God".
Islam says that a trinitarian Christian is not a true Christian, because the trinity is a lie. So a Unitarian Christian and a Muslim are equal. Once you remove all the corruptions from Christianity such as original sin, trinity, and so on, Christianity and Islam are quite similar.
Islam says that each prophet may have come with different practices but they came with the same basic message: "God is One and worship Him!".
Quote:
Quote:
...An atheist who is good will have his deeds weighed against his disbelief. The atheist still needs to have belief. Belief is still important.
Ah. Belief in what?
Belief in God. But that's not say that an atheist's good deeds are worthless.
Quote:
I personally don't nit-pick on techincalities, as much as I count love for God. Someone who loves God will do what is right: Trinitarianism is a technicality, as to what you call Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It's quabbling over words, in its root. And people do it to the point where they believe that someone IS or ISN'T a servant of God simply because of belief/disbelief in trinitarianism/unitarianism. Sure, biblicality is one thing, and being open to Biblical reason is another, but pure belief being the benchmark? Not so much.
The trinity is not a technicality. If the trinity is true it has massive bad implications such as God being a liar, unjust, not all powerful, self contradictory, and much more.
If the trinity is not true, then that's still important! Because by worshipping the trinity, a person is worshipping a lie.
Jesus himself said in mark 12:29 "Hear O Israel, the Lord OUR God is ONE". The fact that he's saying "hear o israel" shows the importance of this message. And Jesus says "OUR God" not "your God", but "OUR God", just like Jesus says in John "my God and your God". And Jesus says "is ONE". Not three in one, but ONE.
Being open to Biblical debate about beliefs is okay. But the trinity isn't even a biblical belief, because the trinity was invented at the council of Nicea in the fourth century.
Quote:
How wrong must something be to be "gravely wrong"? Or what constitutes "ungratefulness for God's blessings"?
Doing grave wrong...e.g murder.
Ungratefulness...being showered with blessings, e.g. wealth, and then being greedy with that blessing, e.g. not giving to charity.
Quote:
And how does one deal with an "infidel", presuming that an infidel is what you just described?
What do you mean deal with them?
If they have done murder, then obviously one needs to check they aren't a danger for society.
If it is one who is ungrateful, then perhaps a close friend could tell the ungrateful person to realise how rich he is compared to others.
Quote:
Quote:
I should have made myself more clear. I apologise.
Violence is forbidden in self-defence and war. Outside of these circumstances, no-one has the authority to kill or kill.
The reason i say the second sentence is because occasionally you get an extremist Muslim with alot of political power who will order Muslims to kill. E.g. the fatwa that ordered Muslims to kill salman rushdie (one should note that that particular fatwa was condemned by almost all Muslim countries).
(No problem, so long as you stay patient and clear it up afterwards. ;D)
...I think you misspoke again. ? Could you elaborate?
What haven't i spoke well on?
Quote:
Ah, but it is a teaching of Christ. Wasn't Christ a prophet?
"it is a teaching of christ". Well like i said earlier, prophets teach different things. But then again, how do you know Jesus actually spoke those words?
Because obviously love your enemy has been taken out of context. Jesus does not love the antichrist, his enemy. Jesus will kill him.
Quote:
No Muslim loves Satan, true, but does that mean one is justified in executing judgment on someone you think is following Satan?
I thought God was the Judge.
I don't understand what you mean by "executing judgement". My example shows self-defence, if i remember correctly.
Quote:
Anyway, Jesus never taught "love" being a feeling: love is an action: His command isn't JUST "love your enemy." His command is "Love your enemy: do good to those who hate you."
Perhaps that's how it's been misunderstood over the years.
Quote:
Quote:
If he was definitely going to kill you, and you had tried as hard as you can to talk him out of it, it would be better to kill him, then to be killed, and have a possibly unrepentful murderer running around threatening and harming society.
Um, wouldn't that be you, too? You've just killed a man ("murderer"), justified in your own eyes with what you did ("unrepentful"), willing to move along in your life ("running around"), and perfectly willing to do it again ("threatening and harming society").
No. Killing a man in self defence does not make you a murderer. You did not go out to that man with the intention of killing him. He came for you. So killing him as a last resort is better than having him, who might be a dangerous maniac threatening society.
You say that one in self-defence would be harming society. But how? All the person did was protect himself. He himself does not want to go around hurting people, and will not do it again unless in the exact same circumstances.
Come on now, what would be better? letting a dangerous murderer kill an innocent person, which would leave the children without a father?
Quote:
No, I mean the whole "come-to-earth-to-be-the-propitiation-for-our-sins"-deal.
Jesus never said he came to die for us, and in-fact there is much evidence against it.
Quote:
...He claimed to be a specific Annointed One...
where?
Quote:
So the kamikazis were not justified by the Qur'an?
Dude, what do you think?
Of course not!
Quote:
Then why do so many find the justification to do so?
There is no justification, just the twisted mind twisting the meaning to make one.
Have a nice day!
Do you have msn messenger? We could chat through that.
Islam says that a trinitarian Christian is not a true Christian, because the trinity is a lie.
You are right about that.
Quote:
So a Unitarian Christian and a Muslim are equal. Once you remove all the corruptions from Christianity such as original sin, trinity, and so on, Christianity and Islam are quite similar.
No, we are not the equal at all, sub. We are extremely different. first of all, you don't believe Jesus is Lamb of God and this is the very core of Christianity. Second, we have very different kind of Scripture. You believe it is ok ot kill your enemy. Jesus says to "love your enemy". Jesus does not allow His followers to harm or kill anyone, no matter what!!! You are saying it is ok to kill evil ones and that's what trinitarians are saying and you guys are killing each other because you believe your opposers are evil ones. you guys are being so obviousely hypocrites. You are no different from trinitarians, sub. You are too proud to admit this very simple fact. As long as you believe in killing your enemy, you will engage in wars. God's kingdom is not for people who love wars. I can hear what you are going to say next; you will say you don't love wars. It is so lame, sub. YHWH and Jesus will not listen to this kind of excuses. You cannot say God is love and engage in wars saying this is what God wants you to do. Please don't disgrace God with this king of faith.
submitter, why do some Muslims try to force conversions? It is often reported they have terrorized people and threatened people if they do not convert to Islam, their head will be chopped off or something similar, and they hold a machete to them, and do kill some of them. these Muslims also act like it is a teaching of Islam. are they misinterpreting or just evil or ?
submitter, why do some Muslims try to force conversions? It is often reported they have terrorized people and threatened people if they do not convert to Islam, their head will be chopped off or something similar, and they hold a machete to them, and do kill some of them. these Muslims also act like it is a teaching of Islam. are they misinterpreting or just evil or ?
Peace be upon you.
Forced conversions are often displayed by trinitarians to be quite common. However this is not true. There is no conversion by the sword.
Islam itself says in 2:256:
Glorious Qur'an [2:256]: There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
As you can see there is compulsion to be Muslim, and the right way to convert someone is now obvious. It's by their free will.
So obviously, it's not a teaching of Islam.
Historically speaking, here is an extract from a scholar's thoughts and research:
Quote:
Indonesia has around 450 million Muslims, which is more than the population of all the Arab countries put together. In fact, Arabs count for only around 18 percent of all Muslims. By far the greatest concentration of the world's 1.1 billion Muslims lives in Southeast Asia. Islam has been deeply rooted there for centuries.
Those who beat the drum of Islam being spread by the sword fail to mention Southeast Asia, since it does not fit into their agenda. No Muslim armies ever went there. In fact, the story of Islam being brought there is quite marvelous and well worth telling.
It was brought not by soldiers, but by merchants. The honesty and integrity of these first few Muslim merchants, whose names are celebrated as part of Indonesia's history, so impressed the people that they wanted to be like them. In closing up their businesses each day at prayer times and in the fair and just way they dealt with their customers, these Muslim merchants drew many to Islam. Their message and their fame spread quickly until millions had embraced their religion.
Soon after the death of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the death of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, the Muslim faithful were led by Caliph `Umar, one of the Prophet's Companions.
When `Umar entered Jerusalem at the head of a Muslim army in 638 CE, just six years after the Prophet's death, he entered the city on foot, as a gesture of humility in a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. There was no bloodshed. There were no massacres or forced conversions.
On the contrary, those who wanted to leave were allowed to do so with all their possessions. Those who wanted to stay were granted protection for their lives, their property, and their places of worship. `Umar very famously declined to pray one of the five daily prayers in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, lest in years to come Muslims might try to turn it into a mosque in his memory. Instead, `Umar cleansed the so-called Temple Mount with rose water and built a small mosque there, where the Dome of the Rock now stands.
All of this is in marked contrast to what happened when the Crusader armies later took Jerusalem. Seventy thousand men, women and children were slaughtered. Any remaining Muslims and Jews were driven out. When the city was recaptured by Salah Ad-Din (Saladin), the Christian inhabitants were granted protection and were escorted to safety by the Muslim army. But those who have a different aim would have us believe that it is Islam that is cruel.
When Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) finally entered Makkah at the head of a Muslim army in AH 8, he did so not to force the Makkans to convert, but because they had violated their peace treaty with the Muslims. The Prophet entered with great humility, ordering that there should be no fighting or bloodshed. Instead, he forgave all those who had opposed him and the growth of Islam for so many years. Those who wanted to leave were allowed to do so. The whole city, so impressed by the men they had fought against for so long, converted to Islam.
Another great example that many deliberately choose to ignore is that of the Muslim presence in southern Spain for nearly eight centuries. Described as Islam's Golden Age, this was a time when the Islamic civilization flourished. It was centuries ahead of northern Europe in the way arts and sciences were encouraged and in the way cities and towns were advanced well beyond anything in Germany, France, or England at the same time.
During this Golden Age, the rights of Christians and Jews were respected and honored, and many of them rose to high positions at court. When the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella reconquered southern Spain, Muslims and Jews were either forced to convert to Christianity or were put to death. Mosques and synagogues were desecrated and destroyed. The excesses of the Spanish Inquisition had begun.
We might ask if Islam was taken to America by the sword, or taken to Denmark or Ireland or Poland by the sword. It wasn't. And yet Islam is now the world's fastest growing religion, according to some people.
So what about North Africa? What about the Muslim armies that swept across North Africa, forcing all in their way to become Muslim or die? The army of Muslim general `Amr ibn Al-`Aas entered Egypt in 642 CE. He built in Cairo the first mosque in the whole of Africa. He also ordered that the Muslims had a duty to protect the rights of the Christians living in Egypt.
It was to be another two centuries before the population of Egypt became Muslim. To this day, there are nearly seven million Christians living there.
No, we are not the equal at all, sub. We are extremely different. first of all, you don't believe Jesus is Lamb of God and this is the very core of Christianity.
The core of christianity is not a lamb of God. Calling Jesus the lamb of God means you believe he was sacrificed for our sins, which clearly never happened. The mass number of contradictions between the gospels on the crucifixition and resurrection and the mass number of old testament verses saying sacrifice by a human is forbidden clearly disproves the crucifixition, as well as the lack of primary historical sources.
Maybe the core of pauline modern day trinitarian christianity is the crucifixition and resurrection, but the original religion of Jesus was about this, Mark 12:29:
Let us study and analyse this verse:
Mark 12
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of ALL the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Analysis:
1-Jesus was not talking to this man only, but he made sure to call the attention of all Israel: "Hear O Israel". This indicates the importance of this message.
2-Jesus says, "the Lord our God". This clearly indicates that God is not only the God of the people Jesus is talking to, but He is also the God of Jesus ("our").
3-Jesus continues to say this, "the Lord our God is one". This clearly indicates the Oneness of God.
4-"Love thy neighbour" is the second most important commandment, not the first.
4-Finally, in Mark 12:31 Jesus reiterates that this is the first commandment: "There is no commandment greater than these".
Jesus in these verses showed how important this message was by calling the attention of the Israelites, and when he talked about the Oneness of God he excluded himself from that "Oneness" when he said, "our God." He stated that this One God is his God as well as every one else's.
Obviously the most important thing is knowing that God is One and worshipping Him only, and loving Him with all your heart, mind, and soul.
Quote:
Second, we have very different kind of Scripture.
Please read the Qur'an before saying this.
Quote:
You believe it is ok ot kill your enemy. Jesus says to "love your enemy". Jesus does not allow His followers to harm or kill anyone, no matter what!!!
I advise you to learn about the rules of war in Islam, before making claims.
Islam says that no violence is allowed except in self-defence and war.
War itself must be to either free oppressed people (E.g. the people of darthfur and palestine who are experiencing modern day genocide) or to protect ones country or human rights.
This means that Muslims aren't allowed to go kill their enemies, just because they are enemies. They must treat their enemies with respect, and only fight if the enemies attack them.
There is nothing wrong with this. Fighting in self-defence is not wrong.
Jesus himself will lead the believers to go fight the antichrist in war. Jesus said "love your enemy" in that you should respect them. It doesn't mean love ALL your enemies, otherwise Christians would have to love satan and the antichrist.
Please all of my words in this post carefully and consider them and reply to each statement.
Of course Jesus is commanding us to love God and fellow people, however there is no salvation without Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. Jesus tells us He is the way. without Him, no matter how you try to be righteous you will not make it. YWHW is telling us to listen to Jesus and you Muslims are not listening. I am not trinitarian as you know and I believe this organization is evil but they don't force their religion to anyone. I know it very well.
We have different kind of Bible and as long as we are following different one, we will never agree, no matter how much we discuss.
I hope you continue with Peter(butxifxnot). Perhaps he can point out your blind spots better than I can. Please be open hearted instead of clinging to the traditional way of thinking and faith. If I had the same kind of attitude like yours, I would be trinitarian like the rest of the churches.
Yes it is. Jesus said He would die to be a ransom for many. Unless He's lying, His testimony contradicts yours.
Quote:
Calling Jesus the lamb of God means you believe he was sacrificed for our sins, which clearly never happened.
Clearly? I read the Bible: It's pretty clear in there that you are incorrect.
Quote:
The mass number of contradictions between the gospels on the crucifixition and resurrection and the mass number of old testament verses saying sacrifice by a human is forbidden clearly disproves the crucifixition, as well as the lack of primary historical sources.
I urge you to cease using the word "clearly". It's meaningless and demeaning. If I were to say exactly the opposite of you and provide the exact same amount of substanciation (none), while referring to my view as being "clear" and "obvious", you'd be rightfully offended.
Quote:
Maybe the core of pauline modern day trinitarian christianity is the crucifixition and resurrection, but the original religion of Jesus was about this, Mark 12:29:
Let us study and analyse this verse:
Mark 12
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of ALL the commandments, which is the most important?"
29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
Analysis:
1-Jesus was not talking to this man only, but he made sure to call the attention of all Israel: "Hear O Israel". This indicates the importance of this message.
2-Jesus says, "the Lord our God". This clearly indicates that God is not only the God of the people Jesus is talking to, but He is also the God of Jesus ("our").
3-Jesus continues to say this, "the Lord our God is one". This clearly indicates the Oneness of God.
4-"Love thy neighbour" is the second most important commandment, not the first.
4-Finally, in Mark 12:31 Jesus reiterates that this is the first commandment: "There is no commandment greater than these".
Jesus in these verses showed how important this message was by calling the attention of the Israelites, and when he talked about the Oneness of God he excluded himself from that "Oneness" when he said, "our God." He stated that this One God is his God as well as every one else's.
Obviously the most important thing is knowing that God is One and worshipping Him only, and loving Him with all your heart, mind, and soul.
Simple rebuttal:
The most important LAW.
Jesus didn't say it was the "most important thing": you did. Jesus said it was the "greatest COMMAND."
How easily we twist Scriptures to conform them to what we want them to say. Your religion did not start with the Holy Bible: your religion started with a set of pre-established beliefs. And it's showing now.
Quote:
I advise you to learn about the rules of war in Islam, before making claims.
Islam says that no violence is allowed except in self-defence and war.
Those are the rules: Joyful and I believe that violence is NOT the way of Christ.
Quote:
War itself must be to either free oppressed people (E.g. the people of darthfur and palestine who are experiencing modern day genocide) or to protect ones country or human rights.
That's the same argument atheists use, and they don't give a rat's tail about God.
Quote:
This means that Muslims aren't allowed to go kill their enemies, just because they are enemies. They must treat their enemies with respect, and only fight if the enemies attack them.
There is nothing wrong with this. Fighting in self-defence is not wrong.
The Truth according to Submitter.
I go by the Bible, not secular human reasoning. Jesus says do good to those who hate you. Killing them is not doing them good. Simple.
Quote:
Jesus himself will lead the believers to go fight the antichrist in war. Jesus said "love your enemy" in that you should respect them. It doesn't mean love ALL your enemies, otherwise Christians would have to love satan and the antichrist.
Jesus didn't say "Love your enemy." He said "Love your enemy: do good to those who hate you."
Love IS DOING GOOD to those who hate you. Jesus said NOTHING about love being a "feeling" in that verse: it is an action.
Quote:
Please all of my words in this post carefully and consider them and reply to each statement.
I did, because I know how Joyful feels about long posts. Now I ask the same of you: read what I'm saying and refute them with Godly reasoning, not secular reasoning.
Quote:
Islam says that a trinitarian Christian is not a true Christian, because the trinity is a lie.
So a person who believed in the Phlogiston Theory (a theory which has been disproved) many years ago could not have been true Christians? Because that theory/teaching was a lie.
Your logic, applied to a different circumstance. If you are right, it is NOT for the reason you are stating.
Quote:
So a Unitarian Christian and a Muslim are equal. Once you remove all the corruptions from Christianity such as original sin, trinity, and so on, Christianity and Islam are quite similar.
Yeah, and that little thing about Jesus dying for our sins, you know, the little differences.
Quote:
Belief in God. But that's not say that an atheist's good deeds are worthless.
You are not being very consistant: you're saying that only piety (love for God) is important, and yet an atheist can be "better" than others?
I guess that's what comes of a religion based on works.
Could you elaborate on what you mean that an atheist's "good deeds" are not necessarily worthless? And define "good deed" (no examples: give me a definition).
Quote:
The trinity is not a technicality.
Yes it is. I've been to both church-types: both believe SO many of the same things about the Godhead. The only difference is the NAMES being given to them, and how the Three are addressed. Trinitarians and Unitarians (Christians) both believe that Christ is the firstborn of God, that all things were created through Him, that He and His Father are of one mind, that the Holy Spirit is the Counsellor which leads us in His ways, that Christ's sacrifice atones for our sins, that He reigns at God's right hand...
You're just saying that it's not a technicality by default, just like trinitarians say it to hereticize Unitarians.
Quote:
If the trinity is true it has massive bad implications such as God being a liar, unjust, not all powerful, self contradictory, and much more.
That's only if the Trinity is actually false.
I've heard this EXACT same argument from trinitarians justifying their teaching.
Quote:
If the trinity is not true, then that's still important! Because by worshipping the trinity, a person is worshipping a lie.
That is true. But if you are worshipping a Unity, and IT is the lie, then you are equally condemned.
See how this reasoning doesn't hold water?
Quote:
Jesus himself said in mark 12:29 "Hear O Israel, the Lord OUR God is ONE". The fact that he's saying "hear o israel" shows the importance of this message. And Jesus says "OUR God" not "your God", but "OUR God", just like Jesus says in John "my God and your God". And Jesus says "is ONE". Not three in one, but ONE.
Being open to Biblical debate about beliefs is okay. But the trinity isn't even a biblical belief, because the trinity was invented at the council of Nicea in the fourth century.
Jesus is referred to as "our God", too. It's not as clear-cut as you think. Both sides keep forgetting that "theos" can mean more than one thing, either way.
Yes, the Trinity was a doctrine to reason some obscure passages. But then... ALL doctrines are made that way. Unitarians (Christians) have very specific teachings on what exactly Jesus is. And that is NOT expressedly taught in Scripture: it is taught outside of it.
Quote:
What do you mean deal with them?
If they have done murder, then obviously one needs to check they aren't a danger for society.
If it is one who is ungrateful, then perhaps a close friend could tell the ungrateful person to realise how rich he is compared to others.
I guess I was going where ad-minister was going with that one. Some Muslims "deal with them" by executing them.
Quote:
What haven't i spoke well on?
You said "Violence is forbidden in self-defense and war". You obviously misspoke. That's why I double-took that. But whatever. ;P We're talking about it anyway.
Quote:
"it is a teaching of christ". Well like i said earlier, prophets teach different things.
And they contradict each other?
If a prophet in the OT was wrong at ALL, they were to be stoned as false prophets. God isn't right only most of the time: He is right ALL of the time.
Quote:
But then again, how do you know Jesus actually spoke those words?
Ya gotta start somewhere: I start with the Bible. How do you know Mohammad spoke any of his words?
Quote:
Because obviously love your enemy has been taken out of context. Jesus does not love the antichrist, his enemy. Jesus will kill him.
Jesus is the JUDGE. There's a difference between HE and US. Are you saying we can take the place of God in the seat of judgment of souls?? Jesus and the Father have the perrogative to kill in judgment, because They know the soul.
Quote:
I don't understand what you mean by "executing judgement". My example shows self-defence, if i remember correctly.
If you kill a man trying to kill you, you are executing judgment: you are saying "You are wrong to kill me. Therefore, I kill you, because I have judged you are worthy of death."
Self-defense or not.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, Jesus never taught "love" being a feeling: love is an action: His command isn't JUST "love your enemy." His command is "Love your enemy: do good to those who hate you."
Perhaps that's how it's been misunderstood over the years.
Luke 6:
27 “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you
These are actions spoken of, directly quoted from the Bible. If a direct quote of Jesus is a "misunderstanding", I don't know how you can believe you know one word Jesus ever said and that He could possibly be a prophet of God in any way.
Quote:
Um, wouldn't that be you, too? You've just killed a man ("murderer"), justified in your own eyes with what you did ("unrepentful"), willing to move along in your life ("running around"), and perfectly willing to do it again ("threatening and harming society").
No. Killing a man in self defence does not make you a murderer. You did not go out to that man with the intention of killing him. He came for you. So killing him as a last resort is better than having him, who might be a dangerous maniac threatening society.
And thus you justify yourself with a form of godliness, but denying His power.
Quote:
You say that one in self-defence would be harming society. But how? All the person did was protect himself. He himself does not want to go around hurting people, and will not do it again unless in the exact same circumstances.
Come on now, what would be better? letting a dangerous murderer kill an innocent person, which would leave the children without a father?
I made a decision about four years ago never to let my secular reasoning win out over following the Lord.
And that was when I started being a Christian. A real Christian.
All you are doing is giving reasons to DISOBEY Christ.
Quote:
Jesus never said he came to die for us, and in-fact there is much evidence against it.
Matthew 8:28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
I suggest you study what you are talking about (with an open mind and heart) before making absolute claims: you could end up lying to someone unawares.
Quote:
...He claimed to be a specific Annointed One...
where?
Mark 14:61, 62
Among other places. But this one's most direct (well, aside from Peter's confessions of Christ.)
Do you really read the New Testament?
Quote:
So the kamikazis were not justified by the Qur'an?
Yes it is. Jesus said He would die to be a ransom for many. Unless He's lying, His testimony contradicts yours.
Why is it necessarily a lie? And why is it necessarily either me or Jesus? It could be a whole host of people, from scribes to people who testified and so on.
Quote:
Quote:
Calling Jesus the lamb of God means you believe he was sacrificed for our sins, which clearly never happened.
Clearly? I read the Bible: It's pretty clear in there that you are incorrect.
I read the Bible too. He was never sacrificed. The mass numbers of inconsistenicies, errors, and contradictions with the old testament, make the crucifixition impossible.
Quote:
Quote:
The mass number of contradictions between the gospels on the crucifixition and resurrection and the mass number of old testament verses saying sacrifice by a human is forbidden clearly disproves the crucifixition, as well as the lack of primary historical sources.
I urge you to cease using the word "clearly". It's meaningless and demeaning. If I were to say exactly the opposite of you and provide the exact same amount of substanciation (none), while referring to my view as being "clear" and "obvious", you'd be rightfully offended.
Why would i be offended? It would signal to me that i must have either missed something or the person has missed something.
Quote:
Simple rebuttal:
The most important LAW.
Jesus didn't say it was the "most important thing": you did. Jesus said it was the "greatest COMMAND."
Jesus said it was the law and command. And the law and command is "the Lord our God is One". That's the truth.
Also you ignored most of my analysis including Jesus saying "our God".
Quote:
How easily we twist Scriptures to conform them to what we want them to say. Your religion did not start with the Holy Bible: your religion started with a set of pre-established beliefs. And it's showing now.
That's a very incorrect statement since most religions started from pre-established beliefs anyway. Yours especially. Ever heard of mithraism?
Quote:
Quote:
I advise you to learn about the rules of war in Islam, before making claims.
Islam says that no violence is allowed except in self-defence and war.
Those are the rules: Joyful and I believe that violence is NOT the way of Christ.
And yet you/joyful indirectly imply that i am violent? Stop changing your position. Either accept Jesus is going to kill the antichrist in cold blood, and that self-defence is acceptable, or say no violence, not even to stop a girl being raped, is at all is acceptable.
Quote:
Quote:
War itself must be to either free oppressed people (E.g. the people of darthfur and palestine who are experiencing modern day genocide) or to protect ones country or human rights.
That's the same argument atheists use, and they don't give a rat's tail about God
What does your statement have to do with what i said? I said war must be to help and protect people.
I think it is pointless of be to continue to reply to the rest of your post since we have just started going on circles, and we have diverged onto Christianity.
I'd like to chat to you instantly, if you want to, either through msn/yahoo messenger or through a instant private message system in a chatroom.
Love for Enemies
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Sub, this is direct word of Jesus. Read very carefully what He is saying. Do you really think Jesus would give you approval of killing your enemy???? He is saying to do good to those who hate you.
BTW, Old testament and New testament don't contradict each other. That's why you are not christian because you don't agree with the Bible and you don't believe the Bible is God breathed..
Love for Enemies
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Sub, this is direct word of Jesus. Read very carefully what He is saying. Do you really think Jesus would give you approval of killing your enemy???? He is saying to do good to those who hate you.
BTW, Old testament and New testament don't contradict each other. That's why you are not christian because you don't agree with the Bible and you don't believe the Bible is God breathed..
love, hitomi
Joyful, i'd really appreciate it if you'd pay attention to what i say and stop repeating those same words.
I am not killing my enemy. I am not doing bad to those who hate me. The only time Islam says use violence (as a LAST resort) is to save yourself or another person. Isn't that fair? Even Jesus will do that in his second coming.
peace. may God bless you.
I am not killing my enemy. I am not doing bad to those who hate me.
Noone is saying that you are.
Quote:
The only time Islam says use violence (as a LAST resort) is to save yourself or another person. Isn't that fair? Even Jesus will do that in his second coming.
Jesus is perfect Judge and we are not. We are not fair enough to judge anyone to kill our enemy. I trust Jesus's commands and I obey.
Yes it is. Jesus said He would die to be a ransom for many. Unless He's lying, His testimony contradicts yours.
Why is it necessarily a lie? And why is it necessarily either me or Jesus? It could be a whole host of people, from scribes to people who testified and so on.
Either you believe the Bible is God-breathed or not. How can anyone have a discussion on any holy text if a side is constantly questioning whether or not a part of it is true?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Calling Jesus the lamb of God means you believe he was sacrificed for our sins, which clearly never happened.
Clearly? I read the Bible: It's pretty clear in there that you are incorrect.
I read the Bible too. He was never sacrificed. The mass numbers of inconsistenicies, errors, and contradictions with the old testament, make the crucifixition impossible.
Such as?
The NT stands in stark contrast with your statement. I don't see in the OT any of what you're saying.
Quote:
Quote:
Simple rebuttal:
The most important LAW.
Jesus didn't say it was the "most important thing": you did. Jesus said it was the "greatest COMMAND."
Jesus said it was the law and command. And the law and command is "the Lord our God is One". That's the truth.
That's right. That doesn't mean it is the central doctrine of Christianity. Which you said it was, citing Jesus' words (even though He didn't say any such thing).
Quote:
Also you ignored most of my analysis including Jesus saying "our God".
2 Peter 1
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ
The word "theos" and "el" don't translate to exactly what we know as "god". Even satan is a "theos". I ignored it because Jesus is also referred to as "our God" at times. You can't only listen to one side. I'm not a full-blooded trinitarian, by any means, but I confess I sometimes get angry at both sides because of their close-mindedness.
Quote:
Ever heard of mithraism?
No, I haven't. o.o
What is it?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I advise you to learn about the rules of war in Islam, before making claims.
Islam says that no violence is allowed except in self-defence and war.
Those are the rules: Joyful and I believe that violence is NOT the way of Christ.
And yet you/joyful indirectly imply that i am violent?
You are willing to be violent. Being willing to go a way different than Christ's is a serious thing, as far as Christianity is concerned. Well, for Christians, anyway.
Quote:
Stop changing your position. Either accept Jesus is going to kill the antichrist in cold blood, and that self-defence is acceptable, or say no violence, not even to stop a girl being raped, is at all is acceptable.
There is a difference between the two situations you have just described. I'll address this at the end of this post.
...in fact, snip this.
Quote:
I think it is pointless of be to continue to reply to the rest of your post since we have just started going on circles, and we have diverged onto Christianity.
That's alright: it's hard to discuss the Bible when some basic premises are lacking. For example, it's hard for you to obey an order of Christ when you do not even acknowledge Jesus made the statement at all.
Quote:
I'd like to chat to you instantly, if you want to, either through msn/yahoo messenger or through a instant private message system in a chatroom.
I doubt our schedules would coincide. =P
In any event, I'll try starting to condence what it is we're talking about.
Quote:
I am not killing my enemy.
You would if it meant your survival was on the line.
Quote:
I am not doing bad to those who hate me.
You would if it meant your survival was on the line.
Quote:
The only time Islam says use violence (as a LAST resort) is to save yourself or another person. Isn't that fair?
At the expense of another. Who are you to judge who is worthy of life and who is worthy of death?
Quote:
Even Jesus will do that in his second coming.
Jesus is going to come and kill His enemies in self-defense????
No, of course not. Jesus is coming to JUDGE the world. Are you saying you are fit to judge the soul of a man who means to do you harm?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
?
