I like Bishop Robert Barron – he is a good example of the virtuous, sane, and intelligent Christian. It is probably no accident that he is Roman Catholic too. Catholics tend to be far less extreme and hateful than their evangelical co-religionists. This is a great talk on an important subject. I agree with every word he says!
Categories: Christianity, Feminism, Life in the West
Blogging Theology 
This was a really great video. Thanks for sharing it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vir means Man. To be a man, as distinct from simply male, requires striving to be virtuous.
Virtus was a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carries connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths (from Latin vir, “man”). It was thus a frequently stated virtue of Roman emperors, and was personified as a deity—Virtus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtus_(virtue)
LikeLike
Two other good movies with male heroes that came out in 2016 are Snowden and Hacksaw Ridge. I will concede though that they aren’t Fathers which seems to be what the Bishop was getting at.
What Bishop Baron says in this video, I’ve noticed for a long time. In my opinion a good movie that Bishop Baron would probably like is Star Wars: Rogue One. The hero is a woman but she works hard with her team, which is all male, to capture the Death Star Plans. The team isn’t made out to look dumb at all in my opinion and it’s through their teamwork that they complete their mission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree totally with Bishop Baron; and I am sorry you guys have had some bad examples of Evangelicals here.
Unfortunately, you don’t know much about the good ones; ( or dismiss them and won’t listen to them) but I think you who take the time have been recognizing that Evangelicals like James White are going about evangelism, debate, and dialogue with Muslims in the right way. Sorry for the bad examples that exist.
I think Samuel Green is also a good example; and I am glad he has been coming here lately and commenting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used to be an evangelical Christian and I knew literally hundreds of them. But I’m referring to the anti-Muslim haters who infest the www. They are a different sub species from the normal crowd.
LikeLike
Even before “Homer” of the Simpsons; there was Archie Bunker of the 70s sit-com, “All in the Family”. I think he started that whole phenomenon of always portraying fathers as uneducated and stupid and prejudiced.
Before that, men and fathers were portrayed on TV in a positive fashion.
LikeLike
Paul,
Some people that you label “haters” don’t hate all Muslims, but they do sincerely believe that Islamic doctrines are false and should be exposed; and that some of the texts (in the Qur’an, Ahadith, Sira, Tafsirs, and Tarkikh and Fiq) and behaviors of Muhammad and the Caliphs and rulings of Sharia law and Fiq through the centuries, have given rise to the extremism and terrorism of Al Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram, etc. and even Hamas uses those Hadiths that say that fighting against the Jews will not stop until the day of judgment, and the trees and rocks will cry out, “there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”, etc.
Even when they clearly say, “we don’t hate Muslims”, sometimes you and other Muslims lump everyone together as “Islamophobic”.
LikeLike
Snakes can change their skins, yet they cannot change what they are.
LikeLike
“You will know them by their fruits” – Jesus
Matthew 7:20-23
LikeLike
Amen!
Idolism, Imperialism, unjust wars, and immoral culture.
LikeLike
@Abdullah
To be honest your doesn’t make any sense.
You seem to get things mixed up here. I think it is fair to say that christians have a right to define who is a true christian and how they abide to biblical principles. I think Christianity is clear on the issue of war. Christians should not support unjust wars.
If the iraq war was unjust (which i think it was) then i think many sincere christians condemn that.
You then ranted about how the materalistic west can not deal with slavery and other issues the way islam does. Fine.
But what has that to do with evangelicals? The west today is very secular and have cut their roots with their Christian past. Whatever moral and spiritual failure the west today have can certinantly not be blamed on evangelicals. On the contrary i find it admirable to see sincere western christians living a sincere and sexually moral life in the midst of an overwhelming secular nation.
Finally i think you hold to much grudge against the west. Every culture and nation have their failings. But we should be able to seperate the elements and components that make up an civilization.
Read about western contribution in philosophy, arts, science, music etc. There is much to appreciate just as there is much to appreciate in asian and islamic cultures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fruits of Evangelicalism? Don’t they support foreign wars? Support Israel in its illegal and evil occupation of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians). Why they are so vicious in their support of these clear evils? They don’t stand for justice, peace, mercy, equality, they support polices that make rich, richer and poor, poorer. They support racist policies against Latino and other immigrants. The only thing Muslims will agree with them is opposition to gay marriage and abortion. But besides that most of their social and political position are bad for society. Most of the noted bigots ( in congress and media) are Evangelicals. Why?
So how can Evangelicalism be good to any society?
LikeLike
If someone claims to be a Christian but doesn’t act like it, he is still a Christian – Paul’s Gospel of Freedom from the Law, and faith based redemption.
Some have argued that Christians are “Free to obey” the law, but conversely, this also implies that they are “Free to Disobey” as well” Many people say a sinners prayer, are baptized and believe in Atonement by Cross, they may even believe it in their hearts but continue in their sinful ways exhibiting no real change or transformation in their sinful lives. Regardless of what one may think, these people truly believe that they are Christians. Even though some more straight Christians would like to disassociate themselves from them, these people are the FRUIT of Christianity, and they are absolutely 100% Christian.
That is why the evangelicals and other Christians like them have no problem supporting unjust wars, injustices, racist policies, and extremism, etc. There is no law, or guidance within Christianity to determine who is or isn’t a true Christian. Without a law it is “anything goes.”
“The Christian right is much more sophisticated than (the alt-right). There is a strain of deep cruelty, savagery even, fascism, intolerance, within the Christian right that is institutionalized in a way that makes it far more dangerous than the alt-right.” ~ Chris Hedges
LikeLike
@poitierfrance
First of all, let me ask you a simple question.
Do you think christianity got spread by “loving preach” or by
by taking the advantage by riding over any state’s system which launches wars & invasions, especially in Latin America & Africa?
Second, I don’t think I’ve mixed anything up here. I just present the reality & the history of that religion and its members as it is.
From the beginning, christianis’ relation with authority was based on hypocrisy. They believed that the Roman empire which had nothing to do with democracy or free speech to be as an authority for them.
We read in Roman 13
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer”.
Did Paul say any word that it’s wrong for Roman empire that it’d conquered the word?
Did he say any word that it’s wrong for people in Middle East to pay the taxes for the Roman empire?
No! He simply approved that pagan authority.
When christianity got adopted by the Roman Empire, did that empire become the empire which loves its enemies? Rather,they dealt with their enemies by the iron and fire. That’s it! And that how christianity became active otherwise it’d have been like christianity in Europe today. Yet christians deny these facts, and try to say that’s not our scripture. The record of christians tell us that they have been the most violent people ever known in the history. It’s a bloody record par excellence.
The most influential book is the bible,and they are the most bloody people in the history.
The famous figures in that religion called for violence & anti-Semitism such as Martin Luther & Calvin.
Do you think that they didn’t understand their bible?
We are dealing with more 1800 years of bloody records. Again, saying it’s not a christian or christianity doesn’t help here.
Christians till now celebrate a nothinal day called the Columbus Day, and that man was a criminal as Hitler was. George Bush told the media that he has been told by Jesus that he should invade Iraq. He named that war a crusade war.
In sum, christians have been taking the advantage of the state( whatever the state is). That advantage which is represented by force, invasions, and violence which are key factor for any civilization to emerge, yet once we point to this fact, christians start crying that’s not a christianity. No!, It’s christianity and it’s christians.
James White and Ken temple are with atomic bomb as your read in the comments.
Mike Licona retweeted this
and we know the reality of that man
==========
Regarding the secular west which is built by violence and invasions other nations to design a system for its favour. I didn’t say that there’ s nothing to be appreciated in the west.
What I’m trying to say that if you accused the most noble men ever known in the human history with a false speck, I’ll show you the real log in your side.
I’m just telling christians don’t practice your fake superiority over muslims. That’s it!
There are some authors who have addressed this issues such as Gilles Kepel & Alain Gresh. I recommend to read for them, especially if you’re a French guy.
LikeLike
The west admits sins and mistakes when it makes them – the treatment of the American Indians was wrong and (and a lot of the Crusades stuff and all of the Inquisitions was wrong; as was slavery), and the Abu Gharib prison scandal was exposed as wrong and not approved of. It was done by rogue underlings.
Japan and Germany are at fault for starting and perpetrating WW 2 and Japan would not give up. Tough decisions had to made at the time.
It was good that USA developed the technology for the atomic bombs before Hitler did.
But none of those things were Christian nor following Scripture. They were done mostly by political forces, mixture of nominal Christians and people who were not truly regenerate. (not born-again at all)
Dr. Yasir Qadhi admitted that the Abbasids and Uthmaniye (Abbasids and Ottomans) were descendants of the waring Muslim Jihadis killing most of the men and taking women as their captives and sex-maids (concubines).
LikeLike
“But none of those things were Christian nor following Scripture. They were done mostly by political forces”
Here’s the exactly where the hypocrisy occurs with you christians.
You’re involved so deeply in this world’s issues, yet you simply say it’s not christian nor scripture?!
How dare you?
That’s simply not true.
If you were sincere about these issues, you would be so passive, but you’re not. The evangelicals are the most people who are active regarding these issues. We know who are the ones praising the invasion of Iraq even by quoting the bible. Just stop lying! Your records don’t give you any excuse to say these vapid excuses.
Not only do muslims know how lying christians are, but also even the western thinkers such as Noam Chomsky.
Christians keep saying that christianity is not a state, yet they have to be under a system of state and serve it, so what’s the result eventually? I’ll let you to answer.
Slavery & wars are not something which began with Islam. Yet Islam is the ONLY teaching or philosophy on this world which has dealt with these issues by spiritual values that your materialistic west doesn’t understand. On the other hand, Jesus didn’t give a word about Slavery while he’s supposed to be the prince of peace.
If you read for any philosopher dealing with the subject of civilizations and people. You will find the the force is a key factor , especially in the beginning, However in Islam, it was for divine value which is something very unique. dr Yasir Qadhi affirmed this, yet it seems you didn’t get the point.
The state of Israel was established by violence, occupation, and by expelling people from their own houses and farms, yet you praise it.
Your country was established by invasion, killing more than 100, 000,000 of indigenous people, and by capturing slaves from Africa to serve you. You bombed Japan when it was about to surrender. You bombed it because you think that you are more ethical, superior, and less evil. Saying it’s not christian doesn’t help you.
The west by its nature is based on machiavellianism.
Do christians have any thought that it’s wrong to live in America since its belongs to other people, and you should get back to Europe, for example?
If your economy got collapsed, and you have a chance to get it back by invading other nations(as you do in the reality), would you miss that chance? or you would just be so passive and waiting for the enemy to get loved by you?
Finally, do you think these acts are sins/wrong or not, 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”
LikeLike
Isaiah 11:14 was ONLY for Israel (actually Judah) when they came back from the exile to Babylon. (verse 11 – “a second time” = coming out of Babylon) see the context of all of Isaiah chapter 11. but some think this is about a future event. Some verses, verses 6-9 do seem to be future to us.
The rest of your ranting is a mixture of many things that are too complicated to explicate.
But since Jesus inspired all of the Bible, the Scriptures are clear that the slave trade was wrong – the kidnapping by force of human beings was always wrong – both in the OT – Exodus 21:16, and in the NT – 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and Revelation chapters 17-18, specifically 18:13. The exhortations to not rebel in the NT letters were written to slaves who were already in that condition and is not condoning it; rather giving principles for the eventual freeing of the slaves when the culture turns from paganism to the true God. When Jesus lived on the earth, He did not come to start a rebellion or a political insurrection; rather He came to change hearts first, based on His atonement and resurrection; and then the results of regeneration would have positive effects slowly as the gospel goes out to all the nations, and this is still in process today.
The ending of WW 2 was a judgment call, but the fact is, the Japanese were not going to surrender; and they started the whole thing and joined with Hitler, the most famous evil person in modern history.
A lot of these bad things in modern history (19 and 20th Century – especially like the World Wars; and the Marxism-Lenin-Stalinism of Soviet Union – based on atheism, etc.) are more a result of social Darwinism and it’s affect on history; and a rejection of Judeo-Christian morality.
LikeLike
Jesus commanded the execution of children and babies in 1 Samuel 15.
Now let us await Ken’s justification of child killing….
LikeLike
Ken,
The genocide and extermination of North and South American Indian tribes was initiated prior to Darwin, and was purely based on White Christian Supremacism. Not to mention Crusades, inquisition, and, and, and……
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it was not a Christian idea. “White supremacy” is not Christian at all. See Colossians 3:9-12; Revelation 5:9; 7:9; Galatians 3:28.
The Crusades were mostly wrong, (except the aspect of self-defense), and the Inquisitions were totally wrong. There is nothing of the spirit of the NT in them.
LikeLike
Ken try the book of revelation – slaughter on a far greater scale.
Let me guess they deserved it!!
LikeLike
Ken,
Glad to see you admit crusades and inquisition were wrong. But if white supremacism is not Christian at all (I understand that most modern Christians do not believe this) how do you explain the fact that in the past, White Christians directly cited the Bible in support of black slavery in the America’s. Or that White Christians directly cited the Bible in exterminating American Indians and forcibly converting them to Christianity?
Many African American and American Indians I personally know are still resentful toward Christianity because of these crimes which cannot be easily forgotten.
LikeLike
Ken, let’s be honset here.
Is the christian the one who loves his enemy? The one who doesn’t resist evil? The one who loves those who persecute him?
The one who turns his other cheek to get slapped again?
Is this what you’re trying to say? If the answer is yes! I submit that I’ve not met that person yet.
Regarding Isaiah, I didn’t ask if it’s in the future or not. Your view about the future is more violent than this. I asked if you consider these acts as sins or not and why.
You’ talked about “Judeo- christian” morality! You know there’s no a such term called “Judeo christian” in the reality, don’t you? Your relation wth jews has always been for killing the bad jews!
At the end of time there will be just 144,000 among jews who will be saved which means only 1% of the whole population of jews today. Cemeteries in Phila & Missouri are so telling about how shallow this term is.
At the end of the day, you’ve to choose! Ether a passive christian or a crusader. Both are justified among christians. It’s a game they play depends on the situation to avoid the consequences of the evil they keep doing.
The subject of wars is not an atheist issue.
LikeLike
“materialistic west” – rich Saudi and Kuwaiti and UAE oil sheikhs are not materialistic?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lol good point
LikeLiked by 1 person
In fact, it’s not a good point at all.
I invite you both to read what Charles Montagu Doughty or Wilfred Thesiger wrote about the nature of those people.
Also, I wrote my opinion regarding materialism .
Imam Ahmed was asked would the person be an ascetic while he had a lot of money. Imam Ahmed answered, yes! He said: as long as he would not be so sad if that money got decreased, and he wouldn’t be so happy if that money got increased, he can be ascetic.
Moreover, when I talk about the wset, I talk in the general sense. Each people or nation have the bad ones and the good ones.
I’m talking about the west since it supposedly bears the teaching of Jesus that to sell everything you have to give the poor while the west throughout the history has been in the opposite side of this teaching.
It’s machiavellianistic par excellence.
LikeLike
According to Deuteronomy 25:19, the command to kill the Amalakites was only for within the borders of the land of Israel. “in the land” = the promised land; and the borders are clear in Genesis 15:13-18 and 1 Kings 4:20-25) It was part of the same command against the Canaanites and Amorites and Hittites, etc. within the borders of the promised land of Israel. (God gave those evil pagan nations over 400 years to repent (Genesis 15:13-18), before sending Joshua in to fight them and drive them out of the land. The Amalakites later joined those groups of wicked tribes. But apparently the descendants of Agag, the king of the Amalakites who was killed by the prophet Samuel ( 1 Sam. 15:32-35) survived, and Haman, the Agagite in the book of Esther, tried to kill all the Jews in the Persian Empire. This seems to be the meaning of Revelation 12, that behind the scenes the dragon/serpent/Satan, is constantly trying to kill the offspring of the woman in Revelation 12 – Israel and the Messiah, who comes from Israel. Those wicked nations seem to be Satanically inspired to always want to kill the Jewish people and the Messiah before the Messiah Jesus came into the world.
And it was only for that time and only for Theocratic Israel. We have already discussed this 1,000 times.
Here is a map of the areas described in 1 Kings 4:20-25 – seems to be a fulfillment of the promises of the land promises of Genesis 12-13, 15, Deut. 7, 9, Joshua, etc.
LikeLike
After the fulfillment of the land of Israel in Solomon’s time ( 1 Kings 4:20-25), those OT land promises are no longer applicable, especially after Matthew 21:33-46 and 70 AD. There is no more Biblical Israel.
and the serpent/dragon/Satan of Revelation 12 seems to still making war against the true followers of the lamb, both Jews and Gentile nations. (context of 1st century Roman persecution and beyond into the first 3 centuries.)
LikeLike
Told you! Ken whitewashes child killing by Jesus in the OT!
LikeLike
If that promise was given to Abraham and his children, then it has not been fulfilled except through Ishmaelites. Thay unified those regions to worship ONE God. God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob.
LikeLike
No.
“but My covenant I will establish with Isaac . . . ” Genesis 17:21
LikeLike
Gen. 17:21 can also be translated “AND my covenant I establish…”
Ishmael had already been included in the covenant prior through receiving the eternal mark of circumcision, and it was simply reiterated that Isaac was included as well. Ishmael, who as elder brother receives a double portion of the inheritance according to Mosaic laws of inheritance laid out in Deut. 21:15-17 which explains why the his Ishmaelite Arab, and Muslim spiritual descendants have inhabited the greater middle east ever since!
see also:
http://www.islamawareness.net/Mib/ch6_8_1.html
LikeLike
Good points Ibn Issam.
I’m telling you Ken,
Ishmaelites are the fulfillment of that promise by the factual history. You deal with a fact here. Moreover, why would God in the bible give Ishmael the sign of the covenant ?!
LikeLike
Show me anywhere in Galatians 3:28 or Colossians 3:9-12 or Revelation 5:9; 7:9, etc. where there is anything about “White Supremacy”.
It is not Christian, and came from sinful hearts.
Mark 7:20-23; Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 17:9
LikeLike
Jewish supremacy in the OT.
Or do you follow Jay Smith and throw the Jewish scriptures under the bus?
LikeLike
If you read what I wrote, you would not make statement/question. Every Christian believes some of the things of the OT are not for application in the New Covenant era (today); but were for Theocratic Israel.
LikeLike
. . . how do you explain the fact that in the past, White Christians directly cited the Bible in support of black slavery in the America’s. Or that White Christians directly cited the Bible in exterminating American Indians and forcibly converting them to Christianity?
sin in the heart
Mark 7:20-23
Genesis 6:5
Jeremiah 17:9
Ecclesiastes 9:3
LikeLike
Ken it is a courtesy – if you want people to follow your argument- to actually quote in full the references you refer to.
LikeLike
Did you now read the verses and agree with me?
LikeLike
At the end of time there will be just 144,000 among jews . . .
That is just a large round SYMBOLIC number by multiplying 12 x 12.
LikeLike
Ok
Mark 7:20-23
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride [arrogance, racial pride and hatred and superiority] and foolishness.
23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
Genesis 6:5
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
Ecclesiastes 9:3
This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men.
Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead.
LikeLike
I am courteous and kind. 😉
LikeLike
not always, no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
true; and no one is always.
But I supplied you with the verses.
Don’t you agree with me, that “white supremacy” is not in the NT ? and that whoever believes that and acts that way is violating the NT?
see the verses typed out above
It came from sinful hearts.
LikeLike
If not white supremacism, then Christian supremacism incidentally adopted and carried out largely by whites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope.
Christianity in the Middle East and N. African was not white; then Islam came and unjustly killed and conquered and forced the N.Africans and many in middle east to become Muslims; and later slowly wearing down the populations because there was no freedom to do evangelism or build churches and the dhimmi system and jiziye tax wore them down and forced them economically and socially to become Muslims.
LikeLike
Excellent 6 and 1/2 minutes about true Christianity.
LikeLike
“then Islam came and unjustly killed and conquered and forced the N.Africans and many in middle east to become Muslims”
That’s not true!
Islam was the fulfillment of the promise which was given to our father Abraham at that region.
Also, it’s the fullfilment of the mother of prophecies in your bible which is in book of Daniel ( Daniel2). Islam came to destroy the 4th kingdom which was represented by the christian Roman idolatry.
We are the true inheritors for that region by embracing Islam and by following the last prophet pbuh whom jews were waiting at that time, yet they rejected him in out of envy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No; Jiziye and Dhimmi-ism wore them down slowly economically and socially.
Daniel 2 knows nothing of Islam.
Daniel 2 is about the Kingdom of God crushing the pagan Roman Empire by preaching, love, good works, evangelism, etc. – the first 3-4 centuries. Jesus Al Masih said He was that – Matthew 21:33-46 – He is the rock that crushes and humbles – Jesus is the final one. since He is the last (with His apostles and the NT revelation), then Muhammad is false, coming 600 years too late.
LikeLike
Ken,
your revisionist history of the spread of Islam in middle east and into Africa is inaccurate. Many came to Islam, because they already believed in Unitarianism which the Church had outlawed and brutally suppressed. Rather than being forced to profess the doctrine of trinity, and pay heavy taxes to the Imperialist Christian state, they naturally and voluntarily converted to Islam, and were free to believe in the Oneness of God, while paying much less in taxes, only 2.5% of wealth, to the Muslim state – a win/win. Others came to Islam through being exposed to Islam through trade missions, meeting Muslims face to face, which inspired the spread of literacy in Arabic language facilitated through reading Qur’an. Yes there was some fighting, but that was really minor in comparison to the vast majority of conversions which took place rather peacefully.
The Christian Identity movement is infused with White Supremacism, spawning many right wing hate groups. Regardless of what you would like to believe, Christianity is not sinless and pure as you think.
LikeLike
Many of the N. Africans had become Arians, that is true. Along with the Donatist movement, after Augustine in 430 AD – N. Africa had left the faith until Islam came. But it was still a totally different religion that what Islam is. Jesus was the Son of God in Arian Christianity. Dhimmi-ism and wars and economic pressure forced them to become Muslims.
But the Monophysites in Egypt and Syria and Levant were different (They believed in the Trinity, but defined Christ’s 2 natures differently than Chalcedon); and Nestorians further east. Dhimmi-ism and Surah 9:29 wore them down, economically and socially. Those that survived like the Copts in Egypt and the little groups in Levant are all that is left from the centuries of Islam stomping on them.
LikeLike
The white supremacy groups have nothing to do with NT Christianity, as Rev. 5:9; 7:9, Colossians 3:9-12; and Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 2:11-22 testify. They are wrong and a very small group of mis-guided people, scattered and of no consequence.
LikeLike
Ken,
We don’t need your interpretation which doesn’t make sense for that prophecy in Daniel 2 since the prophet Daniel himself who interpreted it.
That’s what makes that prophecy unique. It’s so clear & vivid. it doesn’t need all this twisting.
Christianity embraced the paganism in the Roman empire with its idols and even its holidays. The holy place in Jerusalem was the dump of the city till Islam came to restore that place for wrshipping Allah alone, the God of Abraham.
Moreover, jews and christians themselves knew that the Roman empire will be destroyed by the kingdom of God since it’s the 4th, and it was divided as the prophecy said, and that has been the only interpretation for them before Islam.
However, when Islam emerged and fulfilled that prophecy, they denied it and even came with so vapid interpretations as you did.
LikeLike
It is sobering to note that most scholars consider Daniel to be a 2nd century BC forgery.
LikeLike
Not according to Jesus in Matthew 21:33-46
LikeLike
Jesus says His Kingdom is the last, and verse 44 alludes to Him being the great stone of Daniel 2 that crushes all the previous kingdoms.
Matthew 21:42-46 (see fuller context from verse 33)
42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,
‘The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief corner stone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. 46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet.
LikeLike
Not really!
Matthew21:44 affirms it’s not Jesus.
The kingdom which will destroy the 4th one is something real. Christians say it’s a spiritual kingdom. Also, that spiritual kingdom teaches you to not resist evil!
Paul teaches you that the pagan Romans are the servants of God whom you should obey! How on erath could that teaching be the fifth kingdom?!
It’s one statue which represents idoltry. These 4 kingdoms followed each other and inherited eache other. Islam is the fifth historically which has cut that lineage of paganism.
Islam destroys its enemies to dust to establish a kingdom and a nation worshiping Allah alone as He likes in a period considered miraculous thing for historians.
It presents a whole guidance for all aspects in the life. If you deny this fact, you deny the existence of the sun.
It’s mentioned in the original Injeel which was given to Jesus
https://quran.com/48/29
LikeLike
Regarding the video of Tim Keller.
I like the fictional stories.
It’s like James White when he debated muslims for the first time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Ibn Issam
“Christianity is not sinless and pure as you think.”
Now this doesn’t make any sense at all. What is your ultimate point here?
So christianity is a religion that began as a small movement around Jesu of Nazareth. It expanded geograhpically and numerically. Its beliefs can be read in the New testament. That is christianity. Not what king Charles or King Alfonso did.
That is christian history by all means. But did you spot the difference.
The same goes for islam. It began as a small movement around Muhammed. It expanded geographically and numerically. Its belief is contained in the Quran and the accepted authentic hadith collections.
What Sultan Abdurahman or Harun al-Rashid did is islamic history. No one would say that the wine drinking and poetry about homosexuality going at his court was islam.
Any cultural and political entity were islam or Cheistianity was the dominant religion qualify in academic historical circles to be called “christian” or “islamic” history without it necesserily representing the actualt creed as based on its own sources.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PoiterFrance,
Shukran, ya Kurdi,
I understand your comment. However, you may want to direct it more towards the Islamophobes and critics of Islam on this website and elsewhere. It is generally they who conflate everything in Muslim history together with the creed of Islam in order to skew the picture, and distort the image of Islam.
What I was specifically referring to in my comment was the modern Christian identity movements about which the famous investigative reporter, Chris Hedges, has stated the following:
“The Christian right is much more sophisticated than (the alt-right),” he observed. “There is a strain of deep cruelty, savagery even, fascism, intolerance, within the Christian right that is institutionalized in a way that makes it far more dangerous than the alt-right.” ~ Chris Hedges
LikeLike
The Vandals and Goths brought Arian Christianity to parts of N. Africa (except for Egypt).
in the 400s and 500s AD.
But that was still a lot different than Islam.
LikeLike
It is sobering to note that most scholars consider Daniel to be a 2nd century BC forgery.
Rabbi Tovia Singer (whom you use a lot here) doesn’t; he knows it was written by Daniel around 530 BC.
LikeLike
he is not a biblical scholar.
LikeLike
Book of Daniel has some features which do not exist in any sefer of the OT. I don’t say it’s free from corruption.
LikeLike
What features?
LikeLike
Somehow , it has an Islamic label. Gabriel the one who comes to Daniel to explain for him the prophecies, for example.
LikeLike
“were free to believe in the Oneness of God, while paying much less in taxes, only 2.5% of wealth, to the Muslim state – a win/win.” ibn Assam
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ].”
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
They weren’t “free” to accept tawheed. They were fought and subdued and coerced. They were enslaved. They were forced to pay jizya by “feeling subdued”. If they were “free” to accept tawheed then you make Allah a liar for commanding you to fight non Muslims. How pathetic a religion like this. How pathetic that you put roses over the countless millions of souls killed and attacked and coerced to accept the mad ravings of an Arab dictator with obsessions for young girls, some of whom were married, some children. What wickedness you promote
LikeLike
Paulus,
It is easy to take verses out of context spinning and twisting the verse to mean something never intended. The only thing that is “pathetic” is your lazy deceitful attempts to misportray the religion of others. And you fail to mention “the countless millions of souls” that were lost due to Christian supremacism, conquest and expansion.
Discover the Truth has already addressed the verses you quoted.
Pickthall Quran 8:39 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do. The Muslims were only permitted to fight against those who were persecuting them. https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/09/30/quran-839-and-fight-with-them-until-there-is-no-more-fitna-persecution/
In regard to Qur’an 9:29 “God Almighty only permitted the fighting, in the context of Byzantine (Roman) Empire’s impending army to attack the Muslims. The verse does not in any-way allow or permit aggression against peaceful people. Rather the injunction in the verse has to be understood within the historical context that it was revealed at the time of Prophet Muhammed (p). As explained, the context of which was to do with the aggression and the hostilities of the Byzantine Empire’s actions, as we showed in a number of historical reports. Which led to Prophet Muhammed’s (p) decision in confronting the enemy head-on in Tabuk. For some to claim that the verse allowed aggression and warfare against innocent people, this has no historical truth to it. The evidences shown tell us, Islam respects, and treats those who adhere to other religions with kindness, care and goodness.” https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/
Quranic verse 9:29 commanded Muslims to fight only those that were involved in aggression against them, as shown by its historical context. Muslims only fought the Byzantines in self-defence, to save the themselves from oppression and extinction. https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/
My previous comments still stand.
In regard to the wickedness that you promote:
“The Christian right is much more sophisticated than (the alt-right),” he observed. “There is a strain of deep cruelty, savagery even, fascism, intolerance, within the Christian right that is institutionalized in a way that makes it far more dangerous than the alt-right.” ~ Chris Hedges
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Paulus” You mean just 50 million natives who were butchered in the name of “new Israel” or the millions of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) who have been forced to give up their home land and made refugees because someone believes on the basis Bible otherwise or slaughter 1.3 millions Iraqis in the name of Christian democracy or impose vile dictators upon Muslim ( non Muslim nations) in the name of freedom?
Why not question the real killers and oppressors who are actually doing the oppression right now? and how about your Bible which has stories after stories after stories of wholesale genocide of people, enjoins killing babies and children, in some cases enjoins killing of all except to keep “the virgins” for your pleasures.
Violence permitted by Quran is benign, really really benign, compared to the vile and wicked violence LEGISLATED by your Bible and DONE by your people throughout history that continues even today. WWII was your Christian Europe war upon rest of the humanity. But you haven’t stopped. Have you?
It is happening even today. The Muslims extremists and terrorists are killing in hundreds may be thousands [and they are denounced by Muslims every single day, rightfully so]. But your people are killing in millions. I am yet to see a SINGLE christian leader calling for prosecution of killers who orchestrated war in IRAQ which has resulted in death of millions. Why? Would you be the brave soul to demand that. I know you live in USA. Why not show the world how peaceful and loving is your religion and what a patriotic American you are?
LikeLike
fitneh فتنه does not mean “persecution” nor “polytheism” – it means “chaos”, “turmoil”, “confusion”, “rebellion”, “mutiny”, “sedition”, etc. – any kind of rebellion or mobs that cause the Muslim society to be in chaos or confusion is interpreted as “temptation” or “persecution” because it is causes social unrest and questioning of the leaders and the questions of Islam itself.
It means in modern understanding people causing confusion and chaos and rebellion in the streets by protesting the government. (like the Iranians who protested against the government in 2009 about their votes; and can be interpreted by whoever is in power (even the secular leaders) in the Arab countries as the “Arab Spring”, etc.
Almost anything and everything is interpreted and can be interpreted into this word in Islamic history, since any kind of chaos and rebellion against the authorities of an Islamic government, if it causes others to question Islam, etc. can be interpreted as “temptation” and “persecution” and “polytheism”, etc.
LikeLike
Context is key. However, re: the word Fitna, here is an excerpt from a blog called “Controversial Islam” that deals with the issue:
I think just about every translator, whether Muslim or not, has translated fitnah for this verse as “persecution:”
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
A.J.ARBERRY: Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely; then if they give over, surely God sees the things they do.
SHER ALI: And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly to Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Watchful of what they do.
MUHAMMAD ALI: 39. And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Seer of what they do.
MUHAMMAD ASAD: And fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone.
T.B. IRVING: Fight them off until there is no more persecution, and Religion belongs wholly to God: yet if they do stop, then God is Observant of anything they do.
RASHAD KHALIFA: You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.
E.H. PALMER: Fight them then that there should be no sedition, and that the religion may be wholly God’s; but if they desist, then God on what they do doth look.
J.M. RODWELL: Fight then against them till strife be at an end…
Hilalli-Khan translation is simply wrong. Within the same Surah, look up Verse 8:25. Here Hillali-Khan translation correctly translates fitnah as “affliction and trial.” I hope you know what “literal” means. The literal meaning would be simply a statement that “religion is for God alone.” What you or Hilali-Khan are suggesting is NOT literal meaning but an interpretation, which is not supported by the text itself. Secondly, you are implying that “fatana” is the root word which it is not. Usually, a verb is derived from a noun, not vice versa. Quran has used the term in a variety of other ways, and for a native speaker, it is not difficult to understand what is meant.
Additional information on the origin of word fitnah.
From an Islamic web site:
“Al-Azhari said: “The Arabic word fitnah includes meanings of testing and trial. The root is taken from the phrase fatantu al-fiddah wa’l-dhahab (I assayed (tested the quality of) the silver and gold), meaning I melted the metals to separate the bad from the good. Similarly, Allaah says in the Qur’aan (interpretation of the meaning): ‘(It will be) a Day when they will be tried [yuftanoona] (punished, i.e. burnt) over the Fire!’ [al-Dhaariyaat 51:13], meaning, burning them with fire.” (Tahdheeb al-Lughah, 14/196).
“Ibn Faaris said: “Fa-ta-na is a sound root which indicates testing or trial.” (Maqaayees al-Lughah, 4/472). This is the basic meaning of the word fitnah in Arabic.
“Ibn al-Atheer said: “Fitnah: trial or test… The word is often used to describe tests in which something disliked is eliminated. Later it was also often used in the sense of sin, kufr (disbelief), fighting, burning, removing and diverting.” (al-Nihaayah, 3/410. Ibn Hajar said something similar in al-Fath, 13/3).”
The word “fitnah” has been used in a variety of meanings. The meaning is usually derived from the context. Most translators have translated it as “persecution” though “mischief” would also be a good translation within this context. The same word “fitnah” appears in verse 2:217 where it is said that “fitnah is worse than murder.” Obviously, here “fitnah” would mean persecution. But again, Hilali/ Muhsen Khan got terribly confused and left the word “al-fitnah” in the English translation with a footnote so confusing that few can understand the meaning of the verse.
https://controversialislam.wordpress.com/quran-verse-839/
LikeLike