Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumPlease try and convince me otherwise.Let me say that 'the violence' in the bible is at least relative to a certain time, a certain people, a certain place and a certain period in relevation... the things you quote are only followed by the letter by the Jews this day and age and even their revelation up to Malachi has progressed in a peacefull manner, cause nowhere anywhere in the scriptures are they called for war anymore, not anywere... neither is their nowhere NOWHERE in the bible where war is called HOLY. That my friend is property of your quran... unlike how the bible's interpretation, the quran is divine dictatorship... if muhammed repeats war on infidels as an excuse for his campaigns it only shows that this is the main reason why muslims fight and with whom they fight... and if muhammed keeps on calling these wars holy and allah's cause, then it's no wonder muslims go kill everybody who they think is not muslim enough for them to live. And considering the dispiction of violence in the bible compared to the quran... is a unfair analogy. Since the bible does not call upon the use of force anymore if you'd stop picking verses out of their context and didn't ignore the rest of the bible... you'd know that. You're quran on the other hand is a book for all time, for everywhere and for everyone. If it says to fight them whenever you can, then this commandment whenEVER goes for now too. When you compare theologies Islam is the most violent religion on the face of the planet... in word and deeds! I'll have a laugh, and i will ask you the same questions again, untill you are able to answer them. Muslims seem to get stuck when they know other prophets are out their with no prophecy, no miracles and with the same claim as muhammed. you don't want to know the gospel according too? so in a car accident, you rather interview the person who was at fault, then four eye witnesses who saw it happening? Who do you think would make a fairer report? the person who has something to hide? or four people who saw it happen and have nothing to gain or loose with it. The bible is a canonized book of scriptures, and i'm fairly proud of that, that it is... since christians are objective and reasonable we study scriptures, correct and reproof them. Because we do not want to believe in lies. You on the other hand, do not believe in reason and objectiveness... you just believe something is divine because some caliph who compiled it, said it is. Like Saint Thomas of Aquinas said "Beware of the man of one book" You are not rebuting my claim are you, you are just trying to make NT equal to it... well unlike what you are doing, i can proof that 80% of quranic material is copied from christian-jewish folklore. The books of whoever plagiazed them are still in existence. And the NT does not plagiarize the Torah, it doesn't claim that what it writes is only known by the writer himself. In fact Paul was very much aware when he quoted Torah, in the end he was hardline orthodox jew before he was a christian. Neither is there anything in it that indicates direct influence from the cultures you mentioned... these are only found in apocryphal scriptures (syrian, coptic (egyptian), gnostic (greek),...) and are discarded on basis of those similarities with those cultures and it's unknowness with jewish culture (wich the canonized epistles and canons do have!). never taught violence?? go tell that to the decapitated pagans, and the raped females... i bet they are shouting too how great Allah is! as the gospels said Jesus started to get a following that would tear down Israel not even mentioning the legion of angels he had at his command if he wanted... If Jesus would of wanted to make war, he only had to snap a finger... yet he denounced it countless of times and said and prophecied that his sacrifice was neccerary. (and why do you think that was) i doubt it would be for muhammed to accuse the jews of killing prophets. And Jesus teachings were to turn the other cheek, Muhammed teached if they hit you one cheek, destroy them. another one, were you can see, the total opposites of the two: JESUS: - second greatest commandment "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." -- Matthew 22:36-40 MUHAMMED: - second greatest commandment “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.’” -- Bukhari:V1B2N25 You're prophet is a sheep in wolve clothes my friend... Destroying??? it fulfills it! Do we throw away the torah? or still keep it as holy scripture? Tell me what do muslims do with the torah and the bible? they throw it away, and if possible they'd use it as toilet paper, that's how much respect muslims have for the book of the people of the book. And the worship of Jesus as God and the trinity is GOD... if you don't believe in that then you believe in a entire other God then the bible. You're the heresy... not us. You're judgement of calling that wrong is only clouded by your simplistic visions of a perverted prophet who himself couldn't even get his trinity right (what does mary have to do with the trinity?) and you think a man who can't even get the trinity right is able to judge it??? Just like so many things Islam copied from the jews (denial of crucifixion, denial of Jesus being God,...) Muhammed copied from them the hatred for Paul as well. Wich is completly unbiased... and i will say this a thousands times or more untill you get it, Paul was APPOINTED by christ, APROVED by Peter the apostle, and CONFIRMED with the miracles of the holy ghost. Neither is Paul never contradicting with the other Epistel writers like Peter and John. But those weren't a jewish apostate, so the jews have no reasons to hate them i guess... And the trinity is monotheism, their is no pagan concept anywere to be found... the use of the word trinity wasn't even used untill a second century early church father (Tertullianus) wanted to define it. Before that the trinity was merely seen as God, God's Word and God's spirit... and i don't see what their is so dificult to understand about that. I mean the majority of the world population gets it, and you don't? But that doesn't matter, as long as your book says you are a man of understanding must make you so. miracles and muhammed in one breath? that'd be a first Oh the illogical demand of muslims... your scripture answers that it impossible to make a scripture like it. Even if i do my best and give one that is almost an exact resemblance, you'd still say, well it's still isn't like that because you'd always find something to nag about. It's illogical you ask something wich you allready have an answer for. On the net theirs even one Gospel made in quran form if i'm not mistaken. But that wont convince you either i guess. And isn't the demand met allready? Guru Nanak has 22 million of ex-muslim and ex-hindu followers who think his text is more divine than the quran. and Baha'llu'lah has 6 million of ex-muslim followers who think his book is more divine than the quran. 6666 verses, interesting number, don't you think. and it isn't written in perfect rhetoric, it's repetitious and unchronological... it's written in propaganda style not in anything poetic. And i doubt they became overwhelmed by Muhammed's words... muhammed quotes himself thousands of times that he substains islam by force. And it's by force it was spread and by force they kept it from deriving (remember you can kill apostates, that verdict had a reason). And illeteracy is 1. disputable with hadiths and 2. does not proof anything whatsoever. so what muhammed descendancy of Ishmael does not grant him prophethood... manes had at much authority of being a prophet then muhammed. And Manes had a flourishing religion up to the time the four holy caliphates utterly destroyed Persia, burning their books and destroying their temples included. Neither is succes a proof of divinity either. And certainly not according to your beliefs where every country was given a prophet. And Muhammed is being accused of being influenced by Zoroastrism too (remember the miraj, the Houris, Azazel and the sarat bridge) All wich can be found in zoroastrism. And Muhammed was only succesfull because he was a ruthless dictator... Mani was very much succesfull allthou he died a martyr he had a flourishing religion wich became one of the biggest threads of christianity before islam arived. Truth being in numbers is very wrong, Hitler was voted democratcly as well. (Not that i am vouching for Manes as truth, i just wanna show you how relativly weak muhammed his position is compared to others who claimed the same) Well theories go muhammed was poisoned too, and he did come 600 years after Christianity, in a time and a place where over more then hundreds of fairytale's and myths were written about christianty... why do you believe muhammed didn't hop on the same bandwagon as joseph smith?
Like i said two sentences ago, their are indications that muhammed was poisoned. How that? they never saw a book when muhammed was alive? the caliphs made the book after his dead, remember. And they were opressed people who were forced to abandon their beliefs and who were forced to wage war by their newly made emperor. Just like hitler who promised them economical benefits... so did muhammed.
and he had many enemies who wanted him dead, and has had many assassinations attempts against him. It only shows how much they loved him... and being lucky doesn't make you holy either. Hitler also was never killed by assasination and dodged alot of atempts as well. I'm not surprised by that, such battles have occured many times in history wheter that be by alexander the great, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon or shaka zulu doesn't matter. There's no doubt that Muhammed was a great military leader, afterall he had more experience with war then his enemies, his whole climb to the top began with raiding caravans. Then God saved hitler too, all those countless of times... since you don't believe in coincidences, Allah did. I on the other hand do not believe that poor assassination atempts make the target divine. yeah, i know christianity has been critized since it's dawn up untill now, and still is the largest religion in the world, and the bible still the most sold book. And with a bit of luck the west will emerge thousands of critics and apologetics against islam wich it now lacks... Unlike islam who withstanded critique by murdering the people uttering it... it will now have to defend itself... christianity has proved that it is able too. It is a house build on a rock as the bible says... i wonder if Islam will be able too. I very much doubt it, cause islam is a rope that hangs itself. I don't get your point, you just said Jesus is of the same lineage of the people who revealed over more then 2000 years of divine revelation. And then you ask how islam is different?? i hope my question is as much as an answer to you... And this quote goes for alot of prophets not just muhammed... just because for example Charles Taze Russell (founder of jehova's witnessess who made alot of false prophecies) didn't die a violent dead, does that mean Charles Taze Russell is a prophet of God too? A lack of sudden dead is not a indication of a prophet's prophethood... it merely is a promise of God, that they are worth nothing and will not be giving any status whatsoever. But then how can you recognize a prophet? Deuteronomy continues... "You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" Deuteronomy 18:21-22 And this demand is where muhammed fails miserably... he has no prophecies, and the few pseudo-prophecies aserted to muhammed are easily refuted. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits... Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." Matthew 7:15-17 but Ishmaelites were not promised to produce the word or the messiah, only the jews were. Ishmaelites were only promised a giant population... and that's been fulfilled. Manes was succesfull in delivering his message untill the muslims and catholics persected this gigantic threat to the church and islam. (but unlike you who wil vouch for the caliphates actions, i won't do so for what the catholics did) Muhammed's miracles? muhammed claimed himself he didn't have any, except that poor excuse of a book. "Is it not enough of a miracle that we sent down to you this book, being recited to them? This is indeed a mercy and a reminder for people who believe." [29] Acctually Allah said there are no miracles neccerary... except this poor excuse of a book to proof divinity. So all 'newly found' miracles claimed by muslims (number 19's and red star nebula's), are just vain attempts of muslims holding on to straw. In order to have some messianic relevance to the Judo-Christian theology.
Wrong again, they turned their backs to muhammed and didn't even try to bribe him when he didn't want to go on pelgrimage using his original name Abdullah what's his name. And the funny thing is that he acctually gave in to their demands! Great prophet you got their. "Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory." Sura 48:27 - Several problems arose from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. - As one would expect the Muslims were enraged. The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid) - In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year. Muhammed was a despot, and outlaw... he raided caravans and created many enemies. Sure he was a pious man, but he was criminal at heart and collected his early followers with the promise of booty they knew muhammed could give them. funny, and to think that everyone who came into close contact with jesus immediatly converted and bowed down in worship... Muhammed was ridiculed, humiliated and left behind merely because he was just ranting like a madman. Jesus at least talked the talk and walked the walk. Muhammed was a joke, a contradicting fluke. “‘O Jews, fear Allah and submit, for you used to hope for the Messiah’s help against the Arabs when we were pagans. You told us that he would be sent and then told us about him.’ A Jew responded, ‘Muhammad has not shown us anything we recognize as prophetic. He is not the one we spoke to you about.’ So Allah revealed, ‘We confirmed what they had, and We sent one they recognized, but they rejected him so We are cursing them.’ The Jews replied, ‘No Covenant was ever made with us about Muhammad.’” “‘Muhammad, you have not brought anything we recognize. And God has not sent down any sign or miracle suggesting that we should believe you.’ So Allah said, ‘We have sent down to you plain signs and only evildoers disbelieve them.’” -- Ishaq:257 Nice going muhammed, if they don't believe you, you can always insult them. Jesus on the other hand, was always open for discussions with the dissbelievers. He lived like a rich man in palaces with concubines and over more then nine women including a pre pubescent child. To satisfy his perverted needs. The only thing muhammed was capable of spreading were deserts painted red by the blood of all the people he commanded to slay. Those who didn't want to pay or submit had to die. They never had a choice.
Again you are not denying that the quran waged war for money, you're just trying again to level the bible with your quran by quoting dated revelations... wich were only for one time, one situation and one country... unlike the quran wich is for all time, all situations and all countries. Neither like Liberate said before where these commandments fulfilled to it's full extent... the overal concept of the OT is that man is fallible and cannot live up to God's expectations. This is a proof of it too, since the tribes mentioned reoccur many times after this, and the spoils were only granted for the wars waged with them. Like i said before the bible has contexts that's why it's harmless and why the quran is dangerous. I sincerly doubt, freeing Hebrew slaves in the midst of Egyptians glorious empire by leeding them into a desert, can hardly be called a apealing message... unless that old man could proof that he had a force with him that could defy the Egyptian empire... i doubt anyone would of followed him. Neither did i ever hear Jesus mentioning the promise of money and women. And most of all, nowhere in the bible, nowhere! is war mentioned as holy. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame