Categories: Christianity, Islam, Islamophobia, Judaism, Silly
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Categories: Christianity, Islam, Islamophobia, Judaism, Silly
Blogging Theology 
A very detailed and excellent analysis of the Rise of Islam and the historical background of Christianity in the north (today’s Jordan and N. Arabia) and the south (Najran, Yemen)
“The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment” by Richard Bell
“FROM one point of view the triumph of Islam in the East in the seventh century A.D. may be regarded as the judgement of history upon a degenerate Christianity. The degeneration of the Church may be said to have begun in the fourth century. The seeds of it were present earlier, but they could not well develop in a persecuted Church. When the Church was freed from the danger of persecution by the accession of Constantine, they began to develop rapidly. To my mind the evil was not, as is often held, the alliance of the Church with the State, or at any rate not that in itself. True, the fact that Christianity became then the recognised and prevailing religion, brought worldliness into the Church.”
page 1
“In a way the existence of a Christian Church here belongs to the Christian encirclement of Arabia rather than to the history of Christianity in Arabia itself.” page 33
The neglect of the inner part of Arabia and lack of translation of the Bible into Arabic was a problem. The Church of the time failed to do proper evangelism and outreach to the Arabs, combined with heresies, nominalism, and internal fighting, God judged the churches of the time by allowing Islam to come into existence and conquer many parts of the churches in the Middle East and North Africa.
http://www.muhammadanism.org/bell/origin/p000vi.htm
LikeLike
“True, the fact that Christianity became then the recognized and prevailing religion, brought worldliness into the Church. That would probably have happened apart from any relation to the State so soon as Christianity ceased to be persecuted as such, and by its own success became fashionable. It is true too that ultimately the alliance of Church and State became so close that the bishops and other high dignitaries of the Church became, in a manner, State officials. So much was the Church a part of the Roman Empire, that the acceptance of Christianity was regarded as a sign of subservience to the latter. That fact is not without its significance in trying to realize conditions in Arabia in the time of Muhammad. It helps to explain the readiness with which even Christian Arabs accepted an independent Arabian prophet. It also no doubt played a part in forming Muhammad’s ideas of what religion was. If we sometimes feel ourselves brought up with a shock against the fact that Islam is apparently incurably political, is, as we say, not only a religion but a state, we must remember that that was what Muhammad saw in Christianity [at the time] , and also what he gathered from the Old Testament.”
Ibid, Richard Bell, page 2. My comment in brackets added.
LikeLike
A point which is often missed by those who see Jesus as nothing more than a symbol of whatever beliefs they have that need justifying in a commonly accepted narrative. Such tend to forget that Jesus was a man who lived in a certain time and place, was connected to a people and their religion. His words spring from this reality, they can only be truly understood with that lens.
Jesus is a man, not some piece of art that you can interpret in any which way you want to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A second reason of the demise of the church in N. Africa was the failure to give the Scriptures to the people in their own language. They were available in Latin, but no translations were ever made into the language of the Punic people or the Berbers.” (J. Herbert Kane, A Global View of Christian Missions, page 52) The third reason was emphasizing the truth without the love and power to go with it: “Moreover, theological controversies had sapped the energies of the church. Before the time of Augustine, the church had been racked by the Donatist controversy. Theologians, instead of closing their ranks and presenting a united front to the common enemy, were pre-occupied with fratricidal warfare. They were more interested in defending the purity of the gospel than in demonstrating its power.” Of course, the church must do both, defend the purity of the gospel and demonstrate its power by loving our enemies and living holy lives.
This does not mean that the early church counsels over doctrinal issues were not important; indeed they are very foundational to historic Christianity. The doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ are non-negotiable. The Trinity is biblical and truth. The Deity of Christ, and the humanity of Christ are precious truths that make Christianity what it is. We don’t have a gospel to share without sound doctrine.
Church history shows us the need to do both, apologetics and reach out in love: “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) and do what Jude exhorts, “contend earnestly for the faith . . .” and “keep yourself in the love of God”. (Jude 3, 21) One pastor that I spoke to about this problem, summed up this historical issue well: “The gifts of teaching and accuracy must be balanced and applied with the gifts of mercy and love.”
George Houssney, an Arabic Christian, writing about the kind of Christianity that Mohammed encountered, concludes, “The Christians of the Arabian Peninsula were therefore heretical on the eve of the rise of Islam.” So, the first Early Church counsels were important to the historic development of the nature and Deity of Christ, the Trinity, and guarding against the heresies of Arianism, Apollonarianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Nestorianism, they were also the stimulation for more heresy, because the church in Rome and Constantinople excommunicated heretics without the accompanying qualities of love, evangelism, missions and a contextualized approach to the unreached peoples on the frontiers of the Roman Empire.
In actuality, the Nestorius controversy was more political and personal than theological. Nestorius himself was probably more orthodox than many of the “Orthodox”. Nestorius has been greatly misunderstood he was branded as a heretic and exiled to the fringes of the Roman Empire. However, archeology later discovered his final apologetic in a work he wrote in exile entitled The Bazaar of Heracleides, in which he agrees with the orthodox doctrine and Pope Leoís treatise and the results of a later council, the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD. Moffat writes: “Judged by his own words at last, Nestorius is revealed as not so much “Nestorian” and more orthodox than his opponents gave him credit for. . . At no time did he deny the deity of Christ, as was charged against him.”
The problem was that there was so much mis-understanding over the phrase, “the Mother of God” (Greek- theokokos, literally, “the God-bearing one”), that many of the followers of Nestorius and others were over-reacting to this phrase because it seemed to say that Jesus became deity in the womb of Mary or at birth, rather than His Diving nature being pre-existant from all eternity. Nestorius preferred the term “Mother of Christ”, because he felt the theotokos (Mother of God) denied the humanity of Christ, and elevated the status of Mary, which as we see in Church History, on a practical level, Mary has been elevated over the years to where her honor (hyper-dulia) is official Roman Catholic Doctrine in her Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, (she is without original sin), and her bodily assumption to heaven.
On a practical level and popular piety level, Mary is called “Co-Redemptrix” with Christ by many and is one of many mediators in the Roman Catholic Church, although official doctrine says she is not deity and is not to be worshipped (latria), which is only due to God. Mohammed and the Muslims misunderstood both the elevation of Mary and the term “Mother of God” and was probably influenced by the teachings of the Nestorian churches who were around long after Nestorius died. Nazir-Ali describes the relationship of Nestorian church teaching and the formulation of the doctrine of Jesus in the Quran and Islam : “Jesus is fully and only human through the Divine Word and Spirit dwelling in him, Mary is not the Mother of God or even of the Word since this pre-existed her and was cast upon her. The human Jesus, then is produced directly by God’s creative Word or Logos, He is not a son acquired by God but is brought into existence in the virgin’s womb by the direct action of the divine word, “Be!”. In the Quran, the explanation for Jesus’ virgin birth is by the command of Allah, “Be, and it became”. (see the Quran, Surah “The Family of Imran” 3:45-47, 59)
Geoffery Parrinder in his book, Jesus in the Qur’an, shows that much of the denial of orthodox Christian doctrine was actually a rejection of heretical doctrines that existed in the eastern Chalcedonian churches (Byzantine Churches that agreed with the council of Chalcedon of 451 AD), Monophysite, and Nestorian churches in the Arabian peninsula. Because the doctrine of the Trinity is impossible to completely comprehend, (although we apprehend the truth of the doctrine by faith in the Scriptural data), it is easy to see how the Arabs and Mohammed mis-understood Christianity, especially if they saw pictures and statues to Mary and people praying to her or lighting candles and saying the phrase, “the Mother of the God”.
LikeLike
are you doing a cut and paste job like Sam?
Shame you did not address the issues in my post. Just doing your own thing..
LikeLike
You mean Jesus wasn’t an American patriot?!
LikeLike
Lol, we better let the Trump supporters know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Those quotes are some analysis for the rise of Islam. (in the Middle East – rose in Arabic and conquered Middle East and N. Africa, unjustly through aggressive wars.)
Islam got all of what is right in it from Judaism (Monotheism, basic ten commandments kind of morality; yet an externalistic Pharisaical understanding of law), and Christianity (honoring Jesus as a prophet, virgin birth, calling Jesus “the Word”; yet not understanding fully those things), and twisted and distorted the truth to create a new false religion. (aggressive unjust wars and conquering others, injustices toward women, lack of focus on the sinful heart and internal sins, exceptions to rules for Muhammad himself; denial of truths of the Deity of Christ, the Cross, the resurrection, the Trinity; denial of grace and faith alone for salvation; works righteousness and yet no assurance; only dying in Jihad gives assurance)
LikeLike
What I find interesting about you Ken, is that you have spent years talking to Muslims yet you still do not understand the basics of Islam. Truly stupendous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you claim you were once a Christian, and yet choose to reject God’s truth and love and aggressively speak against the truth.
LikeLike
Yawn. You have said the same thing over and over again Ken, your words are from Satan.
LikeLike
sorry for typo
Arose in Arabia
LikeLike
Doesn’t it bother you that Muhammad desired Zaynad, and after Zayd divorced her, took her as his wife, got a private revelation to justify it; and then abolished all adoption, one of the most compassionate acts known about in civilizations and history toward orphans?
That should bother you.
LikeLike
Nope it does not. Does it bother you that your God ordered the slaughter of innocent women children and babies?
LikeLike
You say the same things over and over again all the time; most of your articles are repeats of attacks on the Bible and Christianity, just put into different words and forms and pictures/memes.
You say the same things.
It is truly sad that that and other parts of Islam don’t bother you.
One man’s claim of revelation and then getting all sorts of exceptions through private revelation for himself should bother you.
LikeLike
It doesn’t bother me in the slightest Ken. Now tell me what crime did the children and babies commit that Jesus told the Jews to kill them?
It should bother you.
LikeLike
God gave the Canaanites and Amorites and other pagan tribes in the promised land over 400 years to repent, before Israel was commanded to go in and drive them out of the promised land.
Genesis 15:13-18
Book of Joshua
13 God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.
14 But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
16 Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.”
17 It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying,
“To your descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite
20 and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim
21 and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”
Those tribes were not innocent; they had degenerated into the worst kinds of paganism and sexual perversions (in front of everyone in their religious ceremonies) and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were also Canaanite cities.)
The judgment on the Amalakites in 1 Samuel 15 is an extension of that same justice.
But the rest of OT and NT never gives any justification for that kind of action again. It was temporary and only for that time.
Jesus took the Kingdom of God away from the Jews (Matthew 21:43-46)
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the Zaynad incident bother you?
Explain why it was good and Justify it.
It has no moral grounds to stand on.
LikeLike
Zaynab
LikeLike
Ken- just google your questions – there are plenty of good answers on Muslim websites for you to read.
Now tell me what precisely was the crime/sin committed by the babies and children that Jesus order them to be slaughtered.
Explain why it was good and justify it.
LikeLike
Just google it and read conservative Christian’s answers for it; plus I already explained it. All are sinners anyway. Nobody does that anymore, except some Muslims (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) – why do those guys do that kind of thing today? They use texts from Qur’an and Hadith and Tafsirs, etc. They may twist them, but they are the problem in the world today.
No Christians do that. The NT never gives justification for that kind of thing. It was temporary for Israel in the OT.
LikeLike
So you will not explain why your god (Jesus) order the king of children. And yes I have looked on line. All I find is Christian justifications for genocide. Sick.
LikeLike
Ken did the Canaanites and Amalakites know they had 400 years to repent? and did they know they were doing wrong for them to be without excuses?
Besides you still haven’t told us why the children, babies, and cattle are to blame? what did the cows do wrong to deserve divine justice? are they sinners as well? are animals sinners by nature and if yes should i evangelise and baptise my cats in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit?
These are important questions Ken as there souls are at stake!
LikeLike
“ignorance of the law is no excuse” trying telling a policeman, “oh, I didn’t know the speed lime was such and such”. no excuse.
LikeLike
I don’t know right now about your dumb questions about the animals. But God holds all human beings accountable for their own sins.
LikeLike
“dumb questions”?!
But Jesus condemned them to death for their sins according to 1 Samuel 15. It is only natural to want to know for what crime “the cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys” were slaughtered. Poor things 😦
LikeLike
Yeah, ok; I should not have said “dumb questions”. I apologize. I don’t know why God ordered the animals killed. I will try and research more. But that Mathias Media article answers a lot of your questions. I recommend the whole article.
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/
LikeLike
That article is truly wicked in its attempts to justify the wholesale slaughter of children and babies. The best the author could muster after what was a very long winded introduction was either that it was reciprosity for the Amalakites’ war tactics (so your God is no better than them effectively) or out of fear that the children would grow up to be hostile to Israel, honestly wouldn’t you blame them for wanting vengeance? The Israelites would have literally murdered their entire family, i would be pretty angry as well.
But honestly i’m not surprised that American fundamentalists would be trying to justify such actions by their God because their country does it all the time, likely using the same excuses. Pitiful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ouch! And well said. It was the Americans who dropped nuclear weapons on civilian populations in Japan. Old Testament god …American foreign policy.
LikeLike
LikeLike
OMG this evil man says its is “right” for God to slaughter women and children!
And Ken has a problem with Islam! lol
LikeLike
Whenever anyone dies, it is not a chance thing; God is sovereign and many children and women die in hurricanes, earthquakes, cancer, etc. Islam actually agrees with this principle of God’s Sovereignty. But the Bible and Christianity have a better answer in that we live in a fallen world, and once sin and evil entered into the world through Adam and Eve’s sin, death, disease, tragedy, suffering, calamities were the result of sin.
LikeLike
Ken the truth is that your God murders men, women, children, babies, cows, sheep, goats, pigeons, turtle-doves, pigs, camels (which as an Arab particularly offends me), donkeys etc etc etc….
There is a big difference between those who die of natural causes and those whose lives are deliberalty ended for no good reason.
When will you understand this point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The authority given to Israel to do such a thing was a temporary thing (Joshua – 1 Samuel), never to be repeated. Apparently, the type of paganism was so degenerate that all out homosexuality, sodomy, beastiality (sex with animals), and child sacrifice was so rampant, that those cultures were irredeemable. But the command was also to drive them out of the promised land. Canaanites continued to live in what is today called Lebanon and God did NOT command the Israelites to attack them there. They fled out of the promised land, showing that they had some semblance of civilization left. They were known as Phoenicians. Those that stayed in the land in their rebellion and corruption and sexual perversion were beyond redemption.
Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel (Matthew 21:33-46).
No one has the authority to do that anymore.
But SOME Muslims are the ones doing that today.
LikeLike
You still don’t get it. Whether it was for that “time” only or not, it was still evil. Your excuses only show the extent of your brainwashing. A normal individual would immediately denounce infanticide, but not you. You make excuses for it. The fruits of Christianity…
By the way, there are SOME Christians who still do this today. Case in point: the LRA in Uganda.
LikeLike
nope; they ( the LRA in Uganda) are not Christians; they are a military cult built on the personality of Joseph Kony.
Islam’s aggressive wars against Persia and Byzantine and beyond were all evil for centuries.
LikeLike
Lol, you are a delusional apologist who defends infanticide and yet accuses Islam of “evil”. The fruits of Christianity…
The LRA wants to establish a Christian state based on the 10 commandments. Regardless of your idiotic ranting, that’s what it is…a Christian terrorist organization.
But let’s not get sidetracked. You are the evil one here. You’re the one making excuses for the murder of babies. The holy spirit has made you a sick and disturbed person.
LikeLike
the military campaign was a war of liberation for the Christians in Persia and Byzantium. God’s Law replaced man’s oppressive law.
LikeLike
They did not “liberate” them; they brought a greater and worse oppression and conquered and stayed and took over – Imperial arrogance. The Dhimmi and Jiziye system was unjust and wrong. The Copts and other Miaphysites / Monophysites (Jacobite Syrians) thought at first it was good; but later realized too late that it was a worse thing.
LikeLike
The Copts and others were being persecuted by the other Christians. Muslims – as required by Islam – gave them religious freedom, same with the Jews too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not religious freedom to ban evangelism and ability for Muslims to also choose to leave Islam, if they believe the gospel is better. Even respectful criticism of Islam was eventually against law. Blasphemy laws, etc. Those in power did whatever they wanted to and oppressed the Christians, and those societies slowly dwindled over the centuries, being weak and poor. Problem is the Dhimmi system kept the Copts and other Christians in a perpetual system of second class citizenship and economic oppression, so many converted to Islam in order to live there with greater social and economic freedom.
LikeLike
No, those in power were obliged to obey the divine law which guaranteed religious freedom for Jews and Christians something no Christian state ever gave them. Something which the bible does it not guarantee either. Your bible has no social system to protect the poor, give a legal framework for religious worship for different faith committees, no system to hold accountable before God the rulers etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evangelism is part of the faith of Christianity; therefore to claim that Islam gave freedom of religion is a lie. There was no guarentee of freedom of religion. Freedom to stay in their ingrown communities, shut up; pay the oppressive Jiziye tax, and no chance for social progress is not liberation at all.
The points of the Pact of Omar 2 (717-720 AD, Umayid Caliph) are hardly positive or conducive to freedom.
Oppression, based on Surah 9:29, is what Islam did to the Christian world and Persian world.
The ruler would provide security for the Christian believers who follow the rules of the pact.
Prohibition against building new churches, places of worship, monasteries, monks or a new cell. Hence it was also forbidden to build new synagogues, although it is known that new synagogues were built after the occupation of the Islam, for example in Jerusalem and Ramle. The law that prohibits to build new synagogues was not new for the Jews, it was applied also during the Byzantines. It was new for the Christians.
Prohibition against rebuilding destroyed churches, by day or night, in their own neighborhoods or those situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
Prohibition against hanging a cross on the Churches.
Muslims should be allowed to enter Churches (for shelter) in any time, both in day and night.
Prohibition against calling the prayer by a bell or a some kind of a Gong (Nakos).
Prohibition of Christians and Jews against raising their voices at prayer times.
Prohibition against teaching non-Muslim children the Qur’an.
Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, or to be seen with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims.
Palm Sunday and Easter parades were banned.
Funerals should be conducted quietly.
Prohibition against burying non-Muslim dead near Muslims.
Prohibition against raising a pig next to a Muslims neighbor.
Christian were forbidden to sell Muslims alcoholic beverage.
Christians were forbidden to provide cover or shelter for spies.
Prohibition against telling a lie about Muslims.
Obligation to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wishes to sit, non-Muslim should be rise from his seats and let the Muslim sit.
Prohibition against preaching Muslim to conversion out of Islam.
Prohibition against preventing the conversion to Islam of some one who wants to convert.
The appearance of the non-Muslims has to be different from those of the Muslims: Prohibition against wearing Qalansuwa (kind of dome that was used to wear by Bedouin), Bedouin turban (Amamh), Muslims shoes, and Sash to their waists. As to their heads, it was forbidden to comb the hair sidewise as the Muslim custom, and they were forced to cut the hair in the front of the head. Also non-Muslim shall not imitate the Arab-Muslim way of speech nor shall adopt the kunyas (Arabic byname, such as “abu Khattib”).
Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads’ forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastrians to wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.
Prohibition against riding animals in the Muslim custom, and prohibition against riding with a saddle.
Prohibition against adopting a Muslim title of honor.
Prohibition against engraving Arabic inscriptions on signet seals.
Prohibition against any possession of weapons.
Prohibition against teaching children the Koran.
Non-Muslims must host a Muslim passerby for at least 3 days and feed him.
Non-Muslims prohibited from buying a Muslim prisoner.
Prohibition against taking slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
Prohibition against non-Muslims to lead, govern or employ Muslims.
If a non-Muslim beats a Muslim, his Dhimmi is removed.
The worship places of non-Muslims must be lower in elevation than the lowest mosque in town.
The houses of non-Muslims must not be taller in elevation than the houses of Muslims.
Houses of the non-Muslims must be short so that each time that they would enter or exit their houses they would have to bend, in a way that it would remind them of their low status in the world.
LikeLike
Yes there is freedom of religion in an Islamic society and guaranteed religious rights in law in the shariah, but Christians are not permitted to persuade Muslims to apostatise from the Religion of God.
I notice there are no such rights in the Bible Ken. Apostates are to be executed according to a law that Jesus himself upheld in his explicit teaching.
You ignore your own Bible.
The restrictive regulations you cite exist in some hard-line interpretations of the shariah, but not in other interpretations. You cannot generalise about shariah like that. It betrays your ignorance of the subject Ken.
I ask you again- what rights in law do non-Christians have according to the Bible?
LikeLike
You are using the OT only. There is no more political theocracy of Israel – Jesus clearly took the kingdom of God away from Israel – Matthew 21:33-46 – it is you who never acknowledge the change from the Old Covenant Theocracy to the New Covenant of God’s people in all nations in churches with no political or military power. (unlike Islam, which is a unity of politics, military force, and religious rituals.)
The NT gives freedom from coercion and freedom to leave, and no political oppression, like in Islam. The NT warns about heaven and hell, but never uses force or the sword to convert, or conquer and humble, like Islam does in Surah 9:5 and 9:29 and 8:39 and many Hadith. Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they submit and confess there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and religion is all for Allah”, etc.
LikeLike
So Ken your bible does not give ANYONE guaranteed religious rights to worship (which Islam does). You says the NT is opposed to regions persecution – where does it say this. Where does it mandate freedom of expression in society?
Come on cite some verses.
LikeLike
Ephesians 6:10-20 – “our warfare is not against flesh and blood” – not against humans; no coercion or force.
Jesus: John 18:36 – “My kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world My servants would be fighting, but as it is, My kingdom is not of this world.”
2 Cor. 10:3-5 – our warfare is not fleshly or carnal or physical, but spiritual.
1 Corinthians chapter 5 – the penalty for unrepentant serious sin was excommunication, not execution.
Jesus said same thing, in Matthew 18:15-20 – ex-communication, not execution, or lashings or beatings or torture, as in Islam.
Many other exhortations in the NT – “whoever is thirsty, let him come to Me”, etc. (John 7:37-39; Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 22:17)
those that are not thirsty are not coerced.
Acts 13:46 – Apostle Paul says, “Since you judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles” – he does not say, therefore, you will be conquered by force and/or killed, etc.
LikeLike
Note the last comment by Piper:
“The word for today is Love your enemy, spread the gospel by love and evangelism, lay your life down for the gospel; do NOT kill to spread the gospel.”
LikeLike
Piper also said,
“pray for those that abuse you”
That’s the NT message; Love your enemies, pray for them, reach out, evangelize by preaching and love.
LikeLike
And then KILL THEM. see the Book of Revelation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is about the Second Coming of Christ when Judgment Day comes. God and Jesus have the right to judge. You also believe in that day also. So that is not a valid point to the argument at all.
LikeLike
So Jesus orders killing of babies in OT but not in the gospels – then starts killing again in the Book of Revelation. Geez!
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that if I slap you, Ken, you won’t turn the other cheek. Your teachings sound nice but they’re impractical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is also a time for self-defense and defending one’s family, wife, and the helpless. The command to “turn the other cheek” is not literal; it means that we should not seek personal revenge and grow bitter and have hatred, anger, malice toward the one who hit us.
LikeLike
Brother Paul, don’t you realize that the killing of babies was for that time only? I mean, come on! It was for that time so it was okay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh right. I’m reassured now.
LikeLike
Lol. Genocide and rape are okay since they were meant for a particular people at a particular time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken , there’s a rule which you must keep in your mind whenever you try or even think to attack the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم based on your biased diagram of western cltural values which by the way don’t fit with your bible either.
Bassam Zawadi :
”
Christians have attacked the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) by claiming that he is a murderer, rapist, pedophile etc. They charged him with all these disgusting things and they have all been soundly refuted. However, only for sake of argument lets assume that their arguments against Prophet Muhammad are true. Does that disprove his Prophethood?
The Prophets of the Old Testament have done countless acts of horrible things. Things ranging from getting drunk, having sex with their very own daughters, murdering women and children, worshipping idols, sleeping with prostitutes etc. Yet the Christians acknowledge this and still believe that these people are Prophets. But when Prophet Muhammad does something wrong (allegedly) that means he is not a Prophet. You see the hypocrisy?
The criteria that Christians use to disprove and attack the Prophethood of Muhammad can be used even more forcefully against the Prophets of the Old Testament. So even if Christians were able to prove these arguments against Muhammad (if true, are still no where as bad as the acts of the Prophets of the Old Testament), they still do not disprove his Prophethood. If they insist that this disproves his Prophethood then they also need to insist that the Prophets of the Old Testament are not Prophets as well. Therefore, they should renounce their faith in Christianity.
“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
When Jesus says kill, they say it is a parable
When Jesus kill babies they say only at that time
When Jesus ordered incest they forget about that
When Jesus lied as God and says he does not know the day of judgement, again they say it is parable about Jewish wedding
When Jesus ransacked peoples tables and caused disorderly conduct and destroying people property they say he has right etc.
But these evangelicals of the southern USA who will vote for Donald Trump to crush all Muslims even though he is not a serious Christian will ask
Don’t you find this or that wrong about Prophet Mohammed?
I say; Nonsense and rubbish to any evangelical Christian who will ask me that question. If an atheist or non Christians or Jew asks me that question, I will answer him but not evangelical Christian who has worse acts by Jesus in the Bible.
Nonsense and rubbish. Is parable to kill not kill?
They are the people when their children and someone’s child are fighting, when they come then they start to defend their child and start to attack someone’s child without searching for truth. That are people like Ken Temple. Any time a Christian asks these questions, if feel like that Christian is sick.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OUCH!
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Once again.
I should believe your God, your prophet has the right to judge and kill but you will not believe my God and my prophet has the right to judge and kill. What type of nonsense is that? Richard Zetter and Denis G. will not say this.
You are the type of telling people that they will go to heaven for sure if they accept Jesus Christ died for their sins. Meanwhile you have not been to heaven and back to guarantee that. Believing in something is not a proof. You just believed like most religion believe its adherent will go to heaven. You come out without any proof buy your believe to say you have a proof.
When pressed hard you start to quote verses from the Bible. That is not a proof you have been to heaven and guaranteed. It is not a proof but believe. You can not use that as a proof fro anyone to accept.
Jesus as your God allows and commanded incest in the Bible. Are you not worried about that?
This is not argument Ken, lets be serious and engage like Richard and not these childish questions “Are you not worried about this or that?” that can be found in the Bible commanded by Jesus Christ.
Thanks.
LikeLike
nice quote!
LikeLike
Ken why don’t you grow up and use better arguments rather than your oft repeated and oft refuted points ? in interaction with Christians there are certain arguments I wouldn’t use , certain arguments I will modify based on some of what I’ve read on the blog here and elsewhere, so ken look for better arguments and dont make contributions here a repetitive waste of time .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. Ken has learn nothing, and that is probably the greatest criticism of all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is a more detailed answer to your questions.
http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/
LikeLike
This may provide the reason, based on evidence of the bestiality in the pagans’ cultures of those days.
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2015/05/04/why-does-god-order-the-killing-of-canaanite-livestock/
LikeLike
If you think there is any way to rationalize the murder of babies, you must be mentally disturbed. I guess that’s the effect of the holy spirit. Normal people would be disgusted with infanticide, but you people seem to want to make excuses for it.
LikeLike
Faiz, why does Allah allow babies to die and get cancer and for some babies to be killed and get horrible diseases? Why does Allah do that?
LikeLike
LOL, this is the same pathetic argument I hear over and over again from you idiots. The holy spirit must really be running out of excuses.
Natural death is not the same as murder. Allah (swt) does not command us to deliberately kill babies. Moreover, He commands us to protect them and nurture them. If a baby had a disease, a decent person would try to help it, not just let is die.
Using your asinine logic, since babies can die during development from spontaneous abortion and miscarriage, we shouldn’t criticize women who have abortions and kill their babies! After all, since God allows natural abortions to occur, that provides an excuse for medical abortions. I thought Christians were pro-life? What a bunch of self-contradictory morons!
LikeLike