Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: CHRISTIANS:WOULD YOU KILL A SUCKLING? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 19 Next >>
Author Message
Caringheart
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2191
Quote Caringheart Replybullet Posted: 28 December 2012 at 8:28pm
Just got done watching a program which talked about how the book of 1 Samuel from the talmud was more of the epic hero tale, embellished for effect.
While the same story is told in a much different way in the book of Judges.

We're all connected to our tainted pasts.  The point is whether or not we evolve.
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 29 December 2012 at 5:35am
Hi Mahdi,

Quote: Using this ridiculous logic, then every child should be killed.

Response: --- Then why are you using it?
placid , you are the one using that line of reasoning

Response: --- Not quite right. --- I have said that children who die an untimely death, before the age of accountability, --- that God takes them unto Himself. God is Merciful.

--- In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the innocent children and true believers who were destroyed in God’s judgment on that sinful society, would be saved. --- God is the Righteous Judge of us all.

To kill children as Islam suggests, so that they could go to heaven, would cause the murderer to condemn himself to hell, would it not?

God’s plan for children is to grow up in a family with loving parents, brothers and sisters. --- The Scripture says, “Train a child up in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.”


Placid

IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 29 December 2012 at 8:47am
Hi Islam,

Quote: Perhaps you can explain why in Titus 2:13, Paul referred to Jesus as "the great god and savior":
12 "It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:12-14)

Response: --- It doesn’t matter how you want to view this one verse, Titus 2:13, --- because you have to understand that Jesus always represented God on earth. (You don’t have to believe it, but your disagreement is with God, and His word.)
--- Remember when Thomas, the doubter, was totally convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, he said, “My Lord and My God.” --- And Jesus dis not rebuke him, did He? --- And why not? --- The Risen Jesus was not God, was He?

To go back to the beginning, the Sign from Isaiah said, “A virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and you shall call His name Immanuel.”
In Matthew 1:23 this prophecy was fulfilled and it says the name ‘Immanuel’ means, “God with us.”
So God was ‘with us’ in the Person of Jesus.

--- John said in 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word.” --- (The Word, Logos, was the creative power of God.)
--- “And the Word was with God.” --- (That means that God was there first, for the Word to be with Him.)
--- “And the Word was God.” --- (The Word ‘Manifested God’ in the world)
--- “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1:14. --- (The Word took on the form of flesh in the Person of Jesus.)

--- Jesus did not have a human father, but He had a human body, and Divine Spirit. (So really, God was His Father, in that God brought Him into Being.)
--- But Jesus was not God, nor another God --- but Jesus came as a Servant of God, to do God’s will, and not His own. --- But He came as a Servant, and the name Jesus means Savior. --- The name Christ means Messiah. --- And He was the Redeemer that God sent to reconcile sinners to Himself through Faith, repentance, and obedience. --- And it says in 2 Corinthians 5:
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,

--- And Jesus gave the Great Commission to the Apostles, in Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
--- (Notice, it says, “Baptizing them in the NAME of.” --- It doesn’t say, ‘In the NAMES of’ --- as though there were three, --- but just in the NAME of One God.)

It might have been less confusing for the ‘trinitarians’ if it had just said, “Baptizing them in the Name of God.” --- However, the NAME involves God, and the Word which indwelt Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, the giver of life. ---John said this plainly in 1 John 5:
7 “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father (God), the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”
    
--- And again in Surah 4:171, ‘Jesus, the Messiah, was the Messenger of God, --- and His Word (that He conveyed into Mary), --- and His Spirit. --- But don’t say “Three,” --- God is only One God.’

And to give a conclusion to the authority of Jesus we read this in 1 Corinthians 15:
24 Then comes the end, when He (Jesus) delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27 For “He has put all things under His feet.”
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him (God) who put all things under Him, THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.

(Jesus still has 'All Authority,' and Titus 2:13 ‘reflects’ that, --- so, a little more later.)


Placid

IP IP Logged
bunter
Male 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 March 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 123
Quote bunter Replybullet Posted: 29 December 2012 at 10:03am
 
Posted by Islamispeace - You have got to be one of the touchiest people I have ever met.  What's wrong with using a little humor and sarcasm in a conversation?  Is it my fault that you get insulted so easily?

Here again it's all my fault, you cannot be in the wrong. By using insulting language you invalidate you arguments, such as they are, because such methods amount to a fallacy of the kind called "Ad Hominem" where you attack people not their arguments. But I shall say nothing more because I fear it will just be a waste of time with you.

Islampeace - No, this is your own version of "history".  Also, if it is indeed authentic history, it remains to be proven whether the Israelites just killed everyone because they wanted to and could OR whether they were only following God's command. It is only as "historical" as Hitler's claim that he was chosen to do the work of "Divine Providence".  We know that Hitler killed millions of people but we don't actually buy his claim that he was only doing God's work, do we?

This just shows the absolute paucity of your answers. You quote the historical event as found in 1 Samuel 15 as your only argument and then deny it is history - notice, without any foundation YOU decide it is not true. I ask you why would the Jews, as you allege, corrupt their own scriptures by adding this story if it were not true - you have no answer and fallback on your usual line that YOU decided it has been corrupted - no you are not interested in truth unless it's your truth.

Next, I am not approving the killing of babies, I am saying, and have said repeatedly, I accept it as history but cannot explain it or attempt to justify it, it is as we say closed off. You on the other hand simply accept eternal punishment of the worst kind by deciding those who get it deserve it and think no more about it. In fact you contradict yourself by saying: "I feel sad that all unbelievers will go to Hell, ...... but I do not feel sad that only those who deserve this punishment will go there.". All you seem to be able to say is what YOU have decided is true. May I ask you do innocent babies die everyday? Does God will this or allow it, by your arguments a loving compassionate God would not do this would he? The point is, do you not see that these questions are far more difficult to deal with once we move away from the single issue you are using. 

You quote Salman al-Oadah but where does he get this information from about this test? Suppose I take you line with al-Isrâ’: 15 and decide that God would not say that? I any case, taking the two ideas together leads to a contradiction since if Allah always sends a messenger there is no need for the test. How desperate can you get.

Just to cover some of your points - you say Rabbis allowed killing of children but you do not know the context do you, I doubt you have even thought or care about it. The facts are that the question ONLY arose because Palestinians used children as suicide bombers - do you approve of that? Do you know that HAMAS obtained a legal ruling about what a female suicide bomber should wear - how sick is that when suicide bombers deliberately target innocent women and children?

I don't approve of any massacres of any one by anyone. But Muslims have committed many massacres starting in medina. Moreover, Palestinian spokespersons blatantly exaggerate the number of victims, as they did following the fighting in Jenin in 2002. Palestinians claimed Israel had “massacred” 3,000 civilians, this was quickly reduced to 500 and eventually, the UN secretary general found the total number of Palestinians kllled to be 52, many of whom were armed combatants.  

You also get muddled, I accept the verse in 1 Samuel 5 is historical fact but these verses are not NOT a general command for all time whereas marrying up to 4 wives and having concubines is - can you see this simple distinction? 

See, with these kinds of ignorant rants, you expose yourself as a biased individual!  Where did you get this information from?  Was it an Islamic source or was it some brainless anti-Muslim website run by a pseudo-scholar with no knowledge of Islam?  Do tell.

It is sadly your bias and obsessions that are exposed. You obviously and erroneously think that all criticism of Islam is brainless ignorant rants. With regard to your prophet and assassinations it's it easy to find the details - but may I suggest YOU research out these 4 from many cases:

The Case of Uqba bin Abu Mu’ayt - when you look this one up try to find out what your prophet said when Abu Mu'ayt pleaded for his children.
The Case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf
The Case of Ibn Sunayna 
The Case of Mirba bin Qayzi

Edited by bunter - 29 December 2012 at 10:10am
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2165
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 31 December 2012 at 12:42pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Placid

Response: --- It doesn’t matter how you want to view this one verse, Titus 2:13, --- because you have to understand that Jesus always represented God on earth. (You don’t have to believe it, but your disagreement is with God, and His word.)
--- Remember when Thomas, the doubter, was totally convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, he said, “My Lord and My God.” --- And Jesus dis not rebuke him, did He? --- And why not? --- The Risen Jesus was not God, was He?


Oh, come on Placid!  You make me wait all this time for an explanation of Titus 2:13, and when you finally response, you completely ignore Titus 2:13!

Why did Paul refer to Jesus as the "great god and savior"?  He clearly worshiped him as "God".  Yet, you insist that Jesus was not God (I agree with you, of course).  The point is how do you reconcile the inconsistency of the New Testament regarding Jesus (pbuh) and your own beliefs about him?

Originally posted by Placid

To go back to the beginning, the Sign from Isaiah said, “A virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and you shall call His name Immanuel.”
In Matthew 1:23 this prophecy was fulfilled and it says the name ‘Immanuel’ means, “God with us.”
So God was ‘with us’ in the Person of Jesus.


Jesus (pbuh) was never referred to by the name "Immanuel".  Yet, Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that the name of the child will be "Immanuel" (not Jesus).  How can this apply to Jesus?

Originally posted by Placid

-- Jesus did not have a human father, but He had a human body, and Divine Spirit. (So really, God was His Father, in that God brought Him into Being.)
--- But Jesus was not God, nor another God --- but Jesus came as a Servant of God, to do God’s will, and not His own. --- But He came as a Servant, and the name Jesus means Savior. --- The name Christ means Messiah. --- And He was the Redeemer that God sent to reconcile sinners to Himself through Faith, repentance, and obedience. --- And it says in 2 Corinthians 5:
18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,


None of this explains why Paul referred to Jesus as the "great god and savior".  By referring to other NT verses, you are only demonstrating what I already have pointed out...that the Bible is incredibly inconsistent. 

By the way, I already pointed out before that the name "Jesus" does not mean "savior".  I don't know where you are getting this from.  It actually means "God saves" or "Yahweh saves".  Put another way, it means "The Lord is Salvation" [1]

Originally posted by Placid

It might have been less confusing for the ‘trinitarians’ if it had just said, “Baptizing them in the Name of God.” --- However, the NAME involves God, and the Word which indwelt Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, the giver of life. ---John said this plainly in 1 John 5:
7 “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father (God), the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”


Your appeal to this verse is bizarre given that it clearly refers to the trinitarian doctrine.  Of course, appealing to this verse in defense of the trinity is in itself a problem given that no Greek manuscripts have this wording.  As Ehrman points out:

"...Erasmus did not find it in his Greek manuscripts, which instead simply read: 'There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.'  Where did the 'Father, the Word, and the Spirit' go?  They were not in Erasmus's primary manuscript, or in any of the other that he consulted, and so, naturally, he left them out of his first edition of the Greek text." ("Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", p. 81)

So, this verse is actually not the smoking gun the trinitarians have hoped for.  However, if we consider that the verse makes no mention of "Father, word and Holy Spirit", then your appeal to it makes no sense, either.

Originally posted by Placid

And again in Surah 4:171, ‘Jesus, the Messiah, was the Messenger of God, --- and His Word (that He conveyed into Mary), --- and His Spirit. --- But don’t say “Three,” --- God is only One God.’


And again:

"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was." (3:59)

I think it is advisable for you to leave the Quran to Muslims, because your cherry-picking of Quranic verses do not help your case.

Jesus (pbuh) was created, just like Adam (pbuh).  In fact, the whole universe was created the same way:

"It is He who created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): the day He saith, "Be," behold! it is. His word is the truth. His will be the dominion the day the trumpet will be blown. He knoweth the unseen as well as that which is open. For He is the Wise, well acquainted (with all things)." (6:73)

Originally posted by Placid

And to give a conclusion to the authority of Jesus we read this in 1 Corinthians 15:
24 Then comes the end, when He (Jesus) delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27 For “He has put all things under His feet.”
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him (God) who put all things under Him, THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.

(Jesus still has 'All Authority,' and Titus 2:13 ‘reflects’ that, --- so, a little more later.)


Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus (pbuh) as "great god and savior".  That is a far cry from saying "Jesus has...all authority".  Paul worshiped Jesus as "God" yet the 1st commandment states that "you shall have no other gods before me."  In the Quran, Jesus (pbuh) reiterated this fundamental tenet:

"They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help." (5:72)  

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2165
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 31 December 2012 at 2:54pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Bunter

Here again it's all my fault, you cannot be in the wrong. By using insulting language you invalidate you arguments, such as they are, because such methods amount to a fallacy of the kind called "Ad Hominem" where you attack people not their arguments. But I shall say nothing more because I fear it will just be a waste of time with you.


Sweetheart, I have "attacked" your arguments.  How then can I be committing an ad hominem fallacy?  It's not my fault that you get insulted every two seconds.  Get over yourself, please. LOL

Originally posted by Bunter

This just shows the absolute paucity of your answers. You quote the historical event as found in 1 Samuel 15 as your only argument and then deny it is history - notice, without any foundation YOU decide it is not true. I ask you why would the Jews, as you allege, corrupt their own scriptures by adding this story if it were not true - you have no answer and fallback on your usual line that YOU decided it has been corrupted - no you are not interested in truth unless it's your truth.
 

Have you been paying attention?  Re-read what I wrote:

"No, this is your own version of "history".  Also, if it is indeed authentic history, it remains to be proven whether the Israelites just killed everyone because they wanted to and could OR whether they were only following God's command

It is only as "historical" as Hitler's claim that he was chosen to do the work of "Divine Providence".  We know that Hitler killed millions of people but we don't actually buy his claim that he was only doing God's work, do we?"


I stated that if the events in question are indeed historically accurate, it still remains to be proven whether the order to kill every living thing actually came from God OR if the Israelites killed everyone themselves.  I point this out because God said prior to these events:

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

How interesting it is that, on the one hand, God says do not commit murder and then on the other hand, He says "kill everything". 

I also pointed out that it is possible that the Jews simply put these stories into the text to scare their enemies.  However, I also stated that it is absurd to ask what was going on in the minds of people who lived thousands of years ago:

"Obviously, the people who put these verses into the text could have done so for many reasons, including to scare their enemies.  I don't know the exact reason and it is absurd of you to ask what was going on in the minds of people who lived thousands of years ago."

Originally posted by Bunter

Next, I am not approving the killing of babies, I am saying, and have said repeatedly, I accept it as history but cannot explain it or attempt to justify it, it is as we say closed off


By taking this route, you are indirectly "approving" of it because even if you don't try to "justify" it, you believe that since God ordered it, then you must accept it.  That is the same as "approving" it.  Suppose I said to you that I can't "explain" or "justify" why Hitler killed millions of Jews and others, but I believed his claim that he was carrying out God's will and that I accept it.  How would you react?  Would you be sickened?  Would you not see it as an attempt to excuse genocide?  That is the way I feel about your statement above.

Originally posted by Bunter

You on the other hand simply accept eternal punishment of the worst kind by deciding those who get it deserve it and think no more about it. In fact you contradict yourself by saying: "I feel sad that all unbelievers will go to Hell, ...... but I do not feel sad that only those who deserve this punishment will go there."


Nice to see that you like to misquote people right in front of them.  Here is what I said, and which you hid by using ellipses (did you not think that I would remember what I wrote?):

"I feel sad that all unbelievers will go to Hell, as BOTH the Quran and Bible state, because I would rather they all go to Paradise, but I do not feel sad that only those who deserve this punishment will go there.  It is absolutely absurd to compare this to the killings of the innocent, let alone of babies."


So, to repeat in plain English, I feel sad that all unbelievers will go to Hell because I want everyone to enjoy eternal happiness, but I do not feel sad that only those who deserve eternal punishment will go to Hell.  Do you understand?  I would much rather have everyone just believe and go to Paradise, rather than disbelieve and go to Hell.  But, people have to make this choice for themselves.  Therefore, which ever route they take, the destination will be what they deserved.  So, even though I feel sad that not everyone will be in Paradise, I am comforted by the fact that everyone will get what they deserve.

Originally posted by Bunter

All you seem to be able to say is what YOU have decided is true. May I ask you do innocent babies die everyday? Does God will this or allow it, by your arguments a loving compassionate God would not do this would he? The point is, do you not see that these questions are far more difficult to deal with once we move away from the single issue you are using.


You don't even see the fallacy you are making.  How are these two scenarios the same:

1.  God ordered the Israelites to deliberately kill children and babies.

2.  God causes children and babies to die everyday for various reasons (disease etc.). 

One is a deliberate act of murder at the hands of humans.  The other is God's own act.  If God wants to take a life, that is His will.  But, He doesn't command us to take that life ourselves, does He?  The only time He has allowed us to take a life is during war (while prohibiting killing civilians) or in the pursuit of justice (as in executing a murderer).     

If someone told me that God had commanded him/her to murder children, I would think he was a quack who needs to be in a sanitarium.  On the other hand, if a child or baby died due to natural causes despite the best efforts of all people involved to save him/her, I would say that it was God's will and accept it, because despite our best efforts, the infant still died.   

Originally posted by Bunter

You quote Salman al-Oadah but where does he get this information from about this test? Suppose I take you line with al-Isrâ’: 15 and decide that God would not say that? I any case, taking the two ideas together leads to a contradiction since if Allah always sends a messenger there is no need for the test. How desperate can you get.


LOL Oh, so Sheik Bunter is questioning Shiek al-Oadah? 

If you were to say that "God would not say that", you would have to provide a logical reason as to why you believe that.  Just saying it proves nothing.  When I said that God would not command the killing of infants, I am basing that on the beliefs that God is good and forbids the murder of the innocent, and that killing babies is evil.  Therefore, the command to kill babies could not have been from God.  How would you argue the claim that God would not send messengers before punishing people?

Your other absurd claim that there is a contradiction belies your ignorance as well as lack of attention.  Allah (swt) sends messengers to people who have strayed from the truth.  This could be due to their worship of false gods or committing injustice or other sins.  The verse states that He does not punish these people until He sends them a messenger to warn them that what they are doing is wrong.  If they refuse to reform, then the punishment will come upon them.  That does not mean that a messenger was sent at every instance of time.  Rather, God sent messengers whenever people had become so corrupt that He needed to intervene.  But, if a person lived in a time when a messenger had not yet been sent, he would be tested in the afterlife rather than be punished outright because he had not been warned that what he was doing was wrong.

Originally posted by Bunter

Just to cover some of your points - you say Rabbis allowed killing of children but you do not know the context do you, I doubt you have even thought or care about it. The facts are that the question ONLY arose because Palestinians used children as suicide bombers - do you approve of that? Do you know that HAMAS obtained a legal ruling about what a female suicide bomber should wear - how sick is that when suicide bombers deliberately target innocent women and children?
 

Wow!  You wonder what the "context" was for this sick rabbi's belief that killing children is allowed.  Are you equally interested in the "context" of Hamas' deliberate targeting of women and children?  Hamas sees its actions as being in the interest of liberating Palestine from Israeli occupation and also accuses Israel of deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians:

"The Islamic spirit is what should prevail in every Moslem society. The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.

In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder." [1 - see Article 20]

I am very interested if you think that the "context" of Hamas' terrorist operations are important, as you do with that specimen Manis Friedman. 

If you had bothered to read the article about Friedman, you would see what this monster was saying:

""The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle)..."

The fact that he tried to "clarify" this plain statement only after the backlash it generated is further proof of what he was saying.  In fact, this is how one person describes the group to which this rabbi belongs to:

""They are not about loving the Arabs or a two-state solution or any of that stuff. They are fundamentalists. They are our fundamentalists.""

You also expose your own hypocrisy by pointing out "how sick is that when suicide bombers deliberately target innocent women and children", yet at the same time trying to defend the rabbi by claiming that he was only speaking about the "context" of Hamas using children as suicide bombers.  How many Palestinian women and children, do you think, are potential suicide bombers?

This is sickening stuff, Bunter.  Did you really think about this before you wrote it?

Originally posted by Bunter

I don't approve of any massacres of any one by anyone. But Muslims have committed many massacres starting in medina. Moreover, Palestinian spokespersons blatantly exaggerate the number of victims, as they did following the fighting in Jenin in 2002. Palestinians claimed Israel had “massacred” 3,000 civilians, this was quickly reduced to 500 and eventually, the UN secretary general found the total number of Palestinians kllled to be 52, many of whom were armed combatants.


Have you forgotten "Operation Cast Lead" in 2008?  According to a UN report:

"[The report ] concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel…" [2]

You are starting to sound like a typical Christian fundamentalist apologist for Israel.  You believe that Israel is the victim and that Palestinians are the real aggressors.  I have a Christian friend who has been to the West Bank who would disagree with you.

Originally posted by Bunter

You also get muddled, I accept the verse in 1 Samuel 5 is historical fact but these verses are not NOT a general command for all time whereas marrying up to 4 wives and having concubines is - can you see this simple distinction?
  

LOL "Simple distinction"?  You would love to make it so "simple", wouldn't you?  The fact is that:

1.  I never said that Christians believe the commands of genocide are "for all time" (though "Rabbi" Friedman disagrees, it seems...), and,

2.  Comparing genocide to polygamy is a desperate and laughable attempt by you.

Regardless of your beliefs regarding polygamy, how is it even remotely comparable to genocide, albeit genocide confined to a certain time period?  You have yet to explain this bizarre comparison.  I wonder why...

Originally posted by Bunter

It is sadly your bias and obsessions that are exposed. You obviously and erroneously think that all criticism of Islam is brainless ignorant rants. With regard to your prophet and assassinations it's it easy to find the details - but may I suggest YOU research out these 4 from many cases:

The Case of Uqba bin Abu Mu’ayt - when you look this one up try to find out what your prophet said when Abu Mu'ayt pleaded for his children.
The Case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf
The Case of Ibn Sunayna 
The Case of Mirba bin Qayzi


It's hilarious but expected how you gave me examples of assassinations but did not name your sources!  I wonder why...Ermm  Unfortunately for you, I know exactly where you picked up this "information" from.  Does the name "David Wood" mean anything to you? Wink

The reason I asked you what your source is for this information is because many of these stories are found in Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat al-RasulAllah", which is unanimously regarded by Islamic scholars as being unreliable and based on weak or even fabricated narrations.  Brainless anti-Muslim websites cherry-pick these stories and assume that they are based on historical facts.  In the process, gullible and ignorant non-Muslims such as yourself accept these assessments without bothering to check authentic Islamic sources for the real truth.

Here are some articles on these assassinations:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/dead_poets_rebuttal.htm

http://islamicresponse.blogspot.com/2008/07/allegation-that-muhammad-killed-ibn.html

  
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-ii/

I was suspicious about where you get your "information" on Islam from (as experience has taught me), and you certainly did not disappoint!

And once again...you did not answer my question:

Are you pro-life or pro-choice?  Why do you keep ignoring this question?
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Webber
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128
Quote Webber Replybullet Posted: 31 December 2012 at 8:02pm
LOL@ 16 pages of contempt for Christians not giving the "right" answers.
 
As for Titus 2:13, read the King James version, or earlier.
IMHO English translations/transliterations since then have added the beliefs of the "scholar" through subtle changes and punctuation. I won't even argue NIV and this verse is one of the reasons why.
 
Go ahead, read the verse in the KJV and tell me if it reads the same.
Now you know Paul was not a trinitarian.
 
Just wondering...
Genocide. Is it really evil to kill babies? Does the Quran say so? I don't want any "It is recorded that..." The Quran is your divine book. If you don't find it then it is only your opinion, regardless of how many agree with you.
 
Nothing wrong with humanitarian views, and it's obvious we all have them now but it's hardly fair to force humanitarians into justifying genocide thousands of years ago.
 
Idol worshippers had how many laws? Where was their morality? If they were a nation with aides what use would it be to preserve the children? Were those "poor" oxen and donkeys the subject of their worship?
 
Rather than taking it upon yourselves to decide God would never do such a thing, how about why would God do it? Problem is, there is no explanation given. Does not mean there wasn't one.
 
BTW, the Bible does not glorify genocide, it records it.
 
Muslims say it's an honour to die in the service of Allah. Allah says C4 and ball bearings is not what I had in mind.
 
 
 
 
 
 
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 01 January 2013 at 7:47am
(To continue from above):

(Jesus is still in authority and Titus 2:13 ‘reflects’ that, --- so, a little more on Titus 2):

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,

13 "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"

14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Response: --- This portion of Scripture is good Christian teaching,
11 --- the grace of God --- brings salvation for all believers.
12 --- to live soberly, righteously, and godly lives.
13 --- looking forward to the ‘BLESSED HOPE’ which is, ‘a sure thing that hasn’t happened yet.’ --- You see, this is the 'assurance of salvation'.
--- Jesus was God’s Representative all the time He was on earth, and the ‘appearance’ of Jesus will be when we are joined with Him, either in physical death, --- or when He returns.

14 (Is a continuation of 13 so it could read as follows): Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us.

--- (It is interesting to note that God cannot be seen, so the "reappearing" of Jesus will represent the 'appearing' of God.
Jesus said in John 14:9 "He who has seen Me has seen My Father." --- And again, "I and my Father are One."
--- Paul did not worship Jesus but like other Christians worshipped God 'through' Jesus Christ the Savior.
---Notice: in Titus 1:3, and 2:10, Paul says "God our Savior." --- Jesus left His earthly body behind when He ascended to God. Salvation is of God, but was revealed to mankind, THROUGH Jesus, the Christ.)

--- At diferent times Jesus was worshiped as the Manifestation or Representative of God on earth, which was natural to some, because in worshiping Jesus, they were worshiping God. --- You see, ---JESUS WAS INDWELT BY THE WORD, AND SPIRIT OF GOD, --- SO, JESUS IS FROM GOD, --- NOT 'APART' FROM GOD.

It says that ‘Wisemen’ from the East came to worship the Christ when He was born, in Matthew 2:
1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,
2 saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

--- The “Star” was the “Sign” to the Wisemen, that Christ, the King of the Jews was born on earth.
Why did they want to worship Him? --- Because he represented God. And this fulfilled the prophecy, that God would send a Messiah. --- Not just a man, but He who called Himself the Son of Man, --- but He was a Unique Person with a human body, who was indwelt by the Word (Logos) of God, and the Holy Spirit of God.

--- And when they found that He was born in Bethlehem, --- they went there:
11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child (Jesus) with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

--- Why did they worship Him? --- Because He was the Savior, Jesus, and the Messiah, Christ. --- He presently is seated on the right hand of the throne of God, and one day He will return to earth, to set up His earthly Kingdom.

Quote: Jesus (pbuh) was never referred to by the name "Immanuel". Yet, Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that the name of the child will be "Immanuel" (not Jesus). How can this apply to Jesus?

Response: --- Immanuel is what the Messiah was --- as it says in Matthew 1:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
--- Because Jesus had a human body and a Divine Spirit from God, He was called “God with us.”

And John goes on to say in John 1:
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

(I have a few more quotes to respond to, which would make this post too long, especially since they are all off topic.)


Placid

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 19 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com