The full debate between me and Lizzy, one of Jay Smith’s followers.
Categories: Bible, Christian extremism, Christianity, God, Islam, Missionaries, Quran, Silly, Speakers Corner
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogging Theology 
1 Samuel 15!
Morocco!
Livestock!
Are the words for today 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol
LikeLike
Jay Smith’s disciples (does he only accept women?) are as ignorant as they are angry.
6 minutes through the video and I’m already amazed Liz thinks that if there is a way out of applying capital punishment such as a witness of questionable reliability then it isn’t much of a law after all. Has she never heard of reasonable doubt, or of legal defense?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
(does he only accept women?)……….hmmmm…………I see the beginning of a cult
LikeLike
I don’t see any laws that say that breaking a treaty by changing your affiliation is a capital crime in the OT.
What allegiance did the Jews owe to Mohammed anyway? According to the OT they would be breaking the law of God by making a treaty with Mohammed in the first place.
So there was no justification for the killing of all the males of age to fight.
The corporate sin of the Amelekites can not expire. God can requite it as and when he will. The same as for any other nation which sins.
Jesus never said in the sermon on the mount that all the the laws could never be abrogated.
He abrogated it by his own words. Death for apostasy was abrogated by Jesus.
LikeLike
Jesus upheld the death penalty for apostasy in Matt 5:17 and Matt 23:1-4. Go read the verses.
LikeLike
Why do you exclude the “cradle muslims” from being killed for leaving Islam?
Why are you doing dawah to them?
If you are consistent you should just give them the choice to either revert back or die shouldn’t you?
LikeLike
John 12 v 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Jesus says the man who rejects him is not judged and punished until the last day. He won’t be brought to account until the day of judgement.
LikeLike
@madmanna
1. If you mean the Jews of Banu Qurayzah then they have agreed to a treaty. This was not a religious treaty but a political one. The treaty contained the killing of all males for breaking it. They agreed to it.
2. It is true that laws of the OT were abrogated by Jesus. But you cannot simply say that all laws have been abrogated categorically. Do you have any references to pre-modern Christian theologians who said that the death penalty for apostasy was abrogated? We know that the Catholic Church practiced the penalty and that Luther and Calvin confirmed the penalty too.
3. Dawah to non-Muslims or ex-Muslims is a mercy to them and a good deed for the Muslims. But it is not mandatory since everyone is responsible for his belief himself. Nobody is responsible for someone’s apostasy but the apostate himself.
If you have a problem with the death penalty for apostasy then you as a Christian have a problem with your God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rider,
1. Does the law agree to it? No. The law of Moses covers all eventualities and “thou shalt not kill” is the law in all possible situations unless in self-defence. So the life of a man cannot be disposed of by any such agreement. This treaty is more like a conditional suicide pact.
2. Jesus gave new laws on apostasy. I never said that all laws were abrogated.
If Luther and Calvin believed that men should be put to death for apostasy they were mistaken. They were not infallible.
3. “If you have a problem with the death penalty for apostasy then you as a Christian have a problem with your God.”
I reply,
I don’t have a problem with it in it’s OT context because the kingdom of God had a national form and purpose. Perhaps the apostasy laws had to be for national survival.
In the NT the law is written inwardly upon the heart so there is no need for an external threat of punishment through law. The redeemed community of the new covenant is composed of those who voluntarily stay faithful to God and are kept by grace from falling away. There is no place for apostasy laws in the new covenant.
The parable of the kingdom that Jesus spoke abrogate the OT laws on apostasy and the text I quoted above.
I could also add Pauls teaching if necessary but it is not.
LikeLike
You are refuted thus:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
LikeLike
Good to see you br Paul yesterday at speakers corner.
You did a great job rebutting her. Please see the following article on Surah 4:89 she twisted.
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/04/02/seize-them-and-kill-them-wherever-you-find-them-quran-489-91/
Attached are classical tafsirs to get a better understand of the verse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great to see you Kaleef. Are you intending to return to SC in the future?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am recovering from two operations this is why i was sitting on a chair. If i recover soon and feel better i will be coming down again either end of this month or early next month Inshaa’Allah
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Asma bint Marwan story according to scholars (even salafi scholars) is a fabrication and has no historical truth. Old article,
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/10/did-muhammad-order-or-support-the-killing-of-innocents/
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a lot sources besides Ibn Ishaq where the Banu Qurayza not only broke a treaty but also supplied weapons to the Makkans and attacked Muslims, 1300 years ago. All the info is in the article:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why are there no details about this alleged “attack”?
Is somebody not innocent until proven guilty?
So what if the Jews did provide weapons to the pagans?
Are the muslims the only ones who have the right to possess arms?
LikeLike
Maybe if you’re read the article you would see the sources saying “the Banu Qurayza took MILITARY ACTION” against the Muslims.
Furthermore, providing weapons whilst claiming that you side with the Muslims and signing a treaty promising NOT to aid is a very grievous crime.
Maybe you need to explain to us why Jesus who is god in flesh, the best “role-model” ordered the murder of women, men and BABY BOY children at the same time telling the soldiers to marry/rape pre-pubescent girls in the Bible?:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Through Safiyya’s marriage all the treacherious people of Khaybar were released and stayed on their land. I have addressed some of the things that are brought up by misionaries:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/04/safiyyah-huyayy-kinana-and-khaybar-affair/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Jews obviously thought that Mohammed was treacherous. How do you know that they were wrong?
Yes they stayed on their land as slave labourers.
LikeLike
Based on what was Muhammed treacherous? History says you’re a liar, based on the following facts. The Prophet did not start the battle of Khaybar until they did all the following:
1 The people and the chief leaders of Khaybar were involved in the Battle of Trench, when the Muslims were attacked in Madinah with ten thousand troops, again here they sided and waged war against the Muslims:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/03/15/abu-rafi-ibn-abi-al-huqaiq-the-warmonger/
2 They made the Banu Qurayzah break their pact, and made them side with enemies in attacking the Muslims:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/
3 Al-Yusayr Ibn Rizam, one of their leaders gathered Banu Ghatafan to attack the Muslims:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/03/28/al-yusayr-ibn-rizam-another-warmonger/
We see from the above, that these people were not a peaceful lot. Instead of moving to Khaybar for peace, and get on with their life, they used Khaybar as a military headquarters to attack and kill Muslims.
I don’t think Christians like you have a leg to stand on when your role model Jesus who is god in flesh, the “best of creation” who is emulated endorsed/sanctioned the murder of innocent men, women, children and bloody donkeys in the Bible:
1 Samuel 15:2 “Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
These innocent people are getting murdered for something they had NOTHING to do with, 300 years later.
LikeLike
“1 Samuel 15:2 “Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
funny that none of these kids lived by the sword and back then the pagans seemed to be more humane than yhwhs children:
Then it happened when David and his men came to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had made a raid on the Negev and on Ziklag, and had overthrown Ziklag and burned it with fire; 2and they took captive the women and all who were in it, both small and great, without killing anyone, and carried them off and went their way. 3When David and his men came to the city, behold, it was burned with fire
LikeLike
“We see from the above, that these people were not a peaceful lot. Instead of moving to Khaybar for peace, and get on with their life, they used Khaybar as a military headquarters to attack and kill Muslims.”
They saw that two Jewish tribes of Medina before them had been attacked, plundered, dispossessed and banished with their women, children and elderly. They knew that they would get the same treatment, for refusing to become Muslims, if they could not defend themselves. There was no other way out for them.
LikeLike
there was no compulsion for them to become Muslims
LikeLike
It is no surprise that missionairies like madmanna you are following your lord and Saviour Paul who sanctions/endorses people like you to LIE in order to further christian faith:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/11/28/1-corinthians-9-apostle-pauls-missionary-deception-taqiyya/
As for the two tribes, you inferred Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir.
Banu Qaynuqa violated their treaty, and at the same time helped Quraysh in destroying the Muslim community in Madinah and joined the Quraysh a number of times in wars against the Muslims, when the Muslims did NOTHING to do them:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/13/invasion-of-banu-qaynuqa/
As for Banu Nadir, they tried to assassinate the Prophet. Even when the Prophet asked them to renew their treaty and stop their treachery/aggression/wars they continued:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/03/10/analysing-the-banu-nadir-incident/
It is interesting you do NOT present any evidence but hot air. Speaking about subjects you have no knowledge about.
Further interesting fact is how you do not respond to why Jesus, who is god in flesh who is the best of mankind murdered innocent babies and women.
I believe Christians like you have NO leg to stand on when your role model Jesus who is god in flesh, the “best of creation” who is emulated endorsed/sanctioned the murder of innocent men, women, children and bloody donkeys in the Bible:
1 Samuel 15:2 “Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
These innocent people are getting murdered for something they had NOTHING to do with, 300 years later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ouch!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No there was no compulsion, just the threat of punishment if they didn’t submit to Mohammed’s “overtures”.
That’s a form of compulsion is it not?
LikeLike
come on Paul cite some evidence
LikeLike
No compulsion in Islam. In-fact this has been talked about by many classical scholars.
Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292 – 1350 AD) commenting on
“When God sent His Apostle (p), most of the followers of these religions responded to him and to his successsors, voluntarily and willingly. NOBODY WAS COMPELLED TO DO SO. The Apostle fought only those who fought and waged war against him. He did not fight those who made peace with him, neither did he fight those who were under the pledge of truce. He was obeying the bidding of God Most Sublime were he said:
‘Let there be no compulsion in Religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects Evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks, and God heareth and knowth all things ‘ (al-Baqarah: 256).
The Apostle did not compel anyone to adopt Islam. The above quoted verse from the Qur’an negates compulsion in the sense of prohibition that is: do not compel a soul to embrace the Religion. The verse (Sura) was revealed to admonish some of the men among the companions whose children embraced Judaism and Christianity before the advent of Islam, and where with the advent of Islam, their fathers embraced the religion of Muhammad and attempted to compel their children to follow their lead. God Most Exalted prohibited the fathers from resorting to compulsion to inspire their children to embrace Islam out of their choice. … To him who ponders over the biography of the Prophet (p) it becomes clear that he did not compel anyone to embrace his religion, and that he only fought those who fought him. He did not fight those who made truce with him as long as they kept and honoured the truce. He never broke a promise, for God Most High bid him to fulfil his promises to them as long as they kept theirs. A propos, God Most Exalted said:
‘How can there be a league before God and His apostle, with the pagans, except thoe with whom ye made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them for God doth love the righteous’ (al-Tawbah: 7).
… Likewise, when the Prophet Muhammad made truce with (the tribe of) Quraysh holding for ten years, HE DID NOT START ANY FIGHT WITH THEM; BUT WHEN THEY VIOLATED THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND RAISED ARMS AGAINST HIM, HE FOUGHT BACK… he stopped the fight when they retreated and went off. The point is that he did not compel anyone at all to embrace his religion; but people embraced his religion voluntarily and willingly. When most of the people earth realized the True Guidance, and that he is genuinely the Apostle of God, they embraced his call.” (Guidance To The Uncertain In Reply To The Jews And The Nazarenes (‘Hidayatul Hayara Fi Ajwibatul Yahud wa al-Nasara’) – [Translated by Abdelhay El-Masry, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah] by Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziah, page 25 – 27)
Source:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/04/22/an-historical-examination-of-the-sword-verse-surah-95/
Why the double standards Madmanna? The things found in your Bible, is no where to be found in our scripture.
Have you no shame to argue about things in Islam, when these people were guilty of many crimes, war, treachery?
Your scripture on the other hand, Jesus who is God in flesh, who you follow, who is God of the Old Testament, sanctioned/endorsed genocide against innocent woman and children who had done NOTHING:
1 Samuel 15:2 “Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
What about Jesus who is god of the Old Testament sanctioning marriage/rape with prepubescent girls in the Old Testament (BIBLE)??:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
Say hi to your friend Sam for me 😉 I havent seen him for a while, bye!
LikeLiked by 2 people
i watched the video and the lady has picked up bs from christian apologists
if pagans were so evil and depraved , how come they didn’t carry out jesus’ method of execution?
“Then it happened when David and his men came to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had made a raid on the Negev and on Ziklag, and had overthrown Ziklag and burned it with fire; 2and they took captive the women and all who were in it, both small and great, without killing anyone, and carried them off and went their way. 3When David and his men came to the city, behold, it was burned with fire”
these guys could have learnt faster than the Hebrews, right?
LikeLike
“come on Paul cite some evidence”
I agree Flying Pir should cite some evidence of these alleged attacks by the Jews upon the Muslims. Here, not just providing links. It seems to be enough for a Muslim to point the finger at the Jew and the matter is already settled.
Then I will cite my evidence of Mohammed threatening the Jews with violence if they refused to believe that he was a prophet from God.
If the Jews did breach a treaty they may have had good reason for doing so.
The duty to defend themselves against any possible threat from Mohammed, which they deemed to be real, would override any obligation to adhere to the terms of a treaty which they obviously felt would not protect them against the possibility of a violent threat coming from Mohammed. He had already shown his real intentions by his actions against the other two tribes.
LikeLike
so Paul you have no historical evidence then. Thought so
LikeLike
Typical missionary. Never bringing any evidence, just hot air, deceiving readers. You are the who made the claim, so present the evidence. I linked the articles and REFUTED all the lies you made.
You still haven’t answered why on earth do question Islamic cripture when your Jesus who is god in flesh sanctioned murder, of women and children, also endorsed the marriage/RAPE of prepubescent girls:
1 Samuel 15:2 “Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Jesus god of the old Testament sanctioning prepubescent marriages/rape:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/07/a-detailed-historical-examination-of-numbers-3118/
LikeLike
” he stopped the fight when they retreated and went off. ”
and then started attacking the caravans of the pagans and killing them.
“Your scripture on the other hand, Jesus who is God in flesh, who you follow, who is God of the Old Testament, sanctioned/endorsed genocide against innocent woman and children who had done NOTHING:”
Their tribe was guilty and they got the bill. It’s the same with Islam, kill them ( unlikely to be the perpetrators of the original crime ) wherever you find them. Or not? Am I missing something.
LikeLike
Missing quotes and context. Your propaganda is not proof
LikeLiked by 1 person
Try stick to the topic. Don’t jump around like a kangeroo dude. Bring the evidence as you claimed on banu Nadir, banu Qaynuqa and Banu Qurayza. Lets deal with each topic separately. Stop getting desperate and trying to derail the main topic. We will talk about caravans in a bit once you brought your fictitious evidence on Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayza.
Madanna wrote:
///”Their tribe was guilty and they got the bill. …”///
WOW what a sadistic, psychopathic person you are Madmanna. You have no shame, no remorse, and keenly get orgasm out of the genocide of innocent women and children who did NOTHING in 1 Samuel 15:2. Show me the crime they committed, you sick man:
1 Samuel 15:2 “Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
I am not surprised by people like you. Sick people like you have existed forever, justifying murder, genocide, and rape from the Bible. This is how Africa, Native Indian land (America), South America, and Australia were conquered and brutally murdered/raped, because your people actually found their ideas and beliefs from the same book you follow.
LikeLike
“Their tribe was guilty and they got the bill. It’s the same with Islam, kill them ( unlikely to be the perpetrators of the original crime ) wherever you find them. Or not? Am I missing something.”
you missing the point. if the pagans were complete and utter evil bastards , why did they saves lives ?
“and they took captive the women and all who were in it, both small and great, without killing anyone, and carried them off and went their way. ”
this means they were more moral than your gods kids.
this means that you fokers are liars when you portray them as scum. why did yhwh the pagan tribal god punish innocent children who never lived by the sword?
why did he not send even one messenger to inform them about monotheism?
why was he interested in land grab?
the thing is that bible justified baby killing. bible justified taking innocent lives. one cannot excuse 2000 years of yhwh butchery with 33 years of living like a jew and telling them that their law brings nothing but sin
LikeLike
“We will talk about caravans in a bit once you brought your fictitious evidence on Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayza. ”
You said the Jews attacked Mohammed. I am still waiting for evidence to prove this.
Please present your evidence here. This is where the discussion is going on, not on your blog.
How did any Jews attack Mohammed at any time?
How come you can provide no details regarding the circumstances of these alleged attacks? No gory details? Why?
How did the Jews of Qaynuqa break a treaty? Why were they sent by Mohammed in to the desert with nothing but the clothes on their backs and what they could carry? As human beings they have property rights. Thou shalt not steal. Until Mohammed found an excuse.
Evidence please. Now’s your chance. Or you gonna run off and hide at your blog?
LikeLike
“Jesus provided just the controversy need to substantiate the Pharisees’ position. Look what happened to him! By the time of his death, he had no followers, a mob had just chanted to kill him, and his religion was effectively wiped out. Pharisees proven again to be correct that violating YHWH’s laws only brings condemnation.”
“(diamerizo), which means divide, distribute, create disunity, and in context, where the word is explicitly contrasted with peace (eirene), and the word epi + accusative (“against”) follows, the meaning is obviously intrafamily war. ”
jesus said that he came to “diamerizo”
here is micha 7:5-6
Do not trust a neighbor;
put no confidence in a friend.
Even with the woman who lies in your embrace
guard the words of your lips.
6 For a son dishonors his father,
a daughter rises up against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies are the members of his own household.
7
i have come to set a man AGAINST his father = PURPOSE
LikeLike
“Sick people like you have existed forever, justifying murder, genocide, and rape from the Bible.”
Nonsense.
Look at the commands and examples of good behaviour in your holy books.
Kill them wherever you find them?
Is this command abrogated?
LikeLike
CURSED IS HE WHO DOES THE WORK OF THE LORD WITH SLACKNESS
AND CURSED IS HE WHO KEEPS BACK THE SWORD FROM BLOODSHED
quote:
jer 48: 10
Another reason is equally circular, namely , that jesus is recorded to have preached ‘unqualified love’ elsewhere. but how did the fellows determine that it is the loving jesus that is authentic rather than the more violent one? if this saying is so starkly contraposed to the love sayings, then why does the redactor not see that? denying that jesus uttered this logion because it alludes to MIC 7.5-6 is also circular. given that QUOTING, or ALLUDING to, the HEBREW BIBLE was common in jewish exegesis of the time, how did the fellows determine that jesus could not allude to that passage?
However, perhaps the most common strategy is to misread jesus’ purpose clause, (‘for i have come to set a man against his father…’) as a result clause, which is not what the grammar of jesus’ language indicates at all. the relevant clauses in mt. 10 .34-35 are PURPOSE clauses, as indicated by the infinitives, in the greek expression…
‘ do not think that i have come to bring peace on earth; i have not come to bring peace, but a sword. for i have come to set a man against his father….’
As daniel wallace notes purpose clauses can be expressed by a [s]imple or “naked” infinite (usually following an [intransitive] verb of motion . A close parallel to the use of the infinitive in mt. 10:34 is found in mt 5.17
‘think not that i have come to abolish the law and the prophets; i have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them’
jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent
end quote
so jesus is doing an act of dividing just like he said he would do the fulfilling of the law.
christians used jesus’ words and have been dividing and killing a people, even after doing such a thing jesus still failed to return.
if matthew could make an exception for divorce and jesus could go in temple and make exception for love thy enemy, then surely he made exception for you guys too.
LikeLike
“jesus did not say that his mission would simply result in family strife. jesus is saying that a primary PURPOSE of his mission is to create violence within families, and the mention of sword is consistent with that violent intent ”
The only problem is that the Golden Rule and the Royal Law prohibit the violent use of a sword, except in self-defense.
Also Jesus said take up my cross and follow me, not take up my sword ( which he didn’t have anyway ) and follow me.
We what he said to Peter at his arrest also contradicts the argument that Jesus was talking about a literal metal sword as a weapon of violence.
LikeLike
madmanna
Your Holy Book and your God says
◄ Luke 19:27 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
New Living Translation
And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'”
madmanna, whether parable or not parable, your God, prophet, God Man, Man God, etc. is killing his enemies and those who will not allow him to rule over them.
It is hypocritical of you not to reject your God and your religion but to accuse someone’s religion with an in complete sentence of “kill them where you find them”.
The above quote from the Bible is a complete sentence from Jesus that clearly says he and his followers must kill those who will not allow him to rule them and Christians have been doing that until stopped by force by their victims who were liberals, atheists, Jews, Muslims etc.
Now some of the Christians are voting for Donald Trump to bring their arrogant Christian laws over the liberals but Donald Trump is grabbing married women private parts as he said himself but Christians will some Christians will vote for him because of abortion. Do you know how many abortions Donald Trump has caused by grabbing married women private parts and eventually causing unwanted pregnancy and abortions?
Ken Temple. No Muslim will select someone who says he takes delight in grabbing married women genitals as their leader but Christians are doing that. It is shame. Jesus will not vote for Donald Trump but some Christians are giving him boost. Shame.
Thanks.
LikeLike
madmanna
You said;
The only problem is that the Golden Rule and the Royal Law prohibit the violent use of a sword, except in self-defense.
Also Jesus said take up my cross and follow me, not take up my sword ( which he didn’t have anyway ) and follow me.
We what he said to Peter at his arrest also contradicts the argument that Jesus was talking about a literal metal sword as a weapon of violence.
I say;
madmanna, nonsense, rubbish and bull shit from you. You have the chance to explain the violence in your Bible as self defence but will not accept Muslims explanations as self defence from the Quran. This is the nonsense from the Christians crusaders or Donald Trump supporters who thinks what they think and say must be accepted but they will not accept explanations from any body.
Tell Sam Shamoun, David Wood etc. if they want us to accept their explanations of Biblical violence as self defence, then they must accept Muslims explanations of self defence in the Quran.
Jesus clearly said kill babies, livestock, enemies, who will not.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect,
I am still waiting to be told by Flying Pir how any of the Jews of Medina collectively attacked Mohammed violently so that he had to wage war against them in self defence.
I also am waiting to be told how they stole from Mohammed so that he had to steal all their lands and possessions in return.
LikeLike