Christian/Muslim Threadsa must readOk I'm taking a look If the Holy Book was not authenticated by the Prophet himself, nor is in the same form as it was revealed to the Prophet, it can't be trusted as 100% the word of God, it's that simple. But that's assuming that the Gospels record the words of God. You use the Gospels as your benchmark for what God said, but Jesus never even saw nor dictated nor authorized what today's Gospels say. You could say he was the same as Abraham (pbuh) before revelation came to him. I can't believe your idea of an authentic Scripture is summed up as: whatever was earlier must be true. Compare an earlier text whose authors are unknown, which was never seen by Christ nor validated by him, which was never memorized nor preserved in manuscript before 325 AD to the alleged infancy gospels. If you had to choose between them, you should choose the one that is more authentic, not just the one that was supposed to have been written earlier. But where there's divine revelation, you should go with neither. What you don’t see is that you can talk about the infancy gospels all day, but people don't believe the Qur'an's version because its account is more similar to the one offered in the infancy gospels than in the New Testament, people accept the Qur'an on its own merit, based on how it was revealed and preserved, regardless of anything else. True that Not really. The questions I ask are simple ones, I don't ask you to explain Christian theology to me, I ask you "why do you believe what you believe? How do you know what you know?" And your reply is that it all comes from the Bible, so regardless of whether or not it makes sense, it is all based on the text we call "the Bible". The immediate response is "and how do we know that Jesus said and did what the Bible said he did? Did he write the Bible? Did he ever see the Bible? Was it preserved in the same way since before he ascended to heaven? The answer is always no. It's the same reason one doesn't wait for an aborigine in Australia to explain how much his beliefs make sense to him, if he can't trace them back to a divine message and Prophet, why does he believe what he does? It's based on a book in which there is inherent doubt. But your first sentence completely negates everything else you just said. You can't "not talk about loving the evilness". You have to say clearly what you mean when you "love someone". When you love someone, do you love everything EXCEPT FOR their hate of God, or do you love EVEN their hate of God. I say that you should never love the "hate of God". Do you agree or disagree with me on this point? But you keep throwing around phrases like "love them" without defining what you mean. If you are just saying to love someone, then you must love EVERYTHING about them, their essence, their beliefs, their acts. You have to distinguish between all of these things especially when their acts are disobedient and they hate God. I can love everything except for the hate they have in their heart for Jesus and Muhammad (for a Jew) and except for their hate of Muhammad and the concept of God without partners (for a Christian). This is something that is an ongoing act in each of their hearts, and it manifests itself outwardly. I mean you spend your days on a forum cursing Muhammad (pbuh) and God, may God forgive you for your obliviousness. But I don't find any traces of oppression in their history. Even with Omar you frown about the idea that Omar told non-Muslims to keep their gates open for travelers to pass through, of COURSE they should do that, and Muslims should too, that's a given. Should you chase people out of a temple if they are using it for money trading? You sometimes forget that nobody has the right to infringe on God because nobody is above him. Also, the Christians and Jews of Omar's time were told to wear different clothing so that they could be identified for the purposes of paying Jizya. Nobody ever changed their religion over having to wear different colors. Well you better hope that the hadiths you read and on which you base your dislike are authentic hadiths. It would be a shame if you rejected the Prophet of God for something 1) God commanded him to do, or gave him leave to do or 2) was a forgery that attributed something to him that he never did. That's a scary thought that someone could be misled into either option. Bro, you're trapping yourself in misguidance, but I've done my part. If you are sincere, you'll read it. If you are insincere, you'll reject it before even reading it. You trust a 17th century French Christian man writing about Muhammad than a Muslim writing about him. This is a former Jew speaking about him: http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/ http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Why-Belie ... hammad.htm Then allow me to suggest this site, it will change your mind about evolution. www.darwinismrefuted.com Once more, the verse doesn't refer to Jews of Muhammad's (pbuh) time, it refers to a group of Jews in history, yes even a small sect, and of COURSE they would be heretical. Also, Jews are not the most reliable in retelling their own history. Go read what the Talmud says about Jesus (pbuh), it calls the Messiah some of the lowest things I've ever heard, do you think it will openly record that some Jews called Ezra the "son of God"? I quoted that to show you how God is spoken of in the 3rd person in the 10 commandments. It's strange to you because it's the first time you've read the direct words of God. Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew only in the sense that he followed Moses' (pbuh) true message and laws, not a Jew in that he mimicked the practices of the people of his time. Ok then let me ask you, do you even know the content of the poetry that was being recited against the message of God? Do you think it was just humorous rhyme? Sometimes I wonder whether you take the revelation of God seriously. Imagine someone who was trying to distort this message by spreading slanderous poetry. Ok so picture this. Imagine that God Himself directly reveals, and one is sure this is from God, that Jesus (pbuh) had not been crucified but had actually ascended to Heaven to be protected from harm, and that it was only made to appear to everyone that he had been crucified. Would you as a believer then reply to God, "but I saw it with my own eyes, I even prodded him with my spear"? Considering that people were so belligerent that they yelled at the top of their lungs only to drown out the recitation of the Qur'an so that nobody could hear the message, then yes, I think slanderous poems were meant to be really hurtful. Who said Saudi Arabia's government represented Islam in practice? Do I look at the Bible belt and find places where gays were tied to white picket fences and beaten to death and then coyly ask "is this what Christianity is?" Or do I look at the legalization of pornography and prostitution in Europe and call THAT "Christianity". Now I don't know why Christians were beheaded, but that depends on whether it was lawful or unlawful, for what they were convicted…murder, drug trafficking, etc. You make it seem like they were beheaded for the shear fact that they are Christian. High-five, bro. Check this out: www.darwinismrefuted.com But that's exactly it, you can't be sure except from revelation or authenticated texts. Does the fact that Jesus (pbuh) was one of the best men in manners, or that he fasted for days on end, affect you theologically? No, it just proves even moreso that he was a man sent from God. But other alleged events in the Bible DO affect your view of theology, and in that way does the Bible mix truths with half-truths. Bro, you don't need to look elsewhere in the Bible to find where "we" is used as a form of royalty or kingship, "we" as a pronoun, regardless of where it is used or how it is used, is known as a majestic pronoun, it's a function of language, not of the context. Look up "Majestic plural" or the "imperial 'we'" Here, you can even read stuff like this: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/usandour.htm Peace bros |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame