I can guess where CNN is going with this..

Advertisements


Categories: Homosexuality, Islam, Life in the West

130 replies

  1. Can you be a zoophile and still be Muslim? I would like to hear the likes of Resa Aslan answer that one.

    Like

  2. Indeed, those who like that immorality should be spread [or publicized] among those who have believed will have a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And Allah knows and you do not know.
    24:19

    Liked by 1 person

  3. An “acting out” on desires/lusts are fantasies, use of pornography, etc. This is sin in Christianity and the root of adultery, as in Matthew 5:27-28

    Does Islam say sexual fantasies / lusts are sin, as in the Bible (Matthew 5:27-28) Not initial attraction, as in “wow, she is pretty” (nothing wrong with that, if a man feels and thinks that), but taking it farther than than, in the heart and mind.

    27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’;
    28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    verses 29-30 teach that those lusts and fantasies are enough sin to send people to hell.

    as sinful anger and hatred in the heart makes people guilty (Matthew 5:22-26) (in God’s court of heaven or hell) as murder, as enough to send people to hell. Sinful and anger and lusts make us guilty as sinners and can send us to hell-fire, but they are not crimes. (not punishable by the government)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Qur’an also has a command to lower the gaze and asks believers not to go near anything that can lead to adultery (Q 17:32)

      Liked by 1 person

    • But does the Qur’an deal with the root of adultery – lust, desire, evil thoughts in the heart and mind?

      lowering one’s gaze is good; but the mind can still form images and fantasize about sexual sin with other women. How does Islam deal with lustful thoughts in the heart and mind?

      Like

    • Ken you know so little about Islam. It’s not ‘Islam’ that deals with anything – it is God Himself that aids the believer to righteousness. We too can pray and fast. Just like Jesus did to Allah.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Where does Islam (Allah, ok, through Qur’an and Sunnah and Hadith, etc.) teach how to deal with internal sins like lust, pride, arrogance, jealousy, bitterness, selfishness, etc.

      You claim Allah (God) for inspiring the Qur’an, but since that Allah got history wrong (Surah 4:157) and got the doctrine of the Trinity wrong (5:116, 5:72-78) and what Christians meant by “Son of God” for Jesus (6:101; 19:88-92) and said husbands can hit their wives (Surah 4:34), and treat them like a plowing field for spreading seed as they wish (Surah 2:223); then these and other mistakes/contradictions (confusing Mary mother of Jesus with Mariam sister of Aaron, etc.) demonstrate the true God did not inspire the Qur’an.

      Like

    • These is much teaching in the sunnah about the nature or sin and it’s remedies, but I find that drawing close to our holy and loving God in prayer 5x a day is excellent medicine to living a life pleasing to God. Jesus prayed to Allah frequently and fasted. Just as Muslims do today during Ramadan.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken asked “But does the Qur’an deal with the root of adultery – lust, desire, evil thoughts in the heart and mind?”

      Yes. Following points will illustrate it (in no particular order)…

      1. Educating that the desires are only ‘provisions’ (mata’u) for the life in this world and nothing to be obsessed about (Q 3:14).
      2. Encouraging to marry and at an early age and discouraging celibacy.
      3. Forbidding all paths that lead to adultery (that includes fantasizing, pornography, gazing etc.) (Q-17:32)
      4. Assuring the believers that Satan will have no authority over them. (Q 15:42)
      5. Advised fasting to develop self control, in case the temptations are severe to resist.
      6. To be conscious of God all the time by mandating 5 daily prayers. Assuring believers that prayer will help resist from all types of Al-Fahshah – immorality/indecency etc.(Q 29:45)
      7. Giving the hope that all the temptations and desires will be fulfilled in the Hereafter (which is better and lasts till eternity)
      8. Teaching through the story of Adam(ra) and Eve(ra) that it was Satan who made their shame exposed. Thus, educating the importance of covering oneself decently.

      How does Bible deal with the root of adultery? Don’t tell me Jesus sacrifice or having a conscience of being with the Holy Spirit will solve it out automatically.

      Like

    • Romans chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 – too much to type out. Go. learn. read. be open to God.

      Like

    • And Paul Williams complains about me putting the reference without the full text of the verse!

      Surah 17:32 just says, “don’t do it” ; it does not say anything about the heart, evil thoughts, pornography, lusts, fantasies, etc.

      PICKTHALL
      And come not near unto adultery. Lo! it is an abomination and an evil way.

      SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
      And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.

      Like

    • Surah 3:14 is getting closer to the loves and desires of the heart. ok; but it is still not an emphasis in Islam – look at all the rich wealthy oil sheiks of Saudi and Kuwait (they don’t seem to apply 3:14 to their lives) and leaders of Iran who control everything.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Just a brief response to the passage you quote that in your mind questions divinity of Qur’an.

      4:157 – Verse tells it was made to appear to ‘them’. So hardly wrong.
      5:116 – No reference to the Trinity there. People worshipping Mary are still there.
      5:72 – A negation of the divinity of Jesus. Wrong only to the Christian subjective viewpoint.
      6:101 – Christians have so many meanings for ‘son of God’. The verse clearly tells Jesus(as) is his creation and not a begotten son as Bible claims.
      19:88 – A refutation of the begotten son claim and how blasphemous it is.
      4:34 – Not at all an encouragement to beat wives. Just a 3rd option and that too a small tap with a brush in a very special case with no intention to harm or hurt as explained in hadith. This step only works if you have never harmed your wife before. As then, even a small tap can be too powerful.
      2:223 – A beautiful verse suggesting just how a farmer takes care of the field and spreads the seed, so should the husband be. At the same time, no restriction on the time and type of physical relations.
      Confusing Mary/Miriam – the question was asked to the Prophet then and he replied as well. Not a contradiction.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “….Romans chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 – too much to type out. Go. learn. read. be open to God….”

      Come on Ken. You can be a bit more precise if you choose to rather than putting out chapter numbers in serial order. We are discussing a very specific issue here.
      I gave you 8 points from our Scriptures and it covers all the bases (including Matthew 5:27-28) regarding this issue both in theory and practice.
      If you have anything better to show from the Bible, then do so.

      “…..Surah 17:32 just says, “don’t do it” ; it does not say anything about the heart, evil thoughts, pornography, lusts, fantasies, etc. ….”

      Actually it does. Reading English translation will only give you a shallow understanding of the verse. The word used is ‘taqrabu’ which means ‘go near’ and the end of the verse talks it is an evil path (wasaa sabilan). It basically means there is a step by step path that takes you to adultery and believers shouldn’t go anwhere near that path. So that includes evil thoughts, fantasies, pornography etc. It is one of the features of the Qur’an that often deep messages are conveyed with precise choice of words.

      Here is a short lecture which explains this verse

      Like

    • ‘taqrabu
      تقربوا
      we have that root in Farsi also. 🙂
      we make the word Taqreeban تقریباً from that, which means “about”, “almost” and one can see the similarity with “near”, “close”

      Like

    • The root of adultery, lust and desire cannot be the heart for Moses said to love god with all thy heart. If the heart was filth ,then God would not tell us to use filthy thing to love him. No child thinks about adultery, lust etc as his mom nurses him. Maybe a Christian woman has those thoughts as she nurses her new born?

      And if she is ” born of a woman” then it is ONLY natural that lust crossed his mind regularly . He even says ” why do you call me good?”
      so your God must have had those THOUGHTS in his mind
      And what about those satanic temptations he was experiencing ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “…..Surah 17:32 just says, “don’t do it” ;”

      Sahih International: And do not approach unlawful sexual intercourse. Indeed, it is ever an immorality and is evil as a way.

      this verse is saying DO NOT COME close to adultery because CLOSE is bad enough , yet look what you said

      “don’t do it” ;”

      Like

    • does that include lustful thoughts and fantasies ? The Bible talks more about the mind and heart, whereas, in the Qur’an there is not an emphasis on the heart and mind and the sins that begin in the heart and mind.

      Mark 7:20-23
      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 and foolishness.
      23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

      Genesis 6:5 – “every imagination of the thoughts and motives of the heart of mankind is only evil continually.”

      Jeremiah 17:9
      “the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked and sick, who can understand it?

      Like

    • Ken you have the wrong end of the stick. When as a Muslim you pray salat 5 x a day before your Lord, who is holy, loving, compassionate – one’s heart is purified and renewed by his grace. Immorality is purged from the believers heart. The Quran promises this. I have found it to be true.

      You view Islam merely as religious system excluded the living God, that is why you repeatedly fail to understand.

      Liked by 2 people

    • But you said all those disciplines were too hard. 🙂

      Those ritual prayers cannot purify the heart and there is no grace or power in Islam – there is no Holy Spirit power that enables someone to live holy. It is a ritualistic and legal Sharia – external religion.

      You cannot reach God since you deny the one mediator. There is no connection to God the Father without Jesus Christ as savior, Lord, atoning sacrifice for sin, resurrection power, the power of the Holy Spirit, mediator, etc.

      Jesus said, “no one can come to the Father except through Me” John 14:6

      Like

    • They certainly DO purify the heart. I know this from experience. The Quran promises this. I have verified it in my experience as have millions of others today.

      God powerfully transforms the heart and mind through the 5 x a day prayers he has ordained.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Genesis 6:5 – “every imagination of the thoughts and motives of the heart of mankind is only evil continually.”

      Jeremiah 17:9
      “the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked and sick, who can understand it?

      okay, where do any of these texts say that you need to wash your heart in jesus’ blood ?
      where did moses say to love god with all thy heart through jesus’ blood?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Acts 15:9-11
      Romans 5:5
      2 Corinthians 5:17
      Romans 6:6; 11-14
      Romans 8:6
      Romans 8:13
      Colossians 3:1-5

      Like

    • “Those ritual prayers cannot purify the heart and there is no grace or power in Islam –”

      there is absolutely no power in imagining eating and drinking a Palestinian jew.
      there is absolutely no power in holding the instrument of torture and murder
      there is absolutely no power in killing an all powerful god.
      killing an animal is easy, killing a human is easy
      learning to do right is harder, better to do the difficult thing and drop human/animal sacrifices.


      there is no Holy Spirit power that enables someone to live holy. It is a ritualistic and legal Sharia – external religion.”

      eucharist is ritualistic . your god did the ritual of killing himself. what do you remember except bloody ritual?


      You cannot reach God since you deny the one mediator. ”

      moses says to love god why all thy heart, not love god through jesus.


      There is no connection to God the Father without Jesus Christ as savior, Lord, atoning sacrifice for sin, resurrection power, the power of the Holy Spirit, mediator, etc.”

      there you go again mentioning the ritual between the trinity members.
      blood , pain and suffering. ALL ritualistic self VIOLENCE.

      don’t mention the coming back to life because there is NO atonement in an animal which comes back to life. a jew would have to kill it again.


      Jesus said, “no one can come to the Father except through Me” John 14:6″

      response to jesus

      “God is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him sincerely” (Psalm 145:18)

      no jesus mentioned.

      Liked by 1 person

    • NT is fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 145:18 – “to call upon the LORD sincerely” means to cry out to Jesus Al Masih the LORD to save you.

      “whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved” Romans 10:9-15

      that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD (Yahweh, God, boss, sovereign) and believe in your heart that God the Father raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. Romans 10:9-10

      Like

    • Muslims draw close to God 5 x a day. They are transformed by his love and mercy. We do NOT a need a man to be horribly tortured to death to draw close to our Lord. Christianity holds no attraction to Muslims and offers nothing that is not already found in Islam.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “does that include lustful thoughts and fantasies ? The Bible talks more about the mind and heart, whereas, in the Qur’an there is not an emphasis on the heart and mind and the sins that begin in the heart and mind.”

      which child born to its mother while being nursed is thinking about sexual fantasies?

      Like

    • in the torah it says that those who add to it will have the curses mentioned in the torah added to them. ken temple is going to hell according to the torah.

      here is proof :

      “NT is fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 145:18 – “to call upon the LORD sincerely” means to cry out to Jesus Al Masih the LORD to save you.”

      you ADDED your lies to psalm 145:18
      no mention of jesus there

      quote :

      “whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved” Romans 10:9-15

      that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD (Yahweh, God, boss, sovereign) and believe in your heart that God the Father raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. Romans 10:9-10″

      end quote

      this is not from the jewish bible.

      Like

    • The Qur’an affirms the inspiration of both the OT (Torah, prophets) and NT (Al-Injeel).

      Like

    • It confirms the originals but not the corrupted one you use.

      Like

    • What we have are copies of the originals – there is no other extant documents of the orginal ones, but the evidence shows we have them – even with small amount of textual variants, remarkable for accuracy and truth and power to save and cleanse the heart, unlike dry ritualistic and legalistic Sharia based Islam.

      Like

    • Ken tell me how do you know for sure that the NT manuscripts we gave today are completely faithful copies of the originals no one has ever seen?

      Like

    • By this, and others like Dan Wallace, Michael Kruger, etc.

      Like

    • You have never experienced Islamic salat so you are ignorant of God’s purifying power through it. So stop making a fool of yourself.

      Like

    • Just your subjective claim.

      You never were born again by God’s Holy Spirit, so you never experienced true conversion when you were a “Christian” for those few years. Since Islam does not even believe in a Holy Spirit, you could not have been born-again, given your islamic experience and claims.

      Also, the Scriptures say when you do what you did (left Christianity and became an apostate) you are like a pig that returned to the mud and like a dog who returns to vomit – you were never changed. 2 Peter 2:22

      It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

      Hebrews 3:12
      You fell away from the Living God – you were around the truth (reading the Bible some and going to church; but your arrogant liberal scholarship corrupted what good there was in the church that you learned; Satan snatched it away from you (Luke 8:4-15) but never had the truth in your heart.

      Like

    • FACT: Muslims know the purifying grace and love of Allah. You can rant all you wish, changes nothing.

      Like

    • there is no love in Islam like this:
      Romans 5:8
      But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

      Like

    • False belief. God does not die, blaspheme!!

      Like

    • 2nd person of Trinity who became a human did die. John 1:1-5; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8

      Denial of that is what is false. Islam denies the truth of the gospel message.

      Like

    • The Trinity doctrine is a much later human innovation . It contradicts the pure monotheism taught in Gods final Revelation to mankind, it is therefore false.

      Like

    • all there in the NT – Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-12; John 20:28; Acts 5:3-5; John 14, 15, 16

      Like

    • Irenaeus and Tertullian confirmed we have true copies of the orgininals and others by all the quotes. (Justin Martyr, Ignatius,Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, (and many others) etc. – one can reconstruct entire NT by all the quotes from the early church. The differences (textual variants) are inconsequential and do not affect any major doctrine.

      Like

    • But did Augustine etc etc have access to the ORIGINAL autographs of Paul’s letters and the gospels? NO! so how can you be sure you have a completely accurate facsimile of the original autographs?

      Like

    • comparing all the copies and quotes, taking into account the textual variants, yes

      Like

    • But how do you know? You have failed to explain how not having any autographs you can be sure it is 100% exactly as it was written. Try again. THINK

      Like

    • Reading whole books and studying the issues for years has been lots of thinking on the issue. Read the book I linked to and listen to Dr. White’s over one hour lecture. and read Dan Wallace’s books. lots of thinking involved. And Dr. Kruger’s 3-4 books on Canon and NT text, etc. Lots of thinking.

      Like

    • I have read much in these subjects – outside of the cosy safe space of evangelical scholars.

      Like

    • Irenaeus and Tertullian ( 180-220 AD) quote and affirm most of the NT and same as today. No doctrine was affected.

      Like

    • The NT of their day: 2-3rd century. Did they have the actual autographs of Paul’s writings to check? NO

      Like

    • what they quoted agrees with all manuscript evidence; lots of independent lines of free transmission; unlike Qur’an and you, who only have government enforced text of Uthman; with most all previous information of earlier manuscripts were burned.

      Ours is more honest with older evidence; yours is government force. (the nature of original Islam – external government force.)

      Like

    • My point remains unanswered. How can we can be certain that these copies of copies of copies etc used by the church in the 2nd century onwards are an accurate facsimile of the original?

      It is impossible to know this for sure. Doubt is necessary and inevitable.

      Scholars now think that 2 Corinthians is a composite work made up of fragments of Paul’s letters. I.e. no one actually wrote 2 Corinthians. Even impeccably conservative Christian scholar like Gordon Fee have been persuaded by the evidence about this.

      Parts on the NT are an artificial human construct.

      Like

    • We have better historical evidence for the crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, life of Jesus – the NT confirms it all, as does 5 centuries of Christian history.

      Overall, much better than Islam, since is 600 years later, shows no knowledge of NT and corrupted knowledge of the OT and has been a blight on humanity with unjust wars and conquering and unjust treatment of women etc. that still exists today in many parts of the world; and some of your texts inspire Jihadis and suicide bombers and whole movements of Jihadism, Islamism – desiring to take over all the world with it’s evil Dhimmism, Jiziyeh, and Sharia.

      Like

    • Ken how can you have certainty that the first amateur copyists of Paul’s lettered did make significant alterations to the text, unintentionally?

      You just cannot know as we have no first century manuscripts.

      Like

    • Even Ehrman thinks Galatians, 1 Cor. and Romans and 1 Thess. (and I think one or two others) are genuine letters of the apostle Paul.

      Like

    • We have a top class textual critic such as Erhman who sees much evidence that 2 Corinthians is a later composite text made up of fragments of Paul letters. So Paul did not write this new letter.

      Like

    • If I put Romans and Galatians together into one letter, the author is still the apostle Paul.

      The hyper-skepticism that you allow for yourself is not rational; and given the problems inherently with Islam and Islamic history and violence and Jihadism, etc. – I will take the NT as truth any and every day over your religion.

      Like

    • It is not scepticism. The keys looks like a work put together from bits and pieces of Paul’s writings. Scholars are observing what is there. Gordon Fee is no sceptic but he agrees with Erhman.

      Like

    • Ehrman’s skepticism lead him to atheism or “agnosticism”. No thanks.

      Like

    • top class critic (Gordon Fee) just capriciously dismisses 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 as not original, without any textual evidence or variants. Seemingly, so he can argue that women can be pastors. This, along with his Pentecostal theology are big negatives and discredit him. But he still believes in all the other Christian theology that you are fighting against – Trinity, Deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the cross, the resurrection, etc.

      Like

    • He does not just dismiss anything, in his commentary (which I have) Fee discusses the problems in the text in considerable detail, you love to bad mouth fellow Christians who know more than you and have different views. Juvenile behaviour.

      Like

    • No, he just capriciously dismissed 1 Cor. 14:34-36 with no textual evidence.

      Like

    • Wrong. You have not seen his research on this subject. And he is far from being the only scholar. This has been much discussed in the scholarly literature – none of which you have read.

      The bible is not what you think it is Ken. Time to grow up.

      Like

    • I have read the material on 1 Cor. 14:34-36 and he just makes it up out of thin air – not a shred of manuscript evidence that was not original.

      Like

    • Many many experts in the texts disagree with you Ken.

      Like

    • no one else agrees with Fee on 1 Cor. 14-34-36.

      Like

    • I side with him on the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the cross, salvation through faith in Christ alone, etc. we are brothers in Christ; you cannot use him to make it seem like you are on his side. Yours is the juvenile behavior – you bad mouth All believing Christians and refuse to give any credence to their good believing scholarship.

      Like

    • You mean biased conservative scholarship

      Like

    • you use biased unbelieving kufur scholarship

      Like

    • You use fundamentalist anti-intellectual fake ‘scholarship’ which no one takes seriously any more.

      Like

    • you use kuffur scholarship; yours is worse; they would all take down Islam if they were not afraid of the violence that some of your fellow Muslims do all over the world. In the Muslim world all who criticize Islam get jailed, loose their job, or violence or worse. In Egypt a mob of students threw one professor out of the window and killed him, for the same kind of questioning and skepticism that you so arrogantly exalt in the west. You use arrogant Kuffur stuff here in the west (England), but you could not use the same principles on the Qur’an in Muslim countries.

      Like

    • I use the standard western experts on the Bible – some conservative some not, most of them are Christians. Its weird you calling it “kuffur” scholarship. I do not see it as such.

      The bottom line is you are afraid of the truth – your own scholars refute most of what you say. What a damning indictment !!

      You exist on a tiny religious island, the world has moved on long ago.

      Like

    • No; you are afraid of the truth; you deny real history (Surah 4:157) and blindly follow a false god who didn’t know what Christians believed about the Deity of christ, Sonship, or Trinity. And follow a false-god who loves violence and force and did it all through history until they were stopped. They had no right to attack the Byzantine Empire, nor Persia, nor India, nor the Buddhists, but the Muslims Always did

      Like

    • boring. A broken record. No one is listening

      Like

    • and you stay ignorant by avoiding reading or listening to Kruger, Wallace, White, Hill, Carson, Kostenberger, etc. even Licona’s excellent article that proved Islam is false. Boom!

      Like

    • LOLOL all conservative biased Christian apologists, not reliable or objective.

      Like

    • then all conservative Muslims are not credible either nor objective.

      Like

    • Much more credible than you dude.

      Like

    • Licona’s article totally defeated Islam; and James White, Dan Wallace, Michael Kruger, D. A. Carson, and Charles Hill and Andreas Kostenberger defeat all your garbage.

      Like

    • broken record. You repeat the same words over and over. No one is listening Ken.

      Like

    • your an anti-intellectual fundamentalist Muslim, since you apply the kufur liberal rules to Christianity, but hypocritically don’t apply to Islam.

      Like

    • Everything we have extant agrees with established Christian history and the text. (early manuscripts and early church father’s quotes, etc.)

      Like

    • How can you KNOW the manuscripts we have (none of which date from the 1st century) are reliable copies of the original? You have failed to address this question adequately.

      Like

    • not if you read all those books; too much for the comboxes here. Read all of Michael Kruger, Dan Wallace and James White and Charles Hill.

      Like

    • All conservative Christians – all very biased big time.

      Like

    • Nothing wrong with faith. You do the same for Islam. All your defense is based on conservative fundamentalist Islam. Unfortunately, you are blind and never knew the true God in your church going stage.

      Like

    • Big fail Ken. When you are not bad mouthing fellow Christians you attack Muslims. You and Shamoun have quite a bit in common. You are immature in faith.

      Like

    • I never do what Shamoun resorts to; he is still attacking Dr. White; his anger is sinful.

      All your whole blog is attack against all Christians also. (if you accuse me of that) I am just arguing issues, not people. Fee’s credibility in my opinion is diminished because of what I wrote above. But he is still a good believer and good scholar in many other areas. And he still believes in the Deity of Christ, cross, resurrection, Trinity, etc. – so you trying to cast doubt on 2 Cor. means nothing.

      You are just a hyper skeptic in your cause to try and prop up islam, a 600 year late false religion full of injustice and violence.

      Like

    • Spoken like a true ignoramus. You attack fellow believers, bad mouth them. You and Sam are very similar. I just thank God I longer follow your religion.

      Like

    • You cannot handle my arguments, so you resort to this, when I clearly opposed Sam S. and rebuked him?

      You are unjust and unreasonable.

      Your hyper-skepticism also leads to insanity or instability.

      http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-about-canon-what-about-bob-and.html

      Like

    • you are an ignoramus.

      Like

    • But Gordon Fee still believes in all the things that I do (except he strangely thinks 1 Cor. 14:34-36 is not Scripture – and as a result, he thinks women can be pastors and elders ( contradiction to 1 Tim. 2:11-12); and he is Pentecostal in theology; and those 2 things are big negatives in my understanding; but I appreciate him writing against the Word of Faith Movement (Prosperity Health and Wealth heresies);

      if 2 Corinthians is 2 or 3 letters of Paul put together ( I am not convinced of that) of the apostle Paul and they are inspired, and Paul himself may have been the one who put them together in order to get the contents of his “sorrowful Letter” and reference in 1 Cor. 5 into the canon.

      Like

    • “May have been the one…” precisely my point.

      Some unknown later dude may have done a cut and paste job on Paul’s letters. He may have known – he may not have known.

      You just don’t know. Doubt, uncertainty.

      Like

    • But Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. have too many quotes from 2 Cor, so there is no reasonable doubt.

      Like

    • lol you just don’t grasp it do you. 2 Corinthians shows many signs of not being a letter by one author. So it could have been put together in the 70s or 70s. By the time your guys got their hands on copies a century or two later they knew no different.

      Like

    • but you have no evidence of that theory. It is like “Q” – just a theory. Non existent.

      Like

    • fulfillment is not ‘adding” to it. Progressive revelation is true. you need to study more.

      Like

    • It is the Qur’an that added stuff 600 years later and mixed in with Gnostic gospels, legends, and Jewish Midrash and Talmud stories.

      Like


    • does that include lustful thoughts and fantasies ?”

      you want it to list everything ? when a christian lady is invited to go take coffee and her christian “brother” takes her on a date, that would be a step towards zina.

      but you christians are filled with the holy ghost thats why women in churches can show cleavage and hold hands .

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes Christian women usually expose themselves in churches.

      Like

    • showing cleavage is wrong and wearing tight clothes is wrong also. we believe in modesty also.

      Like

    • تقربوا
      we have that root in Farsi also. 🙂
      we make the word Taqreeban تقریباً from that, which means “about”, “almost” and one can see the similarity with “near”, “close”

      you are showing how much of an unintelligent show off you are

      taqreeban = estimate

      taqreeban 2 minutes

      it is also mentioned in urdu

      you don’t make estimates for how close you are to zina

      you don’t say like an idiot, ” i came close to zina taqreeban…”

      Like

    • “showing cleavage is wrong and wearing tight clothes is wrong also. we believe in modesty also.”

      why is it wrong? christian women are filled with the holy ghost.
      tight clothes? whats wrong with that , jesus was nailed naked.

      Liked by 1 person

    • quote :
      27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’;
      28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

      here is full proof that jesus did not think that his father was going to transfer sexual thoughts from past, present and future and plaster them on jesus’ body.
      thanks ken for proving that jesus did not think he was going to die for sins .

      so you christians who have lust for your neighbors wife, make sure you will be judged and have divine consequences applied on you.

      if you say ….no … no no we repent….

      then this means jesus is saying that you need lust DEEP in your heart and he doesn’t mean just a thought.

      Like

    • “what they quoted agrees with all manuscript evidence; lots of independent lines of free transmission; unlike Qur’an and you, who only have government enforced text of Uthman; with most all previous information of earlier manuscripts were burned.”

      tell me what are those “independent lines of transmission” reconstructing ?

      how are they reconstructing 100 years of copying which in UNRECOVERABLE?

      Liked by 1 person

    • ken, your reply please :

      I”m afraid I don’t see how an uncontrolled situation is likely to produce more standard results than controlled situations. Think, for example, of the manufacturing industries!! In any event, the evidence is quite clear that when uncontrolled and unskilled, the earlier scribes made far more mistakes than later ones

      Liked by 1 person

    • Very true. The earlier the manuscript the more error and variation there is.

      Like

    • for manufacturing, If government is just, of course; but Islamic governments are terrible – every example in world today that is close to it are terrible – Saudi, Iran, Taliban, Isis, Hamas – these are the closest things to Caliphate/ Imamate and Sharia, etc.

      historical evidence of the freedom of the text is better than government force by the sword and destroying the earlier evidence that Uthman did.

      Like

  4. When 5:116 mentions “God, Jesus, and Mary” and thinks the Christians say “take them as 2 gods besides Allah”, it is obvious that the early Muslims thought that is what the Trinity is. Along with 5:72-78 – “they (Jesus and Mary) ate their daily food” and “there is only one God” means the author of the Qur’an wrongly thought that Christians were saying “3 gods” (with other verses that say, “say not 3” – 4:171, etc. – but Christians have NEVER said “3 gods” and NEVER said Mary is part of the Trinity.

    4:157 – it is still a denial of real history, since real established history says it was Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah المسیح who was on the cross and suffered and died on that cross and was buried.

    “it was made to appear to them so” is a convenient way of trying to get out of the historical facts.

    6:101 – is obvious what the author of the Qur’an wrongly thought “son of God” meant ( with 19:88-92), but Christians NEVER taught that – that God had sex with Mary -the Mormons teach that and they are a false religion from the mid to late 1800s in USA.

    4:34 – ‘tap with a brush” – it does not say that, it uses a word that can be translated “hit, beat, smite, scourge (whip)”; and given the sinfulness of humanity and brutality of men in history, they do this a lot, unfortunately.

    2:223 – not beautiful at all – treating their wives like an object, like an inanimate field of dirt to be plowed and treated roughly.

    Like

    • 5:116

      If the early Muslims believed so, it is because there were Christian sects who followed such a version of Trinity in Arabia.
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/08/15/trinity-mary-worshipped-as-a-god/

      Even today, we find the images and idols of Mary(ra) and Jesus(as) in churches(Catholic), but rarely of the Holy Spirit. So, the verse is very much relevant.

      5:72-78
      A logical argument is presented here in that it asks how can Mary(ra) be giving birth to a supposedly divine Jesus, when Mary was a normal lady like every other, eating food and so on.
      Christians saying it’s not 3 gods doesn’t mean it is so. It is still 3 distinct persons having full Godly attributes and hence, Quran is right to point out this wrong notion of the Christians.

      4:157

      Well, it doesn’t contradict the historical event when it explains by a miracle.
      There are theological reasons to believe so. Especially since Jesus(as) prayed to God to save him and it’s consistent with our belief that God responds to the earnest prayers of the Prophets.
      Jesus(as) himself explains that he will be alive and rescued by God, by referencing it as a sign comparable to the sign of Jonah (as).

      6:101
      What is obvious is that the verse emphatically says Jesus(as) is a creation and not a ‘begotten’ son. Why should every verse be speaking of a specific Christian understanding of the son of God ?

      4:34
      I already mentioned it’s in the hadith that it is using something like a brush. Given that the believers are supposed to be the best to their wives, this verse is no justification for spousal abuse.

      2:223
      Ignore the historical context, ignore the intent of the verse, ignore the opinion of the scholars, ignore the beautiful analogy given and after all that put your own pervert spin on it by using words like object/dirt which the verse doesn’t even mention to. Any verse can be made to look ugly if we follow the above principle. Probably for you, the Biblical command of rapist marrying the victim after giving her father some money must be a beautiful teaching.

      Liked by 1 person

    • here is what fawaz told you last year

      i quote :

      “Queen in Heaven”,”Omnipotent by grace not by nature”. The Byzantines prayed to her in their war against the Sassanids and her icons were called upon to defeat enemies. People considered saints have said about her that her relation to God is like a child to his mother because Jesus the God-Man takes her as his mother in his humanity and since Jesus is one person this means the second person of the Trinity treats her as his Mother. They say just as a child obeys her mother so does God obey Mary. You may consider them heretics but they are the majority. So the Quran is correct in pointing out that Mary is worshipped as deity. Nowhere does the Quran say she is considered part of the trinity.

      quote :

      Quran 5:72 condemns modalism. 5:73

      condemns the Trinity. 5:75 simultaneously refutes both Maryolatry and the

      Chalcedonian creed. Compare this verse to:

      ”They traded their glorious God for the statue of a bull that eats grass”[Psalms 106:20]

      Clearly the author/speaker of Psalms 106:20 does not consider it acceptable to worship any being that depends on food for sustenance. This includes an embryo in his mother’s womb depending on her food for his sustenance.

      quote :

      I showed you that Quran 5:72-75 deals with multiple heresies- 1)Modalism – dealt with in 5:72 2)Trinity – dealt with in 5:73

      3)Maryolatry dealt with in 5:75

      4)Chalcedonian creed dealt with also in 5:75
      Now you consider only two of the above to be heresies.

      But from our perspective all these 4 are heresies and whoever wrote/spoke Psalms 106:20 would agree with Quran 5:75. He would not agree with the Chalcedonian creed.

      last quote :

      The Quranic texts engage and refute numerous false accusations and presumptions about Allah having a son or sons and daughters in various contexts
      This includes refuting the false notion that God ontological has a son ( eternal emanation or begetton son) that shares the same divine nature. since if God had a son that eternally subsists by the eternal emanation or begetting of the father then the son by divine nature would be a recipient of worship just as articulated or conceptualized in trinitarian christological polytheism

      The Quran makes clear that if God did have a son, who therefore must be divine in nature like the father and therefore entitled to be a recipient of worship then Muhammad would be the first of God’s worshippers to worship the son, however the Quran refutes this falsehood by drawing our attention to pure monotheism since worshipping two divine persons or deities sharing the same divine nature would translate as polytheism. The Quran implicitly reiterates or proclaims the truth that God has no son since only Allah is the true deity and that only Allah is the true God to be worshipped alone in heaven and on earth

      81. Say (O Muhammad): “If the Most Merciful (Allah) had a son then I am the first of Allah’s worshippers”
      82. Glorified be the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne! Exalted be He from all that they ascribe (to Him).
      83. So leave them (alone) to speak nonsense and play until they meet the Day of theirs, which they have been promised.
      84. It is He (Allah) Who is the only Ilah (God to be worshipped) in the heaven and the only Ilah (God to be worshipped) on the earth. And He is the All-Wise, the All-Knower. 43:81-84 God does not have a father
      or a son or a daughter or a wife or a ….
      neither mother

      :::::::::::

      http://ehrmanblog.org/why-did-we-ge

      “The striking thing is that all of the various Christian groups could back up their claims to represent the “true” interpretation of Christianity because all of them had books that were allegedly written by the apostles of Jesus themselves. And so there were Gospels of Matthew, and John, and Peter, and Thomas, and James, and Philip, and Mary and—and on and on, for a very long way.”

      Yes, I think there probably were other Gospels. I’m not sure how many. Luke himself says there were “many” (Luke 1:1-4)

      “one of the most fascinating features of early christianity is that so many different christian teachers and christian groups were saying so many contrary things. it is not just that they said different things. they often said just the opposite things . there is only one god. no there are many gods. the material world is the good creation of a good god. no, it comes from a cosmic disaster in the divine realm. jesus came in the flesh. no, he was totally removed from the flesh. eternal life comes through the redemption of the flesh. no, it comes through escaping the flesh. paul taught these things. no, paul taught those other things. paul was the true apostle. no , paul misunderstood the message of jesus. peter and paul agreed on every theological point. no, they were completely at odds with one another. peter taught that christians were not to follow the jewish law. no, he taught that the jewish law continued to be in force. and on and on and on, would without end. ”

      Like

  5. وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَا ۖ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا – Qur’an 17:32

    we also have the word for adultery in Farsi – زنا
    and Fahsha root for ” prostitution, immorality” فاحشه = prostitute

    Every Qur’anic verse, almost half of the words and roots of those words we also have in Farsi.

    Like

  6. there is no word for “brush” in Surah 4:34

    Like

  7. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

    just for the weekend

    Like

  8. “False belief. God does not die, blaspheme!!”

    “Ken Temple
    May 25, 2017 • 12:14 pm
    2nd person of Trinity who became a human did die. John 1:1-5; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8”

    you said “god demonstrates his love by god dying”

    then you COMPLICATE that language by saying

    aN invisible person from his invisible being formed a human being and that died.

    what the bloody hell is this?

    Like

  9. Ken, you accuse williams of doing rituals in rote.
    Jewish practice Torah mandated rituals
    You shot your god

    Your god gave REPETITIVE rituals to the yahood.

    He called them ETERNAL

    Ken, you talk about lust

    Ken, when u talk about lust at the same time you believe that your past, present and future lustful thoughts have been WASHED in the blood of jezus.

    Who are you to talk about lust?

    Ken, why does Christianity make a hypocrite out of Christians?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Mark 7:20-23
    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 and foolishness.
    23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

    Genesis 6:5 – “every imagination of the thoughts and motives of the heart of mankind is only evil continually.”

    Jeremiah 17:9
    “the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked and sick, who can understand it?
    ————————————————————————————————————

    I don’t see anything unique to the Bible about these verses. I don’t agree with Genesis 6:5 that all thoughts are evil as well. It’s plain wrong.

    Similar verses can be found in Qur’an also:

    So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the chests. [Quran, 22: 46]

    Truly in the body there is a morsel of flesh which, if it be sound, all the body is sound and which, if it be diseased, all of it is diseased. Truly it is the heart. [Sahih Hadith]

    “Nay! rather, what they used to do has become like rust upon their hearts.” [al-Mutaffifeen – 83:14]

    “O mankind! There has come to you an instruction from your Lord, a cure for whatever (disease) is in your hearts, a guidance and a blessing for the true believers.” [Yunus – 10:57]

    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: