Jay Smith’s Buddy Embarrassed by the Bible, Academia, James White and Shamoun

Great demolition job by Yahya Snow. More falsehoods as well as superficial and inconsistent comments from Jay Smith’s friend Tony Costa. Good to see James White put him right!

Advertisements


Categories: Christian extremism, Islam, Islamophobia, Life in the West

66 replies

  1. “Our democratic values”
    What a hypocrite !
    Christinas got to know that their bible has nothing to do with the democratic values. What happned in Europe was a result of sever clashes between the church and the people who tended to deny the holiness of the bible.

    Any way, Tony is just a cliché person, and his debates are boring.
    He has “developed” his thoughts with lies recently.

    Liked by 3 people

    • So you believe apostates should be killed?

      Like

    • What does your bible say Paulus?

      Liked by 1 person

    • You first. It’s pretty easy for Christians given that Jesus fulfilled the law as he claimed.

      Now, should Abdullah have killed you when you left Islam?

      Like

    • No Paulus, we are not going to let you run away from this. What does the Bible say about apostasy?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Had you been serious by this question, I’d have answered you.
      Before you aske me, tell me how democratic values are compatible with your bible?
      Explain to me how Jesus was praising the law of god which includes killing apostates? Roman13 ? Revelation2:20?
      Explain to me the long history of christianity against apostasy?

      Liked by 1 person

    • I told you- Jesus fulfilled the law. That is what Christians believe. If you want to get involved in the modern application of the Tanakh, then speak to a rabbinical Jew about it, not me. I don’t believe apostates should be killed according to the New Covenant that Jesus established.

      Your turn- or are you afraid that we all might see the “real face” of your new Muslim outreach organization- a British born man who advocates for apostasy death? We all know that is your position given that the four laws of jurisprudence agree on this. So just be a man for once and come clean. What are you afraid of?

      Like

    • “Jesus fulfilled the law”

      Meaning what exactly?

      “I don’t believe apostates should be killed according to the New Covenant that Jesus established.”

      According to Matthew’s gospel in the new Kingdom of God disciples are expected to obey the law:

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

      So Jesus upheld the death penalty for apostasy, as did all the great evangelical Reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther. Trouble is Paulus, you are a throughly westernised & secularised Christian who follows neither Christ nor the Reformation pioneers.

      As for apostasy in Islam I certainly endorse this view:

      Like

    • Paul.

      First, if you keep moderating my comments, how can we have a fair and honest discussion?

      Second, I’m not sure I follow the point you are trying to make. Even if Jesus did uphold this particular Tanakh regulation during his ministry (though we have no evidence he actually did), that has no bearing on those under the New Covenant, i.e. those following the death and resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the law. This is why your reasoning is so flawed- you never follow the trajectory of Jesus life and ministry, rather, you simply isolate an element to suit your agenda.

      As for the reformers, we are all products of our culture. I don’t pretend that I am immune from modern prejudices. But consider your argument carefully- the reformers also all believed that Islam was a false religion, therefore should I likewise consider that opinion infallible. Fact is, under the New Covenant, the ceremonial and civil laws are fulfilled in Christ.

      You, however, appear to think it just peachy to neck people who dislike the religion of Islam and leave it. You are better than that Paul, deep down I’m sure you know it even if you suppress it.

      Like

    • Yes I am moderating your comments.

      Where did Jesus say that the obligation to follow the Torah (see Matt 23: 1-4) in the kingdom of God would be abrogated? I note that Jesus’s disciples (James, Peter, John) continued to be Torah observant Jews after Jesus’s ascension (cf Acts 21: 20). They did not agree with you.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Pulus,
      Does Jesus’ fulfillment abolish the law? If so, explain to me your bloody history which people have not ever known something like it regarding this issue?
      It’s just matter of fact that christians have never thought like that.
      They have always been like this pics
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClQ6oBGWMAEkxDl.jpg:large
      Also, you have not answered Roman 13?

      In sum, democratic values in the west have nothing to do with christianity. It happened only when european people abandoned their belief in christianity literally.

      Like

    • Paul Williams

      “What does your bible say Paulus?”

      What do you claim the bible says?

      Also, why do you bother pretending that you are having meaningful discussion when you censor comments and delete comments that scare you?

      Like

  2. Those cultural imperialists who hide behind secularism and resort to outright lies and misinformation, in an attempt to delegitimize the usage of the term “Islamophobia” do so in order to justify their own thinly veiled anti-Muslim bigotry and hate speech which they regularly spew at the religion of Islam, and which would not otherwise be tolerated by society if it is not called out for what it is – The bigotry of Anti-Muslim Islamophobia.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Judeophobia! Is this guy an academic on world religions? What an idiot

    Liked by 2 people

  4. If anyone who calls themselves a Christian, defends Western Democracy in the context of arguing against Islamic law, they are a heretic. The West is not Christian.

    Arguments made by “Christians” like Costa, against Islam from a secular perspective are sad and foolish.

    They are foolish for two reasons.

    The first is that modern Western democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are not from Christianity. They are from the Devil via freemasonry. Notice that only former Christian countries have homosexual “marriage” in them. It’s because democracy allowed this. I’d like to hear Costa defend the West to Muslims by saying that homosexuals can “marry” here. He won’t because he uses double standards.

    The second reason it is foolish is because Christianity has far better critiques of Islam than secularism does. Christianity has such a rich history of apologetics against many groups and Islam in particular.

    I won’t accuse Tony Costa of being anything but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a Freemason. If he’s not, he has certainly been influenced by their teachings which is just as bad.

    I’ve been writing about this for a long time.

    http://allanruhl.com/sharia-the-west-and-the-christian-faith/#more-384

    Liked by 2 people

    • Some good points there Allan

      Like

    • Interesting Allan!
      I agree that all false ideas are ultimately from the devil.

      What documentation is there that Freemasonry (Masonic Lodges were just one of the ways the Enlightenment ideas were disseminated) is the root, rather than the common understanding of the Enlightenment philosophies and John Locke and Deism (most say Jefferson was mostly influenced by Locke and general Deism, as was Benjamin Franklin and other USA founding fathers),

      or even the Baptists and Anabaptists before the Enlightenment (if one starts with 1715 and later the French Revolution 1789, and onward), who started the idea of separation of the state government from the church?

      Anabaptists (1500s, same time as Luther) and earliest Baptists (1600s) are earlier than the Enlightenment (1700s).

      The USA Declaration of Independence (1776) and Jefferson is commonly understood as coming from the general ideas of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, which was in a big way, a reaction against the Roman Catholic Church in France (writings of Philosophers Rousseau and Voltaire (and earlier with Francis Bacon and Descartes and earlier still with the Renaissance –

      granted they- Rousseau and Voltaire are infidels, but both the Reformation and the Enlightenment were reactions against the problems of the Roman Catholic Church.)

      However, the Anabaptists (1500s) and earliest Baptists (1600s) are earlier than the majority of the period of greater influence of the Enlightenment (1700s, French Revolution, the 1800s, etc).

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The first is that modern Western democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are not from Christianity.”

      Not according to the experts in historical philosophy. All those things stem from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Specifically post reformation. Not Islam. Not Catholicism.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Ken,

      I can’t give full answers because these are deep topics but I’ll do my best.

      Freemasonry isn’t the only group to promote these values nor were they the first. They were one of the big groups promoting them and they exist until this day. For example, Theodore Herzl was not the first promoter of Zionism but he was the one to make the idea big and popular. Freemasonry is to enlightenment(GK Chesterton called it the endarkenment) values as Herzl was to Zionism. Not the only promoters nor the first but the biggest. However, these two movements have their origins in the Satan as you pointed out with all anti-Christian ideas.

      The Anabaptists and Baptists have never held state-Church status in any nation so they would benefit from freedom of religion. Even the Catholic Church benefitted from the Declaration of Independence. They were suppressed in most of the colonies before 1776, but with the declaration, they got equal rights. So the Catholics who were persecuted and were barely allowed priests(I believe Jesuits were outlawed in every colony except Maryland) could now have equal ground and they did spread. In the 1800’s Pope Leo XIII wrote that although Catholics are in the minority and can use these laws to grow, they shouldn’t get too accustomed because they were not Catholic laws and that the ultimate goal was to make America a Catholic state.

      Catholics were in a similar situation in America as the Baptists and Anabaptists were in Europe so its no wonder they found this form of government appealing. Also, the separation of Church and state/government has always existed in Catholic nations. It actually goes back to the OT where Monarchy was represented by Judah and the Priesthood by Levi. The same has been in the ancient Church – Pope and Emperor, and the medieval Church – Monarch and Archbishop of Capital city of region controlled by the monarch. A good example of violation of this is what happened when Henry VIII made himself the head of the Church of England which violated traditional Christian customs and the Magna Carta. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of what separation of Church and state actually is since modern leftists spin the terms.

      You said:

      “The USA Declaration of Independence (1776) and Jefferson is commonly understood as coming from the general ideas of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, which was in a big way, a reaction against the Roman Catholic Church in France ”

      This is absolutely correct. Now the big question is why was the American revolution much less bloody and much more civilized than the French Revolution? That is because America was 98% Protestant at the time of the revolution. America never had monasteries, priories, convents, Cathedrals, priests, nuns, monks, Catholic schools, Catholic Universities, laity participating in public processions, making pilgrimages, statues of the Blessed Virgin and saints in every town square etc. France had all of this while America had none of this. If America did, their revolution would have shared the barbarism of its sister revolution in France. The Enlightenment has always viewed the Catholic Church as the number one enemy because Protestantism was too splintered to offer any real opposition. There was the odd exception like the Church of England but they were opposed by Enlightenment promoters as well.

      Did the reformation and the French Revolution happen because of “problems” in the Catholic Church? The word “problems” is subjective and can be debated in perpetuity but we can agree that both of these movements, one religious and one secular, found the Catholic Church as their number one enemy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “All those things stem from the Judeo-Christian worldview”
      Those “judeo christians” views came only after they got sick from the judeo christian bible.
      European people realized that their bible is not useful. That’s it!

      What happaned to Bertrand Russell in US when he came to NY?

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Thanks Allan for a pretty good answer and discussion:

    Also, the separation of Church and state/government has always existed in Catholic nations.

    Does not seem like it was to me, to anyone who studies history – all of Europe was unified under the “Medieval Synthesis” (Unity of culture, religion, state government, society) from Theodosius until the Reformation began the seeds of breaking down the “Medieval Synthesis”.

    Seems like it was not, since Theodosius, as Roman/ Byzantine Emperor around 380-392 AD, made Christianity the state religion, and the process grew in both east and west – the east continuing after the west fell to barbarian invasions, but absorbed the barbarian nations into Christianity; and the power of the bishop of Rome developed into a false doctrine of “the Pope” (bishop of Rome is over all other bishops in authority – Gregory @ 600, to Innocent III (one of the main promoters of the Crusades, 1198-1216 AD) to Boniface VIII (everyone must submit to the Pope in order to be saved – Unam Sactum, 1302)

    I don’t seem much separation of the church and state from Theodosius onward until the Anabaptists and Baptist ideas of the Reformation; and then later in the Enlightenment.

    “problems” = false doctrines, corruption, false practices, praying to Mary and other dead saints, relics trafficking, and statues of Mary (idolatry and the appearance of idolatry), torturing people for faith issues (Inquisitions), Crusades (a mixture of a good idea of self defense with lots of other sins and false motivations, making war as penance, getting out of purgatory for killing infidels, etc.), idolatry of worshiping bread and wine (Transubstantiation), neglect of the Scriptures, the eclipsing of the biblical doctrine of Justification by faith alone (entry into relationship with God is by repentant faith alone in Christ alone, but true faith does not stay alone), etc.

    On the bigger question of the slow process of so many other emphases that led to the eclipsing of the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html

    Like

  6. The fact that Jesus took the kingdom of God away from political Israel – Matthew 21:43-46
    and
    Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world, if it was of this world, My servants would be fighting” – John 18:36

    and God ended the Theocracy of Israel – the temple and sacrificial system ended – 70 AD.

    The New Covenant taught that the kingdom of God is spreading in local churches among all nations and is not a political / state-government thing.

    The disciples knew that Jesus had taken the Kingdom of God away from the Jewish leadership/ Israel and after Jesus rose from the dead, they asked Him, “Are you now going to restore the kingdom of God to Israel?” – in other words, are you now going to fight the Romans with military power and defeat them and restore Israel, etc. – Jesus in effect, said, “no; you have a different kind of power and authority” and “don’t focus on that – God is His sovereignty will do that in His own timing”

    “but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you . . . and you shall be My witnesses” – in all the earth – to all nations.

    6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
    7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
    8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
    Acts 1:6-8

    Jesus gave them spiritual power and authority, not political nor military power.

    The death penalty for unrepentant adultery was not done nor advised in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 or chapter 6 –
    The penalty for unrepentant serious sin was excommunication, not death penalty.

    All this together shows that Paul Williams and Yahya Snow are wrong about what the NT teaches as a unity as to the issue of religion and the state government.

    Christianity grew under persecution (off and on) and no political power for 3 centuries. (until 312 AD, when Constantine declared they would no longer persecute Christians.

    Like

  7. I just want to point out that there are many in the evangelical community that think “Lordship Salvation” promoted John MacArthur in that book you endorsed, is a form of works salvation and denies Sola Fide. You know this as well as I.

    That is true; the “easy-believe-ism”, “altar-call”, “say the sinner’s prayer and you are for sure saved” folks do think that; but they are wrong.

    What they teach is a heresy.

    Yes, Dr. White did a debate with one of those guys – Bob Wilkin was his name.

    Dr. White and the historic Reformed position is the correct one.

    Watching this debate would be instructive for Muslims.

    Like

  8. Allan,
    one point – don’t you agree that from Theodosius (380-392 AD) onward until the Reformation (1500s), the Christian world (both Roman Catholic west and Eastern Orthodoxy until Islam conquered the east) had a unity of church and state, especially as the Papal doctrine and power developed ? (ie, there was no separation of church and state in that era)

    Like

    • It depends how you define separation of Church and state. If you want to take the modern leftist definition, they certainly did not.

      I would say that they had a true separation of Church and state. Let me give you an example. In traditional Islam, the Caliph is head of the state religion and state politics. This is not true in Christianity.

      You might say that this is not separation of Church and state, but separation of powers. Okay, I can concede that. But at this point we have to simply agree to disagree on definitions.

      In a traditional Catholic society, does the Church influence the state? Of course, but they are two separate bodies, hence separation of church and state.

      Like

    • Did not the Popes call for Crusades?

      Like

  9. Allan,
    Paul Williams has used the harsh examples of the laws of Justinian (527-565 AD) and Heraclius (610-641 AD) , Emperors in the east, and the laws against the Monophysites in Egypt, Syria, Levant areas, and Jews and pagans, etc. as examples of injustice and cruelty and examples of Christian culture being unjust to the freedom of religion, etc.

    I say it was a good thing for the period of freedom of religion (Baptist movement, Enlightenment, 1776, etc.) and western democracy to replace the harsh and cruel period before it, except with that freedom, comes a lot of bad things also. But Evangelical Protestants obviously don’t agree with a lot of the sins that have been growing with freedom.

    The video that Yahya Snow made and Paul Williams’ ideas makes it seem like Christians are wrong to appreciate freedom of religion. The baptists were persecuted and executed by drowning by some of the early Reformers (Zwingli’s group (look up Felix Manz) and other Reformers such as Calvin’s movement ( I think) – they believed in infant baptism and that having one self re-baptized after true faith in Christ was considered a heresy and punishable by death – I totally disagree with that and that was one of the false doctrines (infant baptism) that was leftover from the Roman Catholic false doctrines of earlier centuries.

    That problem of sin growing in society today is more of a result of lack of conversion/regeneration; truly knowing God, but it is also true that when the Judeo-Christian ethic laws were abandoned, and things like pornography and abortion and homosexuality and transgenderism and adulteries and pre-marital sex are promoted by the society and government as good things, then the combination results in the massive tsunami of immorality we are seeing today.

    The wicked strut about on every side, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” Psalm 12:8

    see Ecclesiastes 8:11 also –
    “when a sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore, the hearts of the sons of men among them are fully given to do evil.”

    “Another generation arose that did not know the LORD.” Judges 2:10

    Like

    • What does Justinian and Heraclius have to do with the separation or unity of Church and State?

      Ken, you can endorse democracy and freedom of religion, but wouldn’t you prefer a society where Christ is King, where public scandal is punished, where sin hasn’t been reduced to a John Stuart Mill understanding of morality? I know you would.

      Christendom lasted from 380 to 1789ish depending on the country. Modern American democracy has been from 1776 to present and it’s already failed. Christendom didn’t destroy itself, it was overthrown by the forces that you claim to support. Did Christendom make mistakes. Yes, but we need to take it as a whole.

      Christendom says that error has no rights. Democracy says that error has as much rights as the truth. For democratic purposes, if enough people or judges vote for something, why not? Look at Ireland. When it was Catholic, error had no rights. In democratic times, 62% of people voted for homosexual “marriage” and its now the law of the land.

      In Christendom, Christ is King. Modern democracy takes Christ off his throne and puts man on the throne, ruling over Christ.

      The modern western world is coming to an end. It will collapse within our lifetimes. When we rebuild it, we can rebuild it on Christians principles, Freemasonic principles, Islamic, Communist, etc. I’m going to go for restoring Christendom, where Christ is King.

      Like

    • We agree on most of those ethical / moral issues, but in your paradigm, “Christ as King” means treating Baptists and other Protestants as heretics and punishable. (before Vatican 2) I agree Christ is King, but Christ does not agree with the idolatry of Transubstantition nor the authority of the Pope – both are false doctrines.

      But certainly so called “same sex marriage” and abortion is wrong; we are agreed on that.

      The only way for society to change is when there is more true conversions and true heart change over time that local communities become more and more holy and clean and those influences affect law makers, politicians and the courts.

      One big problem is that public schools, Universities (and same ideas promoted by the media) have been breeding evil ideologies to students for the last 40 years with no opportunity for debate and push back from Christianity or morality, etc.

      Like

    • If you want to debate doctrine and just say Christ doesn’t believe in XY, or Z, I can do that as well. Christ doesn’t believe in Perseverance of the Saints, Justification by Faith Alone, Baptism being an external sign of an already regenerated person, people predestined to hell, having as much divorces as you want, etc. See anyone can play this game. If you want to debate doctrine, go to allanruhl.com.

      Now back to what we were actually debating.

      If you’re against true unity of Church and State, you should condemn the Church of England. In England, King Henry VIII took over the Church and was head of both Church and State. In pre-reformation England, they had a separation. It was Protestants who actually violated the separation first, not Catholics.

      Yes, you are correct. In Christendom, a heretic would be punished.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. I don’t agree with the common leftist extreme idea of what they think “separation of church and state is” – they think it means one cannot talk about God or Jesus in public school or question theory of Evolution, or have “in God we trust” on our money, or 10 commandment monuments, etc.

    They think it means “separation of God and morality from government”. No. What it originally meant was to keep the government out of the church, to keep the government from controlling what the church could preach and teach and do. And also to keep the Roman Catholics and Protestants from persecuting and killing one another.

    Like

  11. Paul Williams wrote earlier in discussion with Paulus:

    Where did Jesus say that the obligation to follow the Torah (see Matt 23: 1-4) in the kingdom of God would be abrogated?

    Jesus said that in Matthew 21:43-46 – He took the kingdom away from Israel.

    Acts 1:6-8 – the authority and power of the church is in spiritual power to witness and live holy lives and love people and spread into all the nations with no war or fighting. (unlike Islam, that used aggressive warfare to spread.)

    John 18:36 –

    36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

    those 3 passages make it clear that your whole argument and video is wrong.

    Like

    • Some things were abrogated, not the moral law as the standard for society.

      But Jesus changed the food laws – Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11
      and ceremonial laws – Hebrews chapters 7-10
      and Sabbath Day and feast days – Colossians 2:15-20

      Like

    • @Ken: wrote ” But Jesus changed the food laws ”

      So you can eat humans now? If not why not? Be consistent

      Like

    • ‘Jesus changed the food laws’ not according to Matthew (see 5:17 onwards)

      your other two references are not by Jesus. Hebrews is a work by an unknown author, and Colossians was written long after Jesus and is quite possibly a forgery according to many experts.

      Like

    • Christians have always been selective regarding the law of Moses. It’s like ON/OFF button for them.

      “He took the kingdom away from Israel”
      You’re in a trouble if you got caught by the liar zionist Joel Richardson! or John Hagee.

      “Acts 1:6-8 – the authority and power of the church is in spiritual power to witness and live holy lives and love people and spread into all the nations with no war or fighting”
      This is related to the whole matter of hypocrisy that you’re soaked in.
      That verse is not only a lie regarding your reality/your history. It’s a joke. You see, christians keep telling us that christianity got spread by love although everyone in this world knows how bloody you’re, and how lying this statement is. If the land spoke about what christians have done, it would scream about how lying to repeat that christianity got spread by love.
      Your prophet paul told you to be submissive to the pagan government. He praised what it had done to the people because they were the servants of God according to paul .
      Islam has built an Ummah and a real nation from nothing. It’s built a great nation by destroying the paganism as the prophecy in (Daniel 2) told exactly.
      On the other hand, christianity did nothing except adoption the pagan empire by involving in all its heritage.That’s it.
      Since christianity is not a real thing by its teachings, people keep leaving it practically.
      We know that once your stability gets shaked, you throw the teaching of “love” away, so that why some liberals keep mocking this hypocrisy.

      I recall a saying of Umar ibn Al Khattab – رضي الله عنه- when he talked about the days of Jahiliyyah. (i.e Arab before Islam). He said ” We used to make idols from dates to be worshipped as gods, yet once we get hungry, we eat them”

      What happens in the west – whether they are hypocrite liberals/ hypocrite christians- that they keep preaching about the idolism of free speech, democracy, and the “western values”, yet once the west gets shaked regarding its benefits, it becomes a blasphemous regarding these slogans, and start eating these idols.

      Like

  12. . . . it would scream about how lying to repeat that christianity got spread by love.

    you are wrong; until 380 AD, Christianity spread by love AND preaching, debate, persuasive preaching and teaching, and good works and holy lifestyle under persecution until 312 Ad.

    So your whole point is wrong; it is Roman Catholics, Popes, and Byzantine Emperors that did the wrong harsh stuff. (between and after the good Biblical period) Popes are heretics and most were extremely arrogant, like Boniface VIII (one must submit to the Pope for salvation; what a contradiction to the NT !!) and Innocent III and Pius IX ( ” I am the tradition!”)

    Like

    • “you are wrong; until 380 AD, Christianity spread by love AND preaching, debate, persuasive preaching and teaching, and good works and holy lifestyle under persecution until 312 Ad.”
      What spread at that period was all sorts of religions and christiantie(s). It’s only when christianity converted to paganism with the emperor, it started to gets its own shape and by violence. Then christianity got spread byeond the pagan empire’s borders by violence only. The lands outside the Roman empire adpoted christinaity by violence.
      It’s exactly what it’s happening now with missionaries from your countries in the west. After your governments which you should obey fu** whole nations for your benefits, and leave that nations to die or suffer, the deceptive missionaries suddenly pop out to preach about love and peace for the poor people!

      Umar رضي الله عنه was a leader which if you are gonna look for anyone like him with that wisdom and justice in the whole western history, you will not find. Umar cleaned Al masjid Alqas from the christian dirty that they used to put at that place. Sahaba spread justice, divine values , and peace for the soul by preaching Islam.
      It’s as Daniel’s interpretation in Dan2.

      The style of life that you live now is based on skulls of indigenous people and imperialism done by force and violence which you will not find in any nations’ history.
      Guess what if this life got shaked? Would you love the one who is the cause Would you be submissive by not resisting evil ?
      No, rather you would blaspheme these teachings as we read in the christian history each time that happened.

      Finally, I’ve no idea what makes you get angry from the Popes? At least thay worship Jesus, and they are not like Romans whom your prophet Paul ordered you to obey. Many things in your understanding to the christianty and its history have been transmitted by those heretics.

      Like

  13. What Umar the 2nd Caliph did in his aggressive Jihads was very unjust and evil – Islam was spread by unjust and evil wars. Both to Byzantine and Persian Empires. Proves Islam is wrong.

    Like

    • “What Umar the 2nd Caliph did in his aggressive Jihads was very unjust and evil – Islam was spread by unjust and evil wars.”

      What would have made for just and non-evil wars?

      Like

    • The Allied Powers were responding in self-defense and more just and non-evil in fighting Nazi Germany & Japan in WW 2.

      Like

    • Umar thought he was fightin for God. How was this any different than when God ordered Israelites to massacre Canananites, etc?

      Like

    • Umar thought wrong.
      Even Islam does not consider that Divine Revelation.

      But the book of Joshua and Deuteronomy chapters 7 and 9 and the predicted/ prophesied explanation in Genesis 15:13-18 is Divine revelation.

      Genesis 15:13-18 says because the sin of the Amorites (used one of the tribes for short form for all the Canaanite tribes) was not yet complete, so God gave them 400 more years until the command to Joshua was given, in judgment on those wicked nations.

      Like

    • Ken Temple: Umar thought wrong.

      So Umar was wrong only because the revelation he acted under you don’t consider genuine? But if it were genuine Umar would be right?

      Like

    • No; the Qur’an nor the Hadith is from God anyway, but also, since attacking the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empires was an unjust aggressive act, and all the subsequent Islamic conquering of many areas was all wrong and all sin.

      Like

    • Ken Temple: …attacking the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empires was an unjust aggressive act…

      Yeah, empires are known for simply minding their own businesses. That’s how they become empires in the first place.

      You are not an intelligent person, Ken.

      Like

    • “anyway, but also, since attacking the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empires was an unjust aggressive act, and all the subsequent Islamic conquering of many areas was all wrong and all sin.”
      It was justice by all the meaning. It’s a a prophecy told in your bible and in hadiths. Allah wants for that region to be returned to the children of Abraham and for spreading Allah’s message which is a peace for people’s souls. Christinas didn’t say a word for roman empire while it had occupied the lands and stole the nations. It was the iron feet that Islam destroyed.
      Even in the future, we know that the land of Sham will be the theater between muslims and christians in which muslims will be the victorious.
      Rgarding Popes, I know that they worship Mary, and that why Quran is true about chritsians. However, those people are the bridges between you and the church fathers. Between you and your NT. They are part in your religion. In fact, they are the big part. What are you gonna do?
      Also, you took your understanding from criminals such as Martin Luther & Calvin. Those people were with violence and called for it.

      Like

    • Ken, is this justice, wrong, and sin? Why?
      “But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west, and together they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them” ?!

      Like

  14. Bill Maher forgot about the first 380 years. Everything was distorted after that.

    Like

  15. the Popes? At least thay worship Jesus,

    not really, since many of them also prayed to Mary and statues and worshiped bread.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: