This is an invitation to Christians to respond to this 3 minute video

Advertisements


Categories: Bible

286 replies

  1. What seems to be the problem?

    Like

    • perhaps you should watch the video first

      Like

    • I did. What exactly is your objection?

      Like

    • I didn’t say I had an objection. It’s a rather spiffing film by Yahya.

      The question is for you: how do you respond to the issues raised in the 3 minute video? If you have nothing to say then keep schtum.

      Like

    • Spiffing? Lol

      It’s yet another propaganda piece put together by Snow in order to denigrate the bible and Christians. Everyone knows his m.o by now, he’s infamous for it. Been doing it for years. It’s getting rather boring tbh.

      Like

    • Yet no respond ones again. How very xtian of you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Shoddy progaganda pieces do not warrant genuine responses.

      Like

    • LOL, typical response by bad samaritan.

      Hey sammy, why do you worship a Canaanite god? 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’s not propaganda. It’s the truth. The guy in the video left xtianity because of the MASSIVE double standards.
      Propaganda is when xtians get cornered and they mental gymnastics and try and change the topic to either something in Islam or politics where they start mentioning ISIS which is a Western invention?
      If you still can’t see this then you got rocks in your head.

      Like

    • No, he left Christianity because, as you, he knew absolutely anything at all about it. In fact if he did he would know that the genocides in the Bible have a clear reason and they are against the progenie of the Nephilim (the children born out of fallen angels and men).

      Genesis 6:4 – “There were Nephilim in the earth in those days (that is to say, in the days of Noah); and also AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became [the] mighty men (Hebrew gibbor, the heroes) which were of old, men of renown” (literally, men of the name, that is to say, who got a name and were renowned for their ungodliness).

      In chapter 15:18-21 they are enumerated and named among Canaanite Peoples: “Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, and the Amorites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites” (Genesis 15:19-21; compare Exodus 3:8,17; 23:23. Deuteronomy 7; 20:17. Joshua 12:8).

      These were to be cut off, and driven out, and utterly destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:17. Joshua 3:10). But Israel failed in this (Joshua 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:18. Judges 1:19,20,28,29,30-36; 2:1-5; 3:1-7).

      THIS is the reason of the Genocides in the Tanakh, but you, as Paul, knows absolutely anything at all about this because you never even once read the Bible seriously.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, Selea Amioran you have exposed me for the fraud that I am: I have ‘never even once read the Bible seriously’. Thank goodness you are here to give me the excellent reasons why your Jesus ordered the slaughter of women, children, babes and livestock.

      Liked by 3 people

    • In fact you are a fraud, thanks for admitting it. If you think that destroying a corrupted progenie that was the cause of great evil in the world (and that was the reason why the flood became necessary) is even remotely comparable to the actions of Muhammad that killed people just because he was criticized or to get the booty and money you are a clear fraud.

      The cases are two: either you didn’t know about this or you knew and you are deceiving people. Chose which you like best.

      Like

    • Lol, ah yes, another genocide defender! It’s amazing of how many of these nutjobs are out there!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Selea Amioran

      Anyone who seeks to make acceptable and justifiable the mass killing of children and babies will certainly receive much praise – from neo-Nazis, and psychopaths.

      Excuse me if I follow a religion – Islam – that has always from the very beginning condemned the killing of children and babies.

      Like

    • Did you read what I wrote or are you too dumb to comprehend concepts? Which part of a SPIRITUAL progenie of men and fallen angels that corrupted all the earth and spread abominable evil in it (as some of the most repulsive kinds of child sacrifice that history has known) you didn’t understand? What part of “the flood was necessary to destroy that progenie the first time” you didn’t understand?

      But you are right, you are a Muslim so you don’t even know why the flood happened and you think it was just a whim of Allah.

      P.S: And spare me the hypocrisy about you caring on the killing of children. You have absolutely no problem with a god that decrees the absolute fate of people from birth (by breathing sin into them) and you seriously pretend that you are upset about genocide of people with a will? Spare me the facade.

      Like

    • Selea Amioran

      Anyone who seeks to make acceptable and justifiable (as you do) the mass killing of children and babies will certainly receive much praise – from neo-Nazis, and psychopaths.

      Excuse me if I follow a religion – Islam – that has always from the very beginning condemned the killing of children and babies.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Hahahahaha! You sound angry!

      So let me get this straight. You are justifying mass murder because of some silly superstition? In other words, you are trying to dehumanize the people who were (allegedly) killed? Hmm, sounds just like the Nazis or the Interhamwe in Rwanda. People have tried to justify mass murder by demonizing their victims. And you are no different. What a sick person you are!

      By the way, there are some Christians here who don’t believe in the fallen angels copulating with humans myth, even though I have shown them that the text says just that. But regardless, it is still an evil thing to justify genocide because of your superstitions. You are a monster!!

      Like

    • Paul,

      If you really cannot understand the difference between destroying a spiritually corrupted progenie (born out of an ungodly mix between wicked men and fallen angels) that caused the full corruption of mankind until only the line of Noah remained intact – so much so that the flood was needed from God to save man – and killing innocent children then I suppose you have the master you deserve in Muhammad. For everyone else that has even a little of intelligence and sound morality it’s pretty clear that “genocide” has absolutely nothing to do with it, but hey, don’t let intellectual honesty bother you since it never does.

      P.S: I still continue to wonder how much of an hypocrite you must be to really pretend you care about “genocide” when you surrender to a god that arbitrarily decrees to punish innocent people (because in your theology, differently from Calvinism, it is Allah that determines the sin in people) to eternal torture. One can always wonder….

      Like

    • I find it hard to take you seriously, an apologist for such evil. You are no better than an apologist for the Holocaust. You need your head examined.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @quranandbibleblog

      “Superstition”? Of what are you talking about? If you want to judge an event in the Bible you must be willing to accept the entire context, elsewhere what kind of a “judgment” is yours? If you trust the Bible enough to accept that the genocides in it are true then you MUST also trust it enough to tell you why they happened, elsewhere you are just being an hypocrite.

      Furthermore I find exhilarating that you call what’s written in the Bible “superstition” as an atheist would when you are a Muslim and you really want to tell me that you are concerned on the double standards on the part of Christianity? Are you for real?

      Oh well…

      Like

    • Calm down, idiot. You’re gonna burst a vein!

      I don’t believe the Bible when it says that God ordered the killing of babies. That’s not my God. I also don’t believe the superstitions in your Bible about angels copulating with humans. Get it?

      None of this changes the fact that you are a monster who excuses baby killings based on some idiotic myth about angels and humans. Dehumanizing people is an old excuse for genocide. The Nazis used it. So did pretty much every other genocidal maniac in history.

      Like

    • It’s funny that you tell me to not be angry when the only emotional one here is you. Did I ever insult you? It doesn’t seem to me. Yet you do it.

      I don’t care absolutely anything at all if you believe in the Bible or not (even if you are contradicting your own prophet, but anyway) but you cannot just pick and choose what you prefer in it. If you want to insist that the genocides in the Bible are wrong then you must do so by considering the context (that’s given in the same exact book you pretend to take at face value when it talks of things you like), elsewhere you are just an hypocrite because you are being intellectually dishonest.

      I will repeat this thing for the 3rd time: if you cannot understand the difference between a genocide and destroying a spiritually corrupted race that corrupted all mankind with abominable evil until only the line of Noah remained intact so much so that the flood was necessary then you are either too dumb or too dishonest to have a real discussion on the matter. Anyway it’s obvious that you cannot either behave rationally without screaming like an emotional child, so…

      P.S: You still have to answer to why you believe in Allah if you are so concerned about genocide when he is really decreeing the eternal torture of innocent people (including children) to eternal torture.

      Like

    • You still don’t get it, do you? There is no “spiritual context” when it comes to killing babies! Normal people would never have trouble condemning this nonsense, but because it’s in the Bible, seemingly normal people become defenders of genocide.

      What is especially egregious is how you use a silly myth to justify these killings. It somehow makes it easier to swallow, eh? Well, not for normal people who are disgusted by the idea of killing a defenseless infant. But for you Christians, such an excuse is acceptable. What a sickening theology!

      Like

    • Can I remind you that your own theology is a fatalistic one where every act is decreed by Allah? What do you do with the millions of children that die and go to hell by decree of Allah?

      What do you do about the flood (that’s even in your Qur’an)? What do you do about calamities? Are you an atheist that believe that those are casual and God has nothing to do with them? Of what are you talking about? You aren’t making any sense whatsoever.

      Not only all you say is completely nonsensical from a theistic point of view as your view of children is a naturalistic one and not surely one tied to God (for God there are no “children” as God is outside of time) you are even completely missing the point of the line being corrupted (even if I repeated the thing already four times). It is almost if I’m talking with an atheist that doesn’t believe in either the supernatural or the decree of God.

      Like

    • The Amelikates did nothing to the Israelites. They didn’t brake any peace treaty. The jews and pagans broke their peace treaties against the muslims and hence a war started. The error was not on the Muslims.
      The prophet ordered certain individuals to be killed for political reasons. You don’t think that’s ok but you somehow do accept Elijah as a prophet even after him calling down the wrath of God on a group of boys just for calling him ‘boldie’ and jesus answered him by sending two bears and shred 42 boys to pieces. You also accept jesus after this as well. If Muhammad did this to one boy, you would go insane. But the biblical mumbo jumbo, you accept with a big smile on your face.

      If a nation is corrupt and evil to God then it’s between them and God. Not between them and the Israelites and God. The believers on the ground can only engage in activities of war if they are provoked by violence which was not the case with the Amalakites. You’re a shamoun fan, I know cus this is his typical bullshit. He argues ‘what is the difference between God destroying a nation and God sending agents to do it for Him?’ The difference is, as I stated above, that when a nation does evil to God then that’s between them and God. NOT between them and the believers of that God. Let God handle it.
      God can decide to take the lives of innocents if he wants cus it’s His creation. God doesn’t order people to do evil. Since when is ordering the killing of children/babies and animals considered not evil?

      Go justify your genocides somewhere else and take your collegues like samaritan and ken temple with you.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, here we go again. We have all heard this pathetic attempt at logic before. It’s amazing how you people parrot the same exact polemic to justify Biblical baby-killings.

      There is a huge difference between God allowing death and God deliberately commanding humans to kill. There is a difference between a natural death and murder. When God sent the flood (which probably was not a global flood, by the way), it was His own action. He didn’t command Noah (pbuh) to build an army and then obliterate the unbelievers, including their children.

      Similarly, while God allows the deaths of babies through natural causes, such as disease, He commands us to be compassionate and do everything to save that life. If a baby was destined to die, it will happen, but no right-thinking person would just stand by and say “well, it’s his destiny” or “it’s God’s will”. Rather, every sane and right-thinking person would do everything in his power to save that precious life.

      So, when some Bible-thumper says that God commanded the Israelites to kill babies, normal people will be outraged and disgusted. And when the same Bible-thumper tries to justify this infanticide with ludicrous attempts at logic, normal people would be even more outraged and rightfully mock such a person.

      Like

    • “The Amelikates did nothing to the Israelites.”

      Their line was corrupted and God used the Israelites to destroy them. Why He used Israel to do so is too long to explain here but you would know why if you actually read the Tanakh.

      “The jews and pagans broke their peace treaties against the muslims and hence a war started”

      Complete bogus. The first one to break the treaty has always been Muhammad and this is clear from the ahadith. I even saw you stating that the Byzantines “attacked” Muhammad when it was the latter that sent a letter to Heracliltus intimating him to accept Islam or else suffer the consequences. The Byzantines didn’t even know who the Muslims where. Your knowledge of your own sources and history is a fantasy that has absolutely no bearing on reality. I suppose you also believe that the Buddhists attacked first before being butchered like cattle, is it?

      “The prophet ordered certain individuals to be killed for political reasons.”

      Political reasons? What kind of reason to kill people is that? And what has politics to do with God? And yet you are here pretending that the killing of individuals because of their corruption with fallen angels that caused almost the complete annihilation of humankind is “genocide”. Let’s talk about hypocrisy.

      “You don’t think that’s ok but you somehow do accept Elijah as a prophet even after him calling down the wrath of God on a group of boys just for calling him ‘boldie’ and jesus answered him by sending two bears and shred 42 boys to pieces.”

      Sure sure, it’s just because he was called “boldie” that God killed those people. I guess you really read all the context by yourself instead of just reading a quote in a Muslim site, is it not? But even if it was true it was the decision of God to kill those people and God knows the hearth of men, differently from an human being. Muhammad decided by himself who to kill or not to kill, and there’s a world of difference between the two things.

      “If Muhammad did this to one boy, you would go insane.”

      It seems that someone forgot the Qurayza…

      “If a nation is corrupt and evil to God then it’s between them and God. Not between them and the Israelites and God.”

      So God can decide to kill a corrupt lineage with a flood but not use Israel to do the same, even when the means change absolutely nothing and even if by doing so God also established Israel outside of evil influences. It was not a matter between Israel and those Nations, as it was a judgment of God and Israel was just the means that God used for such a judgment to take place. Yet again, totally different from the killings of Muhammad and those ordered in the Qur’an that are totally at the discretion of men given their absolute nature.

      “The believers on the ground can only engage in activities of war if they are provoked by violence which was not the case with the Amalakites”

      That would make sense if the matter was between Israel and the Amalekites, but that was not the case as the destruction of the Amalekites was a judgment of God for their evil. Furthermore you can rest assured that if the Jews would have tried to establish a Nation near them they would have been immediately attacked. If you did read the Bible you would know that the Amalekites weren’t exactly peaceful…

      “The difference is, as I stated above, that when a nation does evil to God then that’s between them and God. NOT between them and the believers of that God. Let God handle it.”

      But why? You are not explaining it. What difference does the mean do? Is God constricted to your own vision of what is “fine” or not for His judgment? And doesn’t Allah uses people for his decree all the time? I suppose that instead he should take the matters on his hand all the time and instead of, for example, decreeing that a wicked men dies by the hand of someone he should zap him out of space. Yet again: it seems almost like you talk as if you didn’t believe that Allah decrees everything that happens but this is YOUR theology (and actually much worse than the Christian one in this sense as there’s no creature will in Islam).

      “God doesn’t order people to do evil”

      Then how much sense has your own Shariah law? If you pretend that an action is evil in absolute terms (and not depending on the context) then stoning someone to death for an abomination he committed is surely an evil act, is it not? So is Allah ordering you to do evil by putting to death someone for committing a mortal sin?

      Ponder a little about what you are stating. It’s obvious that you are just parroting these arguments from someone else because you never personally thought about the matter yourself.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “There is a huge difference between God allowing death and God deliberately commanding humans to kill”

      You two continue to insist this thing but yet you don’t propose any rational argument for why that should be so. In fact, such a statement is not only ludicrous in itself but it is even more so given your own theology as a Muslim. I repeat the matter once again because it’s obvious that you don’t understand: in your theology Allah decrees EVERY action and even the WILL behind those actions. When a child is killed by another human being (and in this world it happens millions of times) guess who was the one who decreed such a thing to take place? I guess that you didn’t ponder about this, is it not? Because it not only completely destroy your fake indignation but even totally contradicts your own statement that is evil for God to use His creatures as a mean for His judgment (as it is an irreconcilable position with your own theology). God uses His creatures every single time in His decree and it couldn’t be otherwise.

      And Israel wasn’t “normal humans” either. Israel was chosen by God as the Priestly Nation, to have the role of the High Priest as an avatar for the Messiah. Hence Israel, just like the Messiah, was both the redeemer for the righteous (by the atonement) and the arm of God for the judgment of the wicked.

      “If a baby was destined to die, it will happen, but no right-thinking person would just stand by and say “well, it’s his destiny” or “it’s God’s will”.”

      Then you should reject your own theology as that’s EXACTLY what the Qur’an and the Sunnah states about this (and, as I said, much more than Christian theology ever could). Every action and the will behind that action is decreed by Allah for your own theology as it is a full FATALISTIC doctrine (i.e. creatures have no will of their own and they just follow the decree of Allah that he decided since the beginning of time and he does what he wants to his creation, sending to hell who he wants and to paradise who he like). How could it not be “Allah’s will” in your own theology? It is astounding the amount of ignorance you Muslims possess of your own doctrine.

      Here you are pretending that it is “evil” to say that it is “God’s will” that a child is killed and yet this is exactly what your theology implies, even to the point that the will of the one killing the child is decreed by Allah himself. Didn’t you know this? Why are you even pretending to debate this issue if you don’t even know this basic thing about your own doctrine? Are you kidding me?

      Like

    • @Selea, hmmmmm…you said something interesting, can you prove it? let me quote it for you…

      “Complete bogus. The first one to break the treaty has always been Muhammad and this is clear from the ahadith.”

      can you prove it please? i’m damn sure Qurayza broke the treaty but i would like to know how exactly it is “complete bogus”…i’ll be waiting, take your time… 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • Quranblog,

      Normal people would never have trouble condemning Muhammad’s marriage and consummation to child bride Aisha, but because it’s your prophet, seemingly normal people become defenders of pedophilia.

      Like

    • “children born out of fallen angels and men” Facepalm

      Liked by 1 person

    • WOW, it’s amazing how corrupted your mind has become. But then again, it’s not surprising. You are a Christian after all!

      Your post is riddled with laughable attempts at logic. For example, saying that evil is basically a subjective term. Um…no. Let me make this easy for you:

      Killing innocent and defenseless babies = Evil
      Killing an adult who has committed a crime = Not Evil
      Making excuses for baby-killing by appealing to an idiotic myth about fallen angels = Evil
      Making excuses for killing Jews by appealing to an idiotic myth about the “master race” = Evil

      See the difference? Get it now?

      As I said, Allah (swt) does allow evil things to happen in this world, including child murder. But what you can’t get through your think head is that Allah (swt) does not COMMAND such evil actions. Your pathetic attempts to associate this with the biblical god’s command murder innocent children just goes to show how corrupted your mind has become. Like I said, normal people would be disgusted, not making excuses. Be honest with yourself. You are only making excuses because it’s in the Bible. If it wasn’t, and let’s say it was in the Quran (which it is not), you would be foaming at the mouth at how evil Islam is (and you would be right to feel that way)! Right? Come on, be honest. Admit your hypocrisy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Francesco, are you a Muslim?

      Welcome to the blog!

      Like

    • Quran&bible, “Francesco”, i don’t know why but this name reminds me of a young spanish guy i had a discussion with on youtube…we were both discussing with a fan of answering islam and the way he defended our faith was inspiring, i later learned he was a convert as well as a well as a Flamenco artist…here’s one of his composition by the way,

      Like

    • Here we are with the absurdity of “killing innocent children and humans”. I know that you must necessarily try to find a correlation between the commands in the Qur’an to fight people indiscriminately and hence you create a total strawman of what I stated for your own convenience, but this just demonstrates your total intellectual dishonesty and nothing else.

      Those that were killed were by order of YHVH in the Tanakh were not “innocent children” or “innocent humans”. They were a corrupted lineage that caused almost the entire destruction of the human race, and that committed some of the greatest atrocities that even secular history remembers. If you knew something about what happened in the child sacrifices given to Moloch you would know how ludicrous you sound, but you, as a Muslim, know absolutely anything at all so it is not surprising for you to be completely unaware of this.

      The commands of YHVH in the Tanakh to Israel to kill certain peoples were meant only for a very specific situation, in a very specific context for a very specific time. It is TOTALLY different from the commands in your Qur’an and the Sunnah about fighting people indiscriminately under all circumstances and for all time until all the world is not subjected to Islam.

      What I find most amusing then is that a person that believes in Satan residing on the nose of people or the stars being missiles meant to destroy demons that try to pass the lower heaven is telling me that something written in the Tanakh and that finds ample confirmation not only in many legends throughout the times (never heard about all the stories of the heroes in the Aeneid for example? Or all the legends about men copulating with gods creating a demigod, or all the legends about succubi doing the same, etc. etc. Where do you think they come from?) but even in anthropology (as we know exactly many of the practices that some of those peoples had) tells me that what is stated is “just a myth”.

      You pretend to take the Tanakh literally when it talks about genocides however you then pretend that the motivation given in the same exact book for those killings is not real. But I suppose that this is what you must do to still pretend the facade about “genocides” even in front of clear evidence of the contrary.

      “But what you can’t get through your think head is that Allah (swt) does not COMMAND such evil actions”

      He does and you know absolutely nothing at all about your own theology. Allah in the Qur’an and the Sunnah not only decrees every action that man commit but he also decrees the EVIL that the man will commit. Hence how can you pretend that he doesn’t command evil actions? You know absolutely anything at all of what you are talking about, as always.

      Here, just a a couple of proofs of how ignorant you are about your own doctrine:

      Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will. S. 14:4

      And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16

      He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no protecting friend after Him. And thou (Muhammad) wilt see the evil-doers when they see the doom, (how) they say: Is there any way of return? … And they will have no protecting friends to help them instead of Allah. He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him there is no road. S. 42:44, 46

      Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. S. 4:88

      ‘A’isha, the mother of the believers, said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said: Allah’s Messenger, there is happiness for this child who is a bird from the birds of Paradise for it committed no sin nor has he reached the age when one can commit sin. He said: ‘A’isha, per adventure, it may be otherwise, because God created for Paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father’s loins and created for Hell those who are to go to Hell. He created them for Hell while they were yet in their father’s loins. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6436)

      Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Apostle as saying:
      Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421, 6422)

      Abu al-Aswad reported that ‘Imran b Husain asked him: What is your view, what the people do today in the world, and strive for, is it something decreed for them or preordained for them or will their fate in the Hereafter be determined by the fact that their Prophets brought them teaching which they did not act upon? I said: Of course, it is something which is predetermined for them and preordained for them. He (further) said: Then, would it not be an injustice (to punish them)? I felt greatly disturbed because of that, and said: Everything is created by Allah and lies in His Power. He would not be questioned as to what He does, but they would be questioned; thereupon he said to me: May Allah have mercy upon you, I did not mean to ask you but for testing your intelligence. Two men of the tribe of Muzaina came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, what is your opinion that the people do in the world and strive for, is something decreed for them; something preordained for them and will their fate in the Hereafter be determined by the fact that their Prophets brought them teachings which they did not act upon. And thus they became deserving of punishment? Thereupon, he said: Of course, it happens as it is decreed by Destiny and preordained for them, and this view is confirmed by this verse of the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious: “Consider the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then breathed into it its sin and its piety” (xci. 8). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6406)

      Narrated Abu Huraira:
      The Prophet said, “Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.’ Then Adam said to him, ‘O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?’ So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses,” the Prophet added, repeating the Statement three times. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611)

      Do you want me to go on? I can continue all day long as the Qur’an and the Sunnah are literally FULL of clear theological teachings about Allah decreeing not only everything that happens but also the evil that man will commit.

      Like

    • @Shaad.

      No problem. I don’t need “to take my time” as it’s pretty simple. Let’s see if you will be as sarcastic as you are now after.

      The genocide in question occurred after this battle.

      “O ye who believe Remember Allah’s favor unto you when there came against you hosts, and we sent against them a great wind and hosts ye could not see. And Allah is ever Seer of what ye do” S 33:9

      The above verse implies that the enemies of Muhammad are being turned away by Allah. Doubt still remains whether the enemies were turned away before or after fighting a war.

      “When they came upon you from above you and from below you, and when eyes grew wild and hearts reached to the throats, and ye were imagining vain thoughts concerning Allah” – S 33:10

      Here, Allah reveals the state of Muslims, when they had to face a huge Meccan army. They started to have doubts, believing a clash with such a vast army would certainly be devastating to them. Ibn Kathir clarifies this in his Tafsir:

      Ibn Jarir said: “Some of those who were with the Messenger of Allah , had doubts and thought that the outcome would be against the believers, and that Allah would allow that to happen.” -Tafsir Ibn Kathir (S 33:10)

      The Qur’anic verses in conjunction with the above interpretation reveal the fact that Muhammad and his army were not at all in any position to fight a war at Khandaq. Muhammad had heard of the strength of the Meccan army much earlier, so acting upon the advice of one of his companions, Salman the Persian, there were trenches dug all around them to prevent hostile Meccans from entering Muslim territory. The battle gained the name “the war of trench” due to this tactic employed by Muhammad. The Meccans were a huge army consisting of two tribes, namely the Quraish and Ghatafans. The very fact that Muhammad adopted such an extremely defensive stance in this fight proves the weakness of the Muslim army at the time, and the strength of their foes.

      It is clear from all the accounts that the “war of Khandaq” was in fact a war that was never fought. Though they were huge in numbers and could have annihilated the entire population of Muslims at that time, the Meccan army had to halt at the trenches, being unable to find an entry route to the Muslim territory. Their only chance of reaching the Muslims was through the route of Banu Qurayza where Muhammad did not dig trenches, but ultimately, those who came to fight and win a war had to regress and return without success.

      Allah himself attest to the fact he was the one who drove away the Meccans and helped Muslims escape an otherwise inevitable extermination:

      “O ye who believe Remember Allah’s favor unto you when there came against you hosts, and we sent against them a great wind and hosts ye could not see. And Allah is ever Seer of what ye do” S 33:9

      Let’s now turn to Ibn Kathir to find out what happened next:

      …the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, “Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah” He said, “Yes” He said, “But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.” Then he said: “Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Quraiza. According to another report, “What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons” He said, “Yes”. He said, “But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.” He said: “Where?” He said, “Banu Quraiza, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.” So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Quraiza, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said, No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Quraiza. – Tafsir Ibn Kathir – The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah

      This account of Ibn Kathir is supported by sahih ahadith:

      Narrated ‘Aisha: When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, “You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Where (to go now)?” Gabriel said, “This way,” pointing towards the tribe of Banu Qurayza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them. – Sahih Bukhari 4:52:68

      It is evident from this account that Muhammad and his followers were relaxed and reclining after the withdrawal of Meccan troops. The campaign against the Banu Qurayza was not on their agenda until Jibreel appeared with Allah’s orders. It also reveal the fact that the tribe of Banu Qurayza did not do anything atrocious to Muslims during the siege at Khandaq while the Meccan army were stranded at the trenches. The siege lasted for almost a month, but ultimately the Meccans departed without a fight. It was not possible for them to engage in battle, as the trenches were a new tactic that they had never expected from Muhammad’s side. Still they waited for a green light from the Banu Qurayza stronghold, as that was the only route to enter in which they could reach the Muslims, a green light which never appeared. Eventually losing all hope of crossing and engaging in a full-scale war which would have resulted in wiping all Muslims from the face of the earth, the Meccans retreated.

      If Banu Quraiza were in fact treacherous, Muhammad and the religion of Islam would have been buried in those trenches they had dug. That did not happen and the Muslims did not feel any need to carry on. They were not aware of any alleged treachery, for this reason they reclined once the Meccans had left.

      Like

    • Selea, i thought i’m gonna be free today but i’ll have do some important job, i’ve never seen such weak arguments to be honest due to the fact you’re applying your own biased opinion, even Samaritan brings much better arguments from time to time compared to the one you’ve brought….i would like to respond to your points one by one but i don’t have much time, here’s an article which you can read…if you do not agree that Qurayza broke the agreement then maybe you can put your disagreement over here so that we can discuss about it when i get back…

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/01/01/re-examining-banu-qurayzah-incident/

      http:/https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/02/jewish-tribe-banu-qurayza-part-1//

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/02/jewish-tribe-banu-qurayza-part-2/

      azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-religion-of-peace-and-dunning_14.html?m=1

      Like

    • ““The Amelikates did nothing to the Israelites.”

      Their line was corrupted and God used the Israelites to destroy them. Why He used Israel to do so is too long to explain here but you would know why if you actually read the Tanakh.

      “The jews and pagans broke their peace treaties against the muslims and hence a war started”

      Complete bogus. The first one to break the treaty has always been Muhammad and this is clear from the ahadith. I even saw you stating that the Byzantines “attacked” Muhammad when it was the latter that sent a letter to Heracliltus intimating him to accept Islam or else suffer the consequences. The Byzantines didn’t even know who the Muslims where. Your knowledge of your own sources and history is a fantasy that has absolutely no bearing on reality. I suppose you also believe that the Buddhists attacked first before being butchered like cattle, is it?

      “The prophet ordered certain individuals to be killed for political reasons.”

      Political reasons? What kind of reason to kill people is that? And what has politics to do with God? And yet you are here pretending that the killing of individuals because of their corruption with fallen angels that caused almost the complete annihilation of humankind is “genocide”. Let’s talk about hypocrisy.

      “You don’t think that’s ok but you somehow do accept Elijah as a prophet even after him calling down the wrath of God on a group of boys just for calling him ‘boldie’ and jesus answered him by sending two bears and shred 42 boys to pieces.”

      Sure sure, it’s just because he was called “boldie” that God killed those people. I guess you really read all the context by yourself instead of just reading a quote in a Muslim site, is it not? But even if it was true it was the decision of God to kill those people and God knows the hearth of men, differently from an human being. Muhammad decided by himself who to kill or not to kill, and there’s a world of difference between the two things.

      “If Muhammad did this to one boy, you would go insane.”

      It seems that someone forgot the Qurayza…

      “If a nation is corrupt and evil to God then it’s between them and God. Not between them and the Israelites and God.”

      So God can decide to kill a corrupt lineage with a flood but not use Israel to do the same, even when the means change absolutely nothing and even if by doing so God also established Israel outside of evil influences. It was not a matter between Israel and those Nations, as it was a judgment of God and Israel was just the means that God used for such a judgment to take place. Yet again, totally different from the killings of Muhammad and those ordered in the Qur’an that are totally at the discretion of men given their absolute nature.

      “The believers on the ground can only engage in activities of war if they are provoked by violence which was not the case with the Amalakites”

      That would make sense if the matter was between Israel and the Amalekites, but that was not the case as the destruction of the Amalekites was a judgment of God for their evil. Furthermore you can rest assured that if the Jews would have tried to establish a Nation near them they would have been immediately attacked. If you did read the Bible you would know that the Amalekites weren’t exactly peaceful…

      “The difference is, as I stated above, that when a nation does evil to God then that’s between them and God. NOT between them and the believers of that God. Let God handle it.”

      But why? You are not explaining it. What difference does the mean do? Is God constricted to your own vision of what is “fine” or not for His judgment? And doesn’t Allah uses people for his decree all the time? I suppose that instead he should take the matters on his hand all the time and instead of, for example, decreeing that a wicked men dies by the hand of someone he should zap him out of space. Yet again: it seems almost like you talk as if you didn’t believe that Allah decrees everything that happens but this is YOUR theology (and actually much worse than the Christian one in this sense as there’s no creature will in Islam).

      “God doesn’t order people to do evil”

      Then how much sense has your own Shariah law? If you pretend that an action is evil in absolute terms (and not depending on the context) then stoning someone to death for an abomination he committed is surely an evil act, is it not? So is Allah ordering you to do evil by putting to death someone for committing a mortal sin?

      Ponder a little about what you are stating. It’s obvious that you are just parroting these arguments from someone else because you never personally thought about the matter yourself.”

      “Their line was corrupted and God used the Israelites to destroy them”
      You just repeat yourself again. Being corrupt in the sense that they were wicked towards God, not Israelites.

      “The first one to break the treaty has always been Muhammad and this is clear from the ahadith. I even saw you stating that the Byzantines “attacked” Muhammad when it was the latter that sent a letter to Heracliltus intimating him to accept Islam or else suffer the consequences. The Byzantines didn’t even know who the Muslims where”
      This is xtianity. Taking everything and turning it all around. Give your evidence lady. Where did Muhammad break the treaty against the Meccans or the jews? Where? Muhammad sent a letter to Herac inviting him to Islam, he didn’t threaten his life. If so then show your evidence you lying snake.

      “Political reasons? What kind of reason to kill people is that? And what has politics to do with God?”
      Muhammad was not just a religious man, he was also a political ruler. If you don’t think that’s a just reason then that’s fine. I brought up Elijah who called down the wrath of God (which you think is jesus!!!!!) and they were killed by bears. Wth is that??? So killing someone for political reasons is wrong but killing 42 boys for calling Elijah boldie is righteous? What is wrong with you? Are you insane?

      “Sure sure, it’s just because he was called “boldie” that God killed those people.”
      Yep you’re insane! And a massive hypocrite.

      “I guess you really read all the context by yourself instead of just reading a quote in a Muslim site, is it not?”
      Sorry darling, I didn’t get this from ANY Muslim.

      “But even if it was true it was the decision of God to kill those people and God knows the hearth of men, differently from an human being. Muhammad decided by himself who to kill or not to kill, and there’s a world of difference between the two things.”
      So every time Muhammad says something he has to say ‘o and btw God told me this’???
      Did the jewish prophets do that after every sentence? No.
      “Muhammad decided by himself who to kill or not to kill” can you show some evidence of that please. Would be nice.

      “And yet you are here pretending that the killing of individuals because of their corruption with fallen angels that caused almost the complete annihilation of humankind is “genocide””
      Wth are you talking about?

      “It seems that someone forgot the Qurayza…”
      Nice try but you failed. Only those who reached puberty were killed. And they didn’t commit the UNSPEAKABLE act of uttering ‘boldie’, no they fought against the Prophet and tried to kill him and his followers. Please try to keep up.
      as-Sunan al-Kubra hadith (17934): “Do not kill children or women or old men.”

      “So God can decide to kill a corrupt lineage with a flood but not use Israel to do the same, even when the means change absolutely nothing and even if by doing so God also established Israel outside of evil influences. It was not a matter between Israel and those Nations, as it was a judgment of God and Israel was just the means that God used for such a judgment to take place. Yet again, totally different from the killings of Muhammad and those ordered in the Qur’an that are totally at the discretion of men given their absolute nature.”
      This refutes exactly ZERO. I’ll repeat it again for you: the Amelakites did nothing to the Israelites. God uses nature (and angels) to punish nations but never uses his believing people if the targeted ones did nothing towards the believers.
      “even when the means change absolutely nothing” How does the end result justify all of this? The process is just as, if not more, important as the result.
      “Yet again, totally different from the killings of Muhammad”
      Indeed, I agree. The Quran is righteous and the bible is evil.

      “That would make sense if the matter was between Israel and the Amalekites but that was not the case as the destruction of the Amalekites was a judgment of God for their evil”
      Exactly that’s the whole point!!! So involving the Israelites and ordering to them to kill is just wrong. Btw children and animals were massacred too. Where is the morality in all of this? And don’t give me that ‘O God also allows children to die’. He is God and everything belongs to him. God can use nature to let those things happen.
      “Furthermore you can rest assured that if the Jews would have tried to establish a Nation near them they would have been immediately attacked. If you did read the Bible you would know that the Amalekites weren’t exactly peaceful…”
      This is just non-factual gibberish and you know it.

      “Then how much sense has your own Shariah law? If you pretend that an action is evil in absolute terms (and not depending on the context) then stoning someone to death for an abomination he committed is surely an evil act, is it not? So is Allah ordering you to do evil by putting to death someone for committing a mortal sin?”
      But the evil act is done to others or to the state which is based on the shariah, not just to God. You just keep missing the point. The Jewish Law wasn’t accepted by the Amelakites. It was forced on them remember?

      “What difference does the mean do? Is God constricted to your own vision of what is “fine” or not for His judgment? And doesn’t Allah uses people for his decree all the time? I suppose that instead he should take the matters on his hand all the time”

      He orders His servants to punish evil if the evil touches THEM, not just HIM.
      “And doesn’t Allah uses people for his decree all the time?” That’s completely irrelevant. Him using people for His decree all the time does NOT equal Him using people for His decree every single time. Does he use it when a tornado hits the US? I don’t think so.

      And you keep missing the biggest issue. The children/infants and animals were killed. There is no evil in children/infants and animals.

      “Ponder a little about what you are stating. It’s obvious that you are just parroting these arguments from someone else because you never personally thought about the matter yourself”

      I’m not parroting this from anyone. I pondered on this for a long time. And no matter what verbal/mental gymnastics you use, you can never justify the stuff of nightmare found in your bible. Never!

      Like

    • “Where did Muhammad break the treaty against the Meccans or the jews? Where? Muhammad sent a letter to Herac inviting him to Islam, he didn’t threaten his life. If so then show your evidence you lying snake.”

      Let’s make a deal. Show me first when the Byzantines attacked Muhammad first and then I will show you my proof of what I state. Btw I’ve already shown proof of how the Qurayza didn’t act treacherously against Muhammad, it’s just in the post above you. Feel free to prove me wrong.

      Oh, while you are at it you can prove to me when the Zoroastrians attacked the Muslims first, or when the Buddhists attacked Muslims first. Good luck with that, you will need it.

      I don’t need to lie, history is on my side, differently from you.

      “So killing someone for political reasons is wrong but killing 42 boys for calling Elijah boldie is righteous? What is wrong with you? Are you insane?”

      The first is a decision of Muhammad for PERSONAL reasons, the latter it is a decision of God based on the hearth of man. Elijah didn’t kill those boys himself, he called he curse on them and God decided to kill them. If you are against God killing wicked people then what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Didn’t go destroy two entire cities with brimstone? IIRC that story is also in the Qur’an, is it not?

      And I already told you that the punishment had nothing to do with those boys calling Elijah “baldie” but you continue to insist this is the case for your own convenience. If there’s a constant in this thread is the absolute intellectual dishonesty you people have. It’s easy to attack a strawman and pretend you are refuting the real argument, however doing so is the clear sign of you having no personal honor or dignity.

      “Sorry darling, I didn’t get this from ANY Muslim.”

      Yes, sure, how not. In fact you are perfectly aware of the context of the passage you are talking about as one that actually read the matter for himself.

      “So every time Muhammad says something he has to say ‘o and btw God told me this’???
      Did the jewish prophets do that after every sentence? No.”

      For the killings in the Tanakh YES, they did. Yet again, you have no minimal clue of what you are talking about. ALL the killings in the Tanakh were done by the direct order of YHVH and ONLY against the peoples that He judged as wicked. YHVH was very precise on the nations that Israel had to destroy (for the motives I’ve explained) and He didn’t permit any other to be attacked but those. YHVH decided the target, the means and the end and man had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

      YHVH was so stringent on His orders that when Saul tried to do things on his own he was immediately rejected from the covenant.

      “can you show some evidence of that please. Would be nice.”

      So just before you had no problem admitting that Muhammad killed for political reasons and now you insist that he never ordered to kill anybody? What game are you playing? I suppose you are also “mysteriously” unaware of Muhammad ordering the killing of many of his critics in Medina, is it not? Pleas stop it and try to be intellectually honest at least once if you can.

      “fallen angels that caused almost the complete annihilation of humankind is “genocide””
      Wth are you talking about?”

      Maybe if you actually did actually read some of my posts seriously you would know of what I was talking about. I repeated the matter at least five times already.

      “Nice try but you failed. Only those who reached puberty were killed. And they didn’t commit the UNSPEAKABLE act of uttering ‘boldie’, no they fought against the Prophet and tried to kill him and his followers. Please try to keep up.”

      Also the ones in the passage you mentioned were young boys already in puberty. And the Qurayza fought against Muhammad and tried to kill him? The Banu Qurayza were besieged for almost a month until they surrendered; NO fighting, just enduring. The siege ended with the unconditional surrender of Jews. Of what are you talking about? Yet again here we are with your completely fantasy rendition of history.

      “This refutes exactly ZERO. I’ll repeat it again for you: the Amelakites did nothing to the Israelites. God uses nature (and angels) to punish nations but never uses his believing people if the targeted ones did nothing towards the believers.”

      Apart that the treat of corrupting all humanity is not exactly “did nothing against the believers” you still not only have to explain to me why God cannot use His chosen people to do His will (are the Angels different than men in this instance? Why?) but you also have to explain how can Allah decree everything that happens in the world (including the evil that ones commit) and yet be able to never use men to do his will. Let’s see what absurdity you will invent.

      I’m trying to refrain as much as I can from pointing out your hypocrisy given what’s written in your Qur’an for what it concerns the commands given by Allah concerning fighting because I don’t like to stood to your level but if you continue with your intellectual dishonesty then I have no other choice. Please don’t let me waste my time quoting you thousands of ahadith, Tafseers and jurisprudence rulings proving how much of an hypocrite you are in this matter, I have no time for these silly games.

      “Indeed, I agree. The Quran is righteous and the bible is evil.”

      Sure, how not. In fact in the latter God was so evil to order the destruction of only specific nations (that were spiritually corrupted and committed abominable practices), in a very specific context under a very specific timeframe and only by certain people while instead in the former you have such a righteous God that orders to fight all people indiscriminately under all contexts and for all times until they don’t surrender to Islam or pay the Jizyah (if they are allowed to) so they can acquire booty for themselves in the process. You are perfectly right, how could I miss something so obvious?

      “And don’t give me that ‘O God also allows children to die’. He is God and everything belongs to him. God can use nature to let those things happen.”

      Ahhhhh, I understand. So Allah decreeing children to die since their birth is perfectly fine because “they belong to him”, yet YHVH ordering children to die because they were corrupted and destined only to commit abomination is not fine because those children instead don’t belong to Him. Makes perfect sense, especially the part of Allah not only decreeing people to die but also that they will go to hell to be punished eternally for an evil that they were forced to commit by Allah himself.

      You are right yet again. You make perfect sense…

      “He orders His servants to punish evil if the evil touches THEM, not just HIM.”

      Apart that you have a very materialistic concept of evil that is not only totally naturalistic when you pretend to be a theist and that is even contradicted by your Qur’an (I thought one of the reasons in the Qur’an to fight people was for their “spreading corruption in the land”, but probably I’m just reading things that aren’t there) Israel was an avatar of the Messiah, hence it had the specific role of the High Priest of the world, hence the commands for the anointed of Israel had absolutely nothing in common with a command to a normal believer. You are mixing categories left and right because you have no minimal idea of the context (so much so for you actually not parroting the arguments of others).

      Like

    • “Where did Muhammad break the treaty against the Meccans or the jews? Where? Muhammad sent a letter to Herac inviting him to Islam, he didn’t threaten his life. If so then show your evidence you lying snake.”

      Let’s make a deal. Show me first when the Byzantines attacked Muhammad first and then I will show you my proof of what I state. Btw I’ve already shown proof of how the Qurayza didn’t act treacherously against Muhammad, it’s just in the post above you. Feel free to prove me wrong.

      Oh, while you are at it you can prove to me when the Zoroastrians attacked the Muslims first, or when the Buddhists attacked Muslims first. Good luck with that, you will need it.

      I don’t need to lie, history is on my side, differently from you.

      “So killing someone for political reasons is wrong but killing 42 boys for calling Elijah boldie is righteous? What is wrong with you? Are you insane?”

      The first is a decision of Muhammad for PERSONAL reasons, the latter it is a decision of God based on the hearth of man. Elijah didn’t kill those boys himself, he called he curse on them and God decided to kill them. If you are against God killing wicked people then what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Didn’t go destroy two entire cities with brimstone? IIRC that story is also in the Qur’an, is it not?

      And I already told you that the punishment had nothing to do with those boys calling Elijah “baldie” but you continue to insist this is the case for your own convenience. If there’s a constant in this thread is the absolute intellectual dishonesty you people have. It’s easy to attack a strawman and pretend you are refuting the real argument, however doing so is the clear sign of you having no personal honor or dignity.

      “Sorry darling, I didn’t get this from ANY Muslim.”

      Yes, sure, how not. In fact you are perfectly aware of the context of the passage you are talking about as one that actually read the matter for himself.

      “So every time Muhammad says something he has to say ‘o and btw God told me this’???
      Did the jewish prophets do that after every sentence? No.”

      For the killings in the Tanakh YES, they did. Yet again, you have no minimal clue of what you are talking about. ALL the killings in the Tanakh were done by the direct order of YHVH and ONLY against the peoples that He judged as wicked. YHVH was very precise on the nations that Israel had to destroy (for the motives I’ve explained) and He didn’t permit any other to be attacked but those. YHVH decided the target, the means and the end and man had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

      YHVH was so stringent on His orders that when Saul tried to do things on his own he was immediately rejected from the covenant.

      “can you show some evidence of that please. Would be nice.”

      So just before you had no problem admitting that Muhammad killed for political reasons and now you insist that he never ordered to kill anybody? What game are you playing? I suppose you are also “mysteriously” unaware of Muhammad ordering the killing of many of his critics in Medina, is it not? Pleas stop it and try to be intellectually honest at least once if you can.

      “fallen angels that caused almost the complete annihilation of humankind is “genocide””
      Wth are you talking about?”

      Maybe if you actually did actually read some of my posts seriously you would know of what I was talking about. I repeated the matter at least five times already.

      “Nice try but you failed. Only those who reached puberty were killed. And they didn’t commit the UNSPEAKABLE act of uttering ‘boldie’, no they fought against the Prophet and tried to kill him and his followers. Please try to keep up.”

      Also the ones in the passage you mentioned were young boys already in puberty. And the Qurayza fought against Muhammad and tried to kill him? The Banu Qurayza were besieged for almost a month until they surrendered; NO fighting, just enduring. The siege ended with the unconditional surrender of Jews. Of what are you talking about? Yet again here we are with your completely fantasy rendition of history.

      “This refutes exactly ZERO. I’ll repeat it again for you: the Amelakites did nothing to the Israelites. God uses nature (and angels) to punish nations but never uses his believing people if the targeted ones did nothing towards the believers.”

      Apart that the treat of corrupting all humanity is not exactly “did nothing against the believers” you still not only have to explain to me why God cannot use His chosen people to do His will (are the Angels different than men in this instance? Why?) but you also have to explain how can Allah decree everything that happens in the world (including the evil that ones commit) and yet be able to never use men to do his will. Let’s see what absurdity you will invent.

      I’m trying to refrain as much as I can from pointing out your hypocrisy given what’s written in your Qur’an for what it concerns the commands given by Allah concerning fighting because I don’t like to stood to your level but if you continue with your intellectual dishonesty then I have no other choice. Please don’t let me waste my time quoting you thousands of ahadith, Tafseers and jurisprudence rulings proving how much of an hypocrite you are in this matter, I have no time for these silly games.

      “Indeed, I agree. The Quran is righteous and the bible is evil.”

      Sure, how not. In fact in the latter God was so evil to order the destruction of only specific nations (that were spiritually corrupted and committed abominable practices), in a very specific context under a very specific timeframe and only by certain people while instead in the former you have such a righteous God that orders to fight all people indiscriminately under all contexts and for all times until they don’t surrender to Islam or pay the Jizyah (if they are allowed to) so they can acquire booty for themselves in the process. You are perfectly right, how could I miss something so obvious?

      “And don’t give me that ‘O God also allows children to die’. He is God and everything belongs to him. God can use nature to let those things happen.”

      Ahhhhh, I understand. So Allah decreeing children to die since their birth is perfectly fine because “they belong to him”, yet YHVH ordering children to die because they were corrupted and destined only to commit abomination is not fine because those children instead don’t belong to Him. Makes perfect sense, especially the part of Allah not only decreeing people to die but also that they will go to hell to be punished eternally for an evil that they were forced to commit by Allah himself.

      You are right yet again. You make perfect sense…

      “He orders His servants to punish evil if the evil touches THEM, not just HIM.”

      Apart that you have a very materialistic concept of evil that is not only totally naturalistic when you pretend to be a theist and that is even contradicted by your Qur’an (I thought one of the reasons in the Qur’an to fight people was for their “spreading corruption in the land”, but probably I’m just reading things that aren’t there) Israel was an avatar of the Messiah, hence it had the specific role of the High Priest of the world, hence the commands for the anointed of Israel had absolutely nothing in common with a command to a normal believer. You are mixing categories left and right because you have no minimal idea of the context (so much so for you actually not parroting the arguments of others).

      Like

    • “The prophet ordered certain individuals to be killed for political reasons.”

      Oh dear…

      So did Saadam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They were about as much true prophet’s of God as Muhammad.

      Like

    • “Normal people would never have trouble condemning Muhammad’s marriage and consummation to child bride Aisha, but because it’s your prophet, seemingly normal people become defenders of pedophilia.”

      LOL, what a pathetic deflection!

      Think a little for once, moron. The “pedophilia” charge is a modern polemic. Why didn’t Christians accuse the Prophet of pedophilia in the Middle Ages? Where did Martin Luther make such an accusation? Or any of the famous Christian theologians? The reason is that it was a common practice, whether it was in Arabia, Europe or elsewhere. How old was the mother of your savior when she married Joseph?

      But again, this is just a pathetic deflection. The fact remains that you sickos defend infanticide and make idiotic excuses for it. You’re not normal, sammy. You’re a brainwashed zombie who brain decomposed from the corrupting influence of the insidious cult called Christianity.

      Like

    • “Oh dear…

      So did Saadam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They were about as much true prophet’s of God as Muhammad.”

      Oh dear…another idiotic statement by bad samaritan!

      Most of the Biblical figures, like Moses, Joshua and Gideon killed for political reasons, imbecile. But they also killed babies. So who cares what some idiot like you thinks? Eh?

      Sammy, why do you worship an old man from Canaan?

      Like

    • “It also reveal the fact that the tribe of Banu Qurayza did not do anything atrocious to Muslims”
      And this is why xtians are one of the worst people on the face of the earth. Just lying through their teeth.
      Allow me to expose you for being the lying snake you are.

      “The chief criminal of Bani Nadir, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu Quraiza to incite their chief Ka’b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a PACT with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka’b, in the beginning resisted all Huyai’s temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay in Ka’b’s fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later managed to win Ka’b to his side and persuade him to BREAK his COVENANT with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch WAR operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq, Safiyah [R], daughter of ‘Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: “A Jew was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was suspicious of that man’s presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid, why don’t you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They, however, went on PROVIDING THE IDOLATERS WITH SUPPLIES in token of their support against the Muslims.
      On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim prominent leaders Sa’d bin Mu’adh, Sa’d bin ‘Ubada, ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so. Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the Jews announced openly that NO PACT OF ALLIANCE EXISTED ANY LONGER with Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates) Invasion, Source)”

      And you know what’s funny? The Quraiza tribe even after that were allowed to stay and were left alone and for that they even attacked a SECOND time. They were treacherous TWICE.

      “Narrated Ibn `Umar:

      Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet (ﷺ) violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet (ﷺ) again. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4028”

      So you’re just a lying piece of ****!

      How many times did the Amalikites betray the Israelites and broke a treaty? That’s right, exactly ZERO times.

      And the jewish tribe were given a lighter punishment found in the BIBLE! The order was given by Sa’ad.
      Deuteronomy 20:10-12
      “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies”

      “Let’s make a deal. Show me first when the Byzantines attacked Muhammad first and then I will show you my proof of what I state.”

      “The Battle Of Tabuk
      Rajab 9 A. H.
      On the authority of Imran Ibn Husayn that the Christian Arabs wrote to Hercules, the King Of Rome that Muhammad passed away and that the people were dying because of the drought that they were experiencing. It was therefore a very appropriate TIME TO ATTACK THE ARABS (MUSLIMS). Hercules immediately issued the order for preparations. A fully equipped army of 40 000 was prepared.” (Mu’jam az-Zawa’id, volume 6, page 191) (Siratul Mustafa [Translated by Maulana Mahomed Mahomedy – Madrasah Arabia Islamia and Zam Zam Publishers – Fifth Authorized Edition, 2015] by Hadrat Maulana Idris Sahib Kandehlawi, volume 3, page 96)

      “‘My house was in Al-Awali among those of Banu Umayya, and I had a neighbour among the Ansar, and he and I would take turns visiting the Messenger of God.’ He said: ‘One day I would visit him and bring the news of the Revelation, and one day he would visit him and bring the same. We heard that GHASSAN WERE PREPARING THEIR HORSES TO ATTACK US. He said: ‘One day he came to me in the evening and knocked on my door, so I went out to him. He said: “A horrible thing has happened.” I said: “Ghassan has come?” He said: “Worse than that. The Messenger of God has divorced his wives.’ … “(Jami at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3318. Eng. Tran., Sahih Darussalam,)

      “I had a friend from the Ansar. When I had been absent (from the company of the Prophet) he used to bring me the news and when he had been absent I used to bring him the news, and at that time we dreaded a KING OF GHASSAN. It was mentioned to us that he INTENDED TO ATTACK US, AND OUR MINDS WERE HAUNTED BY HIM. My friend, the Ansari, came to me, and he knocked at the door and said: Open it, open it. I said: Has the Ghassanid come? He said: (The matter is) more serious than that. The Messenger of Allah has separated himself from his wives. …” (Sahih Muslim Book 9, Hadith 3508. Eng Tran.,)

      “They (narrators) said: It (report) reached the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, that the ROMANS HAD CONCENTRATED LARGE FORCES IN SYRIA had, that Heraclius had disbursed one year’s salary to his soldiers, and that tribes of Lakhm, Judham, ‘Amilah and Ghassan had joined hands with him. THEY SENT HAD SENT THEIR VANGUARDS TO AL-BALQA. THE MESSENGER of Allah, SUMMONED THE PEOPLE TO MARCH. He set out and informed them about the place which he intended, so that they could make necessary preparations. He sent (messengers) to Makkah and to the tribes of Arabia (asking them) to send help. This took place in the days of intense heat.” (Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, [Translated by S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 2009)], by Ibn Sa’d, volume 2, page 203-204)

      “…And this is my story of remaining back from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the occasion of the Battle of Tabuk. Never did I possess means enough and (my circumstances) more favourable than at the occasion of this expedition. And, by Allah, I had never before this expedition simultaneously in my possession two rides. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) set out for this expedition in extremely hot season; the journey was long and the land (which he and his army had to cover) was waterless and he had to CONFRONT A LARGE ARMY, so he informed the Muslims about the actual situation (they had to face), so that they should adequately equip themselves for this expedition, and he also told them the destination where he intended to go. And the Muslims who accompanied Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) at that time were large in numbers but there was no proper record of them. Ka’b (further) said: Few were the persons who wanted to absent themselves, and were under the impression that they could easily conceal themselves (and thus remain undetected) until revelations from Allah, the Exalted and Glorious (descended in connection with them).” (Sahih Muslim Book 37, Hadith 6670)


      Is this good enough for you? I can give you more.

      “I don’t need to lie, history is on my side, differently from you.”
      LOL! You just did and no the history is clearly not on your side.

      “Buddhists attacked Muslims first” What does this have to do with the Prophet being in error?

      “The first is a decision of Muhammad for PERSONAL reasons, the latter it is a decision of God based on the hearth of man. Elijah didn’t kill those boys himself, he called he curse on them and God decided to kill them.”

      You just don’t get it, do you? Or perhaps you are pretending.
      It’s based on political reasons. Elijah was based on personal reasons. Stop lying ffs!!! In Islam politics is not separate from religious matters. The same goes for the jewish law.

      “If you are against God killing wicked people then what about Sodom and Gomorrah? Didn’t go destroy two entire cities with brimstone? IIRC that story is also in the Qur’an, is it not?”
      Omg! Did they commit the UNSPEAKABLE ACT of calling someone ‘boldie’??? Or did they do the most heinous crimes? They did evil TOWARDS God and hence were punished for it. But when a group of boys calls Elijah ‘boldie’ that’s enough to make Elijah babyrage and hurt the little man inside him and to ask his God to annihilate them. And Jesus responds. So much for your prince of peace.

      “And I already told you that the punishment had nothing to do with those boys calling Elijah “baldie””
      You are absolutely right!!! It wasn’t Elisha. I mixed those two up.
      Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut that changes nothing I’m afraid.

      2 Kings 2:23-24
      “From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”

      “but you continue to insist this is the case for your own convenience. If there’s a constant in this thread is the absolute intellectual dishonesty you people have. It’s easy to attack a strawman and pretend you are refuting the real argument, however doing so is the clear sign of you having no personal honor or dignity.”

      This is not strawman lady! I’m just clearly showing your hypocrisy. You cannot accept the prophet asking his companions to execute someone for POLITICAL reasons (as he was a political leader too) but you do accept jesus sending two bears to maul 42 boys to death for calling him ‘baldy’.

      “For the killings in the Tanakh YES, they did. Yet again, you have no minimal clue of what you are talking about. ALL the killings in the Tanakh were done by the direct order of YHVH and ONLY against the peoples that He judged as wicked. YHVH was very precise on the nations that Israel had to destroy (for the motives I’ve explained) and He didn’t permit any other to be attacked but those. YHVH decided the target, the means and the end and man had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

      YHVH was so stringent on His orders that when Saul tried to do things on his own he was immediately rejected from the covenant.”

      But everything in the Quran IS the Word of Allah so it’s not just Muhammad’s own personal choice.
      And I gave you the hadith of Allah telling the angels to go to Muhammad and deliver the message of the judgement that is befallen upon the jewish tribe. So what the hell are you talking about lady?

      “So just before you had no problem admitting that Muhammad killed for political reasons and now you insist that he never ordered to kill anybody? What game are you playing? I suppose you are also “mysteriously” unaware of Muhammad ordering the killing of many of his critics in Medina, is it not? Pleas stop it and try to be intellectually honest at least once if you can.”

      No I am asking where he requests the execution of those people by himself. This implies that Allah was against it. “Muhammad decided by himself who to kill or not to kill” This is what you said remember. I’m not questioning him actually ordering it.

      “Maybe if you actually did actually read some of my posts seriously you would know of what I was talking about. I repeated the matter at least five times already.”
      But that was a topic you discussed with others, not with me.

      “Also the ones in the passage you mentioned were young boys already in puberty. And the Qurayza fought against Muhammad and tried to kill him? The Banu Qurayza were besieged for almost a month until they surrendered; NO fighting, just enduring. The siege ended with the unconditional surrender of Jews. Of what are you talking about? Yet again here we are with your completely fantasy rendition of history.”
      I replied to this a the top of my comment. You’re just mistaken or lying. Even one of the chiefs said right before his execution that the punishment brought to them was righteous.

      “Apart that the treat of corrupting all humanity is not exactly “did nothing against the believers””
      Corrupting all humanity? O dear God, save me your opera crying. You are using verbal gymnastics again to try and justify the genocide. Did they attack the Israelites? No they did not.

      “you still not only have to explain to me why God cannot use His chosen people to do His will (are the Angels different than men in this instance? Why?) but you also have to explain how can Allah decree everything that happens in the world (including the evil that ones commit) and yet be able to never use men to do his will.”
      I already explained it to you but you just don’t want to hear it. If a nation isn’t an aggressor to a group of people then that give them no right to genocide them! They may be wicked. Yes. But their wickedness is an injustice towards God. Not towards others. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?
      Angels aren’t like humans cus they don’t have free will in Islam. But that’s a whole other topic. Let’s stay focused on the subject, for now at least.
      And where did I say that Allah never uses men to do His will? Where? I said that He doesn’t use men for committing genocides of nations if those nations weren’t the aggressors towards those men. The Isrealites were the aggressors, not the Amelakits.

      “Let’s see what absurdity you will invent.”
      You should tell this to yourself cus you are the one justifying genocides of babies and animals. Not me.

      “I’m trying to refrain as much as I can from pointing out your hypocrisy given what’s written in your Qur’an for what it concerns the commands given by Allah concerning fighting because I don’t like to stood to your level but if you continue with your intellectual dishonesty then I have no other choice. Please don’t let me waste my time quoting you thousands of ahadith, Tafseers and jurisprudence rulings proving how much of an hypocrite you are in this matter, I have no time for these silly games.”

      Which is just another way of saying: I got put in my place but I’ll just say this to give the impression that I’m somehow miraculously doing ok in this ‘debate’. Ones again just a bunch of blablabla and not refuting anything.

      “Sure, how not. In fact in the latter (bible) God was so evil to order the destruction of only specific nations (that were spiritually corrupted and committed abominable practices), in a very specific context under a very specific timeframe and only by certain people”
      So throwing in the word ‘specific’ somehow magically justifies the stuff of nightmares found in the bible.
      And this ‘specific’ times lasted for millennia as well.

      “while instead in the former (Quran) you have such a righteous God that orders to fight all people indiscriminately under all contexts and for all times until they don’t surrender to Islam or pay the Jizyah (if they are allowed to) so they can acquire booty for themselves in the process. You are perfectly right, how could I miss something so obvious?”

      Your sarcasm will not conceal your error.
      You are talking about Q 9:29 again. This has been refuted. Read what I wrote above in this comment. The fighting has to do with the Byzantine empire.
      Non-Muslims living under Islamic Law pay taxes called Jizyah and are free from the obligation of military service while Muslims pay the Zakat (which is also mandatory) and are required to do military service.
      You call this injustice towards non-Muslims?

      “Ahhhhh, I understand. So Allah decreeing children to die since their birth is perfectly fine because “they belong to him”, yet YHVH ordering children to die because they were corrupted and destined only to commit abomination is not fine because those children instead don’t belong to Him.”
      Children are not corrupt nor evil you sick ****! Nor are animals!
      You are repeating the same bullshit again.
      You xtians are sick! You people need to be locked up and kept away from infants and animals.

      “Makes perfect sense, especially the part of Allah not only decreeing people to die but also that they will go to hell to be punished eternally for an evil that they were forced to commit by Allah himself.”
      What are you trying to say here? What evil were they forced to commit by Allah?

      “Apart that you have a very materialistic concept of evil that is not only totally naturalistic when you pretend to be a theist and that is even contradicted by your Qur’an (I thought one of the reasons in the Qur’an to fight people was for their “spreading corruption in the land”, but probably I’m just reading things that aren’t there) Israel was an avatar of the Messiah, hence it had the specific role of the High Priest of the world, hence the commands for the anointed of Israel had absolutely nothing in common with a command to a normal believer. You are mixing categories left and right because you have no minimal idea of the context (so much so for you actually not parroting the arguments of others).”

      “I thought one of the reasons in the Qur’an to fight people was for their “spreading corruption in the land”, but probably I’m just reading things that aren’t there”
      Yes spreading corruption in the land affects people in that land, doesn’t it? When people spread corruption in your country, it’s the state’s responsibility to stop that corruption, isn’t it? It’s not their business to go to the other side of the world and impose their (imperialistic) laws on other nations.
      And you are butchering a verse yet again. It says clearly in Q 5:33
      “Indeed, the penalty for those who WAGE WAR against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment”

      “Israel was an avatar of the Messiah, hence it had the specific role of the High Priest of the world, hence the commands for the anointed of Israel had absolutely nothing in common with a command to a normal believer.”

      O here we go again with the word ‘specific’. Normal believer?
      That’s someone who treats the OT as merely a history book when it’s convenient (like when we talk about the stuff of nightmares found in them) and holy when it’s convenient (like the alleged prophecies about jesus). Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19:
      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever PRACTICES and TEACHES these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

      But yet you and your apostle paul say the law has been abrogated/abolished.
      Jesus say He hasn’t come to abolish it. Furthermore he tells people to PRACTICE and TEACH them. But how can you practice something which has been abrogated? And you are TEACHING these laws are abrogated.

      “You are mixing categories left and right because you have no minimal idea of the context (so much so for you actually not parroting the arguments of others).”
      Honey you got embarrassed. Deal with it already.

      Like

    • “Oh dear…

      So did Saadam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Stalin. They were about as much true prophet’s of God as Muhammad.”

      If you don’t want to accept the Prophet (saw) for ordering the execution of individuals for political reasons then that’s just fine and dandy my cross worshiping friend. I just take that and turn it around and show your MASSIVE hypocrisy.
      If you don’t accept Muhammad (saw) doing that for political reasons and still think it’s not just then why does your god jesus send 2 bears to execute 42 boys just for calling Elisha ‘baldy’. This is just a personal insult. Nothing to do with politics. So after all that you not only accept Elisha to be a man of God but you also accept your alleged ‘prince of peace’ to be your lord and savior.

      Like

    • Selea, thank you for making it easy for me my dear lady/sir, i’ll get back to you when i finish my homework, i would request everyone to leave this topic to me….

      Like

    • “It wasn’t Elisha. I mixed those two up.” —> sorry I meant to say It was Elisha not Elijah

      Liked by 1 person

    • i was talking about qurayza by the way…in case if anyone is confused

      Like

    • QB,

      So in attempting to refute me you actually prove my point.

      Why are you defending pedophilia, QB, you sick individual?

      Like

    • “LOL, what a pathetic deflection!”

      The only one deflecting here is you. Remember those quotes I’ve provided you from your Qur’an and the Sunnah that prove how Allah decrees everything including the sin that a man will commit? What happened to your “Allah doesn’t command evil?”. I guess you mysteriously missed your tongue, is it not?

      Not only you continue with this story of the “infanticide” no matter how many times I’ve refuted your strawman (you really have nothing else, don’t you?) but you avoid as the plague the clear proof of the fact that in your theology Allah decrees children all the time to die and not even to die but to ETERNAL TORTURE for something they are not personally guilty about. You have no problems worshiping a god like this and yet you seriously pretend to come here with the facade that you really care about the well-being of children? The amount of hypocrisy in you people is simply astounding.

      Let me then remind you something, since you clearly miss it. Remember when Allah in your Qur’an destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Guess what, there were surely children there as they were two full grown city centers. If you are consistent then you should insist that your Allah is an “infanticide” and that you are ashamed of your own “cult”. Will you? Of course you will not, because you are just a poser and nothing else.

      As for the matter of Aisha: the problem is not so much the pedophilia (albeit your “defense” makes no sense because many of the narrations available now were so at the time of the theologians you mention, even just the Qur’an as it is comes from 1920, much later than the time those people lived) but the fact that Aisha was NOT in puberty at the time Muhammad had sex with her and such a thing is simply unheard for in the ancient world.

      Furthermore, and even most importantly in a sense, Muhammad is an example for ALL TIMES in your theology and this not only completely destroys once again your argument about age of consent at the time, but it enables such a practice to take place no matter the change in morality that can take place in society.

      Like

    • “QB,

      So in attempting to refute me you actually prove my point.

      Why are you defending pedophilia, QB, you sick individual?”

      LOL!!! Because it’s not “pedophilia”, moron! As I said, this accusation has only become common in recent times. Before that, no one made that accusation, including Christians. You are too stupid to offer a substantive rebuttal and instead just repeat the same thing over and over. What a pathetic imbecile you are!

      Stop trying to deflect, you pagan. Your Canaanite god commanded the killings of babies. And you morons try to defend it by making pathetic and monstrous excuses. Christianity has corrupted your minds.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Stop trying to deflect, you pagan. Your Canaanite god commanded the killings of babies.”

      I suppose that you really believe that by repeating the same thing over and over again it magically turns true. And a Muslim saying “pagan” to others, LOL. You people really have a nerve. Can I remind you that you circuambulate (a typical pagan practice; just read some occult material) around a Kaaba that had 360 idols in it, you kiss a black stone in the form of a vagina (and that was adored by pagans for fertility), you worship a god that is clearly anthropologically related to Ba’al and you slay bulls in the same exact day than the pagans at the time of Muhammad did so?

      You only have one luck in this thread. That Paul continually censors everything I post so that I have to reply three times until one message is accepted. If you didn’t have fear of the truth you would not do such things.

      Like

    • Selea,

      It ain’t my problem if you are too thick-headed and brainwashed to see the difference between claiming that God commanded humans to kill little babies and God allowing evil to occur in the world. Stop pretending to be an expert on the Quran. You people are ignoramuses. No one takes you seriously.

      The fact still remains that you are one defending infanticide. Regardless of your excuses and deflections, this fact will not change. Even if your deflections to Islam were true or had any logical weight, it STILL does not change the fact that YOU are defending INFANTICIDE. Just let that sink in to your head for a second. Open your mind and throw out your Christian biases for a second and just think as if you were not a Christian. See how it would look to you if someone made excuses for BABY KILLING. Like I said, normal people would be disgusted. Try to be normal for once.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “It ain’t my problem if you are too thick-headed and brainwashed to see the difference between claiming that God commanded humans to kill little babies and God allowing evil to occur in the world.”

      Yet again, erase and rewind.

      – Those were not normal children, they were a corrupted lineage. And what difference there is from God killing children Himself and ordering His agent in the world to do so? You still have to explain this, but I suppose you will never will because you have no minimal clue of what you are talking about.

      – Your god DOESN’T “allow” evil to occur in the world, he DECREES evil. I’ve already PROVEN you this. Did you already forgot that? Must I refresh your memory?

      Say: ‘Naught shall visit us but what Allah has prescribed for us; He is our Protector; in Allah let the believers put all their trust.’ S. 9:51

      Here is how Sahih al-Bukhari interpreted this specific verse:

      XIV. “Say: ‘Nothing can happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us.” (9:51)
      Mujahid said, “Bi-fatinina (37:162) means misguided, those for whom Allah has written that they will burn in Hellfire.” ”
      Qaddarra fa-hada” (87:3): He decreed misery and happiness and guided livestock to their grazing pasture.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 85. Book of the Decree (Qadar)

      By a Soul and Him who balanced it, And BREATHED INTO IT ITS WICKEDNESS and its piety, S. 91:8 Rodwell

      Here is Muhammad’s purported explanation of this verse:

      Abu al-Aswad reported that ‘Imran b Husain asked him: What is your view, what the people do today in the world, and strive for, is it something decreed for them or preordained for them or will their fate in the Hereafter be determined by the fact that their Prophets brought them teaching which they did not act upon? I said: Of course, it is something which is predetermined for them and preordained for them. He (further) said: Then, would it not be an injustice (to punish them)? I felt greatly disturbed because of that, and said: Everything is created by Allah and lies in His Power. He would not be questioned as to what He does, but they would be questioned; thereupon he said to me: May Allah have mercy upon you, I did not mean to ask you but for testing your intelligence. Two men of the tribe of Muzaina came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, what is your opinion that the people do in the world and strive for, is it something decreed for them, something preordained for them, and will their fate in the Hereafter be determined by the fact that their Prophets brought them teachings which they did not act upon, and thus they became deserving of punishment? Thereupon, he said: Of course, it happens as it is decreed by Destiny and preordained for them, and this view is confirmed by this verse of the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious: “Consider the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then breathed into it its sin and its piety” (xci. 8). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6406)

      In other words, Allah created the very evil that a person will eventually commit by breathing wickedness into the soul of every individual! This is confirmed by the following Islamic texts:

      Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
      I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “Allah has written for the son of Adam his inevitable share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the innerself wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 609)

      Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he OF NECESSITY MUST COMMIT (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421; see also Number 6422)

      ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud reported: Evil one is he who is evil in the womb of his mother and the good one is he who takes lesson from the (fate of) others. The narrator came to a person from amongst the Companion of Allah’s Messenger who was called Hudhaifa b. Usaid Ghifari and said: How can a person be an evil one without (committing an evil) deed? Thereupon the person said to him: You are surprised at this, whereas I have heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When forty nights pass after the semen gets into the womb, Allah sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then he creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones, and then says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And your Lord decides as He desires and the angel then puts down that also and then says: My Lord, what about his age? And your Lord decides as He likes it and the angel puts it down. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood? And then the Lord decides as He likes and the angel writes it down, and then the angel gets out with his scroll of destiny in his hand and nothing is added to it and nothing is subtracted from it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6393)

      Ubayy b. Ka’b reported that Allah’s Messenger said: The young man whom Khadir killed was a non-believer by his very nature and had he survived he would have involved his parents in defiance and unbelief. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6434)

      A’isha, the mother of the believers, said that Allah’s Messenger was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said: Allah’s Messenger, there is happiness for this child who is a bird from the birds of Paradise for it committed no sin nor has he reached the age when one can commit sin. He said: ‘A’isha, per adventure, it may be otherwise, because God created for Paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father’s loins and created for Hell those who are to go to Hell. He created them for Hell while they were yet in their father’s loins. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6436)

      He (Ibn Sa‘d) said: Then they said: O Apostle of Allah, our mother Mulaykah Bint al-Hulw used to secure the freedom of prisoners, feed the mendicant and show compassion to the poor. She had died. She had interred alive a daughter of very tender age, so what would be her condition. He said: She who interred her (daughter) alive and she who was interred alive are BOTH in hell fire. Thereupon they got infuriated. He said: Come to me. They came back and he said: My mother is with yours. They rejected it, and went away saying: By Allah! This man who made us eat the heart and thinks that our mother is in hell-fire, is not worthy of being followed. They set out and on the way they confronted one of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah who was bringing camels of sadaqah. They tied him and carried away the camels. This news reached the Prophet. He cursed them along with those whom he was cursing in these words: May Allah curse Ri‘l, Dhakwan, ‘Usayyah, Lihyan, and two sons of Mulaykah–Ibn Harim and Murran. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, Parts I & II, pp. 383-384)

      Must I go on? If you want I can post you ALL the Qur’anic verses that prove this unequivocally. Just say the word.

      Like

    • LOL. oh the desperation!

      Your cut and paste job will not impress anyone. It certainly doesn’t impress me. Like I said, free yourself of the bias and you will see the folly of your arguments.

      Again, there is a difference between God allowing or decreeing or whatever you want to call it, and God ORDERING humans to do something. God does not command humans to do evil.

      And once again, to repeat, this deflection STILL does nothing to change the fact that YOU, a brainwashed Christian zombie,

      Like

    • Sorry, I pressed “Post Comment” before finishing.

      What I was saying is that none of your deflections change the fact that you are still defending infanticide. Regardless of what Islam teaches, your religion still says that the “loving” God commanded the killing of innocent babies.

      Like

    • What else could I expect?

      They have eyes, but they cannot see;
      They have ears, but they cannot hear;
      They have noses, but they cannot smell;
      They have hands, but they cannot feel;
      They have feet, but they cannot walk;
      They cannot make a sound with their throat.
      Those who make them will become like them,
      Everyone who trusts in them.

      Psalm 115:5-8

      Like

    • Yes exactly! And it is quite appropriate given how you brainwashed zombies cannot see how monstrous you are when you defend INFANTICIDE.

      Let us pray that one day it will sink in and your zombies will wake up and become normal again.

      Like

    • Ok. one last try then we will end here (even because I tried to post 5 times a lengthy response to the other guy but Paul simply doesn’t accept the comment)

      – The “children” killed were not normal children. They were corrupted and capable only of commit abominable evil, as children sacrifice. YHVH waited for 400 years for things to resolve by themselves but in the end He was forced to act to not repeat the same exact thing that caused the flood.

      – Even if they would have been normal children it would have been the same because children don’t exist for God, since He is outside of time. You continue to judge the matter as an atheist would (only through naturalistic parameters), but you are not an atheist.

      – YHVH didn’t order anybody to commit “evil” because He ordered Israel to judge wicked corrupted people that threatened to destroy mankind (as it happened before the flood until only the lineage of Noah remained intact).

      – You have no problems with God judging Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness even if there clearly were children then but then everything “mysteriously” changes when it comes to Israel and the Canaanites only because that story is not in your Qur’an. This is the ONLY reason; you know it and I know it.

      – You likewise have no problems whatsoever with your god decreeing evil and hence punishing to eternal torture millions of children for something they aren’t guilty of but then you seriously pretend that you care about “infanticide”. This has nothing to do with comparing the Qur’an and the Bible, this has to do with your hypocrisy. You utilize two completely different standards when it comes to jugding what’s written in the Bible and what’s written in the Qur’an and this is total intellectual dishonesty, either you can understand this or not.

      Now erase and rewind as always and continue to pretend that God in the bible killed “innocent children” if you like, I had enough of this facade.

      Like

    • “I suppose that you really believe that by repeating the same thing over and over again it magically turns true. And a Muslim saying “pagan” to others, LOL. You people really have a nerve. Can I remind you that you circuambulate (a typical pagan practice; just read some occult material) around a Kaaba that had 360 idols in it, you kiss a black stone in the form of a vagina (and that was adored by pagans for fertility), you worship a god that is clearly anthropologically related to Ba’al and you slay bulls in the same exact day than the pagans at the time of Muhammad did so?”

      LOL!!! Now we know that you are just another zombie who does copies and pastes Google searches in his “research” of Islam! Now it is confirmed that no one needs to take you seriously!

      You worship a god who is described as an old man! See Daniel 7. This is a borrowed myth from Canaanite folklore.

      And lo and behold, the irony of ironies! You brought up Ba’al, but what you don’t realize is that myths about Ba’al are also borrowed by your Bible. Once again, see Daniel 7. The whole “vision” with God and the “son of man” is borrowed from a pagan myth involving “El” and Ba’al. Wake up, dude! You have been misled!

      Like

    • “LOL!!! Now we know that you are just another zombie who does copies and pastes Google searches in his “research” of Islam!”

      Sure, how not. A shame for you that I have a MD in classic anthropology (thesis on the similarities between the Perseus myth and African forms of Shamanism). What can you say? You need to witness such idiocies to believe in them.

      “You worship a god who is described as an old man! See Daniel 7. This is a borrowed myth from Canaanite folklore.”

      if you say so then it must be true. You couldn’t narrate to me even A SINGLE Canaanite myth in depth neither if your life depended on it but you pretend to be able to judge what’s borrowed from them and what’s not. Oh my…

      If all it did take for a “borrowing” is just a figure of an old man then you would have syberian shamans “borrowing” from Canaanite myths too.

      The absurdity knows no limit.

      “And lo and behold, the irony of ironies! You brought up Ba’al, but what you don’t realize is that myths about Ba’al are also borrowed by your Bible.”

      Yeah, in fact, how not. A shame that the only pure monotheistic myth in all the Canaanite lineage is the one found in the Bible and yet the esoteric root of even the Sumerian myths are all monotheistic in nature (hence one only god worshiped as Ba’al in every age while the myth was polytheistic in appearance).

      If you knew something about classic anthropology (something you so clearly don’t) you would know that a clear sign of borrowing from a previous myth is that you find a trace of the original myth in the esoteric roots of the borrowin one. However it happens exactly the contrary between the Hebraic mythology and the Canaanite one. It is mystery of classic anthropology, in fact, from where the monotheistic root of the Sumerian mythology comes from, yet all would make perfect sense if the original form of worship was the one of YHVH that then got corrupted.

      All the myths surrounding the Hebrews were polytheistic in nature and yet there’s no trace of polytheism in Judaism in its esoteric roots, while there’s a clear trace of a monotheistic esoteric root in the Sumerian myths (that then developed to full polytheism as time passed).

      Far from proving a borrowing from Canaanite myths the Bible mythology proves the exact contrary. But I suppose that even if you know absolutely anything at all about the topic you will “explain” to me (that actually studied the subject all my life) how wrong I am.

      Like

    • The monster keeps making excuses! Just like a brainwashed zombie! You still can’t get it through your head that your idiotic excuses are the problem. Normal people don’t make excuses for the murders of innocent people. You think that using some stupid myth will make it all better? Or help to justify it? That’s the problem, isn’t it? That’s how your mind works. And what is worse is that you think that a silly myth should satisfy someone who finds the idea of infanticide to be rather monstrous. The extent of your brainwashing is impressive!

      Like

    • LOL, an “MD” in anthropology, you say? Is that supposed to impress me?

      Are you seriously going to try and deny the scholarly consensus that the imagery of Daniel 7 was borrowed from older Canaanite mythology? The Ugaritic texts prove this. Your denial and special pleading will not deceive anyone, only yourself. I think your “MD” should be a “BS” for bull…well, you know. 😉

      By the way, what university did you get your BS…I mean MD…from?

      Like

    • Selea Amioran

      You said;
      Yet again, erase and rewind.

      – Those were not normal children, they were a corrupted lineage. And what difference there is from God killing children Himself and ordering His agent in the world to do so? You still have to explain this, but I suppose you will never will because you have no minimal clue of what you are talking about

      I say;
      It is rather you and your Christian religion that is corrupted than innocent young babies who don’t know what is good and what is bad. It is a corrupted religion of Christianity that will kill innocent children. In Islam, children do not know right and wrong and are not corrupted and therefore innocent. In Islam the child of a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist etc. are sinless until they grow up to know what is right and what is wrong. It is forbidden to kill a child no matter what religion the parents belong. In Islam, even in war, children and non combatants are not supposed to be killed. No wonder the evangelical Christians of the USA supports Israel and the zionist Jews to kill children in UN marked compound for children. That is barbaric for any religion to support to killing of children.

      Children are like the mentally handicapped grown ups who do not know what they are doing and therefore any true God of Jesus Christ will not hold them responsible for they(mentally handicapped and babies) do not know what they are doing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Selea Amioran

      You said;
      Selea Amioran
      November 3, 2017 • 8:25 pm
      What else could I expect?

      They have eyes, but they cannot see;
      They have ears, but they cannot hear;
      They have noses, but they cannot smell;
      They have hands, but they cannot feel;
      They have feet, but they cannot walk;
      They cannot make a sound with their throat.
      Those who make them will become like them,
      Everyone who trusts in them.

      Psalm 115:5-8

      I say;
      Find below what qualify the above Psalm 115″5-8

      -God Almighty who is immortal died for sins the Christians say.
      -3 persons(beings)= 1 being. i.e. every person is a being. No person can be a person without being a being.
      -God came out of a womb of a woman.
      -God became man. Impossibility. God not created cannot become man, created.
      -Eternal or no beginning God has a beginning(Jesus)

      I think this is what qualifies the Psalm you quoted.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • “The Ugaritic texts prove this.”

      Sure, you are right. Oh well…

      “Are you seriously going to try and deny the scholarly consensus that the imagery of Daniel 7 was borrowed from older Canaanite mythology?”

      Which “scholarly consensus” are you talking about? You have no minimal clue of what you are talking about.

      וְעַתִּיק יוֹמִין – watiq yomin – it is a classic Hebrew idiom meaning “one from eternity”, hence representing God. It has absolutely nothing to do with an “old man” and, as always, you have no clue of what you are saying.

      Do you know what the Donner-Kruger effect is. “Research” on Google about it (you seem to be pretty good at it while you accuse others to do the same – even here a typical psychological behavior, assuming that others are doing what YOU are doing)

      P.S: Don’t let me push you on telling me something about Canaanite myths, you would not like it as you know absolutely nothing about them. I know it, you know it, stop the facade if for even once in your life if you can. You aren’t harming nobody but yourself with your perennial pantomimes (as not listening, double standards, pretending to be an expert in fields you know nothing about etc.). Try to have some humility for a change.

      Like

    • “That’s how your mind works. And what is worse is that you think that a silly myth should satisfy someone who finds the idea of infanticide to be rather monstrous.”

      Exactly like I did predict. Erase and rewind. You didn’t care minimally to listen, you can only misrepresent and insult.

      The only here excusing infanticide is you because you continue to shrug off as if it is nothing the fact that the god YOU worship decrees to hell millions of children (hence to ETERNAL TORTURE) without them being guilty of anything at all, since it is Allah himself that leads them astray and decrees that they will commit evil (by breathing wickedness into them) from before their birth. I would never do such a thing.

      Then you employ totally double standards both in your treatment of the texts in your Qur’an and the actions of your “prophet” (can I remember to you once again that he had sex with a pre-pubescent girl? Yet you defend him over and over again as if he did “nothing wrong”. And you care about children? Don’t make me laugh!) an this shows how much an hypocrite you are. You have no problems at all with Allah decreeing the destruction of two entire cities for their wickedness but then suddenly you have problems with YHVH decreeing the destruction of the Amorites and Amalekites.

      In fact you even continue with this story of the “myth” because you have nothing better, while you have absolutely no problem believing what’s written in things much more astounding in your doctrine that have no evidence basis at all, differently from the Nephilim (as Satan residing on the nose of man while he sleeps, Satan farthing when he hears the call to prayer of a Muslim, Stars being missiles to prevent demons to go above the lower heaven, incredible tales – that everyone even at the time of Muhammad knew to be only fables – as Solomon talking with ants and having a magic carpet as large as a full city, etc. etc.).

      Your own theology is fully based on the SUPERNATURAL, it is not a natural one. Your arguments could have some sense if you were an atheist but you are a Muslim. You believe in Satan, Jinns and both of them being able to influence humanity, possess them and having intercourse with them. So on which basis can you even remotely pretend that what’s written in the Tanakh on the matter is just a “myth”? You simply CANNOT but this doesn’t stop you from continuing doing it BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL HONOR NOR DIGNITY.

      And the proof of this is easily found in what you write in your blog:

      “This site is dedicated to a respectful discussion of the differences and similarities between the most famous and widely read books in human history.

      ,,,

      I welcome constructive criticism and and am always willing to learn more. I also would like to declare that it is not my intention to insult Christians or make them feel bad. If any person feels this way after reading my articles, I offer my sincere apologies.”

      Such a pretender you are, aren’t you? You have absolutely no problems insulting and misrepresenting Christians (you are doing it over and over again in this thread) nor you care minimally about listening to the other side (it’s pretty evident at this point) but yet in the description of your blog you wear the mask of the objective researcher that doesn’t like to deride others. SUCH A DOUBLE TALKER.

      You cannot be sincere neither if you would, and this is all one is in need to know to understand that you don’t possess the truth, no matter all the theology in the world. If you could be able to seriously scrutinize your hearth even just once you would be able to recognize how much in a desperate need of a Savior you are, but you are too centered on yourself to notice or even care.

      Like

    • “-God Almighty who is immortal died for sins the Christians say.
      -3 persons(beings)= 1 being. i.e. every person is a being. No person can be a person without being a being.
      -God came out of a womb of a woman.
      -God became man. Impossibility. God not created cannot become man, created.
      -Eternal or no beginning God has a beginning(Jesus)”

      – Jesus is the God-Man. He possess both an human and a divine nature and the two are separate. This is not more strange than you, as a normal human being, possessing both a spiritual and a physical nature in yourself. Only the human nature of Jesus died, not the Divine nature. In fact do you believe you die eternally once you die? No, is it? You believe your soul still lives. Yet you somehow cannot seem to apply the same standards when it comes to Jesus.

      – No. Being and personhood are two separate concepts. Being is what something is, personhood is WHO someone is. You make this distinction every day of your life, especially if you believe (as you do) in a soul differentiated from the body. A chair, for example, as being but not personhood; it exists but it has no will and no consciousness. All your “confusion” arises from the fact that in the human experience being and personhood are tied together but God is not a man, and hence ascribing to Him categories that pertain only to the human experience is not different from what the pagan did in being unable to represent God if not through the lenses of His creation.

      – Yes, the Son (the second person in the Godhead) took an human form. He didn’t cease to be God, nor did He mix with an human nature. If you put tea in a cup the tea doesn’t merge with the cup. So the Son wasn’t “born” at the time of the human conception of Jesus, He only entered in the flesh.§

      – Yet again, God didn’t “become” a man. He just took an human nature. Two completely different things, Refer to the previous point and the first one.

      – Refer to two points above.

      Like

    • Little correction: in point two I said “in the human experience being and personhood are tied together” but, albeit implied, it is more correct to say – so as to explain the matter more specifically – that “in the human experience being is tied together with ONE personhood”.

      Sorry for the little clarification.

      Like

    • Selean Amioran

      You said;
      – Jesus is the God-Man. He possess both an human and a divine nature and the two are separate. This is not more strange than you, as a normal human being, possessing both a spiritual and a physical nature in yourself. Only the human nature of Jesus died, not the Divine nature. In fact do you believe you die eternally once you die? No, is it? You believe your soul still lives. Yet you somehow cannot seem to apply the same standards when it comes to Jesus.

      I say;
      We have so man the God-Man i.e. Emperor Haile Selassie, Sai Baba etc. We also have cow God, Monkey God, snake God etc. being worshiped by polytheists and idol worshiper like you Mr. Amioran. When you confront them, the idol worshipers and polytheists like you will insist their God is both God and His creation at the same time. No wonder you are an idol worshiper and a polytheist to believe is such nonsense of the Greek/Roman concept of God coming down as His creation to love like the goddess of this, goddess of that, God of thunder(Thor) etc.

      If you compare me with God, I will tell you that I die and God does not die no matter how you DEFINE death, God does not DIE-God is immortal. I possess spiritual and physical body bod I die and not immortal but God does not die. Whether I possess spiritual and body form, I die but God does not die. We are talking about God not dying here but not God’s composition. Do you get that. This is the absurdities and illogicality the Psalm you quoted is talking about.

      “Only the human nature of Jesus died” Nonsense and rubbish only in the mind of a polytheist and idol worshiper who wants to worship a man-Jesus-creation. When a Hindu tells you that only the human nature of Sai Baba died, will you accept that?
      It is human being that dies but not “human nature”. Stupid. “Human being” is not “Human nature”. Our nature is to “eat food”. It is rubbish to say our “eating food nature died”. We have so many human nature i.e. “to shit”. To shit is not a human being. If a human being dies, “to shit” as a human nature is not a being to die.

      Human nature does not die but human being dies. So human nature cannot die to save anyone’s sin.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Selea Amioran

      You said;
      – No. Being and personhood are two separate concepts. Being is what something is, personhood is WHO someone is. You make this distinction every day of your life, especially if you believe (as you do) in a soul differentiated from the body. A chair, for example, as being but not personhood; it exists but it has no will and no consciousness. All your “confusion” arises from the fact that in the human experience being and personhood are tied together but God is not a man, and hence ascribing to Him categories that pertain only to the human experience is not different from what the pagan did in being unable to represent God if not through the lenses of His creation.

      I say;
      This argument would not have started if Christians did not say Jesus a man is God. You said a man is God and so how dare you accuse someone for comparing your God who is a man to man?

      You said God is 3 persons(beings) and I can count any 3 persons(beings)-people. Is it my fault when you say your God is 3 persons(beings) which cannot be found in the Bible?

      It is your fault to equate God to 3 persons(beings) not my fault.

      Back to what a person is.

      Every person is a being. A person who is not a being is not a person. Is one of the persons of the Trinity not a being? Is God the Father not a being? Is Jesus not a being? Jesus is a being and God the Father is a being and so you are worshiping 2 or more beings i.e. more than one beings that qualifies you as a polytheist and idol worshiper just like any idol worshiper no matter how you use word gymnastics.

      Did I hear you say God is not a man? Then why worship a man as God? You see what the Psalm verse is talking about. You have eyes but can’t see.

      You accuse me of ascribing to God categories that pertain only to human experience. Nonsense. Didn’t you ascribe death which is human experience to God?
      -Didn’t you ascribe 3 persons to God? I can count 3 persons.

      If person(being) is a problem for you then change to word in describing your God otherwise it is a written language and we understand it how it is i.e. every person is a being. 3 persons(beings) are 3 beings and worshiping them is polytheism and idol worship punishable in deep hell fire when the person worshiping such did not repent before he dies.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Selea Amioran

      You said;
      – Yes, the Son (the second person in the Godhead) took an human form. He didn’t cease to be God, nor did He mix with an human nature. If you put tea in a cup the tea doesn’t merge with the cup. So the Son wasn’t “born” at the time of the human conception of Jesus, He only entered in the flesh.§

      – Yet again, God didn’t “become” a man. He just took an human nature. Two completely different things, Refer to the previous point and the first one.

      – Refer to two points above

      I say;
      God did not mix with human nature? Then when the human nature died, God did not die for your sins. If I poured the tea out of a cup and to the ground, does that means the cup is also poured to the ground? No the cup wasn’t poured to the ground and so since the God nature did not mix with the human nature, when the human nature died, God did not die for Christians sins. This is what the Psalm you quoted is talking about.

      1.

      2.

      Thanks.

      Like

  2. You have to give Dr. James White credit. After debating with more Muslims than any one else, his conclusion is that, it is stupid for a CHRISTIAN to say Islam is violent. It is really stupid for Jay Smith to admit his Bible contains more violence than the Quran, yet accuse the Quran of violence while not preaching the violence in the Bible. There is no wonder Sam Shamoun is very angry with Dr. James White. Sam Shamound, Spencer, Wood etc. are not truthful.

    This woman is the Most Reverend and the Very Reverend. It looks like the Bible she read is different than the one David Wood read. David Wood does not know classical Arabic but brags of teaching Nabeel Islam.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Bro, bad samaritan doesn’t actually do any research. He is just another Google scholar. Everything he posts here is usually copied from a third-party source. The guy is a moron, pure and simple.

      Hey sammy, still waiting for you to explain why you worship an old man from Canaanite!

      Like

    • You don’t even know what you worship? Who is Allah? You fools are prostrating to Satan(aka Baalah) 5 times a day.

      And it’s always funny when you hopeless moonlims publically rebuke paganism. Your cult is steeped in it from top to bottom.

      Like

  3. Intellect,

    It is far stupider to say Islam is non-violent. We’re talking about a religion here that instructs husbands to beat wives into obedience. A religion which sanctions crucifixions, beheadings, and stoning. A religion that prescribes fighting(jihad) and subjugating non-Muslims. A religion who’s founder spread for the most part by the sword. A religion who’s history is steeped in rape, pillaging and conquest. A religion that advocates terrorism as an end justifying the means.

    Look at the fruit it’s producing around the world today. Terrorist attacks becoming almost daily occurrences, suicide bombings, public executions, floggings, rapes, murders, honour killings, female genital mutilations. It’s been pretty much 1400 years of this. Simply an absurdity to suggest that Islam isn’t inherently violent.

    Like

    • ‘It is far stupider to say Islam is non-violent.’

      Straw man. The video does not say that. Islam is not a pacifist religion. It believes in just war. It rejects forced conversions, suicide, terrorism, murders etc. You have clearly been brainwashed and radicalised by the internet. Too common these days.

      Liked by 2 people

    • A xtian talking about men beating women. This is EXACTLY the NUMBER ONE reason why I stopped taking xtians seriously. People who believe in the barbaric god of the bible saying it’s ok to beat slave women as long as they get up after a day or two and use mental gymnastics to try and justify this by throwing the OT under the bus and saying ‘that was back then, now we have Jesus’ (whatever the hell that means) as if that somehow justifies the stuff of nightmare in the OT.
      A woman is Islam can divorce a man for violent abuse. In xtianity a woman can have an aggressive alcoholic as a husband and yet not get divorced. The only way to get rid of your husband would be if he is caught ‘hanging around’ with other women or if he just drops dead. Religion of love all the way baby!!!!

      Yes stoning is a capital punishment and we don’t hide from it. We’re not like you beaten down xtians by secularists who have their boots on your heads and who redefine xtianity to fit the secular world.
      Fighting is never meant offensive.
      “A religion who’s founder spread for the most part by the sword” A man who was constantly attacked by others. Like the Meccans, like the jewish tribes. If this is what makes someone not a prophet of God then my friend throw you bible out the window cus your jewish prophets did things to other people when they didn’t even attack the Israelites. Do we really need to bring up the book of Samuel again?
      “A religion who’s history is steeped in rape, pillaging and conquest”
      Been reading to much spencer I see. Even if this is true then wth is your history? A rape fest, genocide after genocide.
      “A religion that advocates terrorism as an end justifying the means.” Please provide your evidence.
      I will provide evidecnce that your favorite apostle lied to people to win them to xtianity ‘as an end justifying the means’.
      “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”
      A chameleon!

      Liked by 4 people

    • Btw forgot to add…

      …a religion that calls for the death penalty being the appropriate punishment for apostasy.

      Like

    • Bilal,

      “rejects forced conversions”

      Are you sure about that? Because your sacred source seem to teach otherwise.

      “”And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease – then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do. But if they turn away – then know that Allah is your protector. Excellent is the protector, and Excellent is the helper.””
      Quran 8:38-39

      “”Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled””
      Quran 9:29

      “”So is it other than the religion of Allah they desire, while to Him have submitted [all] those within the heavens and earth, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they will be returned?””
      Quran 3:83

      Oh but I thought there was meant to be no compulsion in religion?

      “Rejects Suicides”

      There are mixed opinions on this. Certainly passages exist in sahih hadiths plus scholarly consensus that seem to support suicides, in the context of war anyway.

      This short video by ex-Muslim who on the topic explains it well:

      “Rejects terrorism”

      Again you’re wrong. Your ‘holy’ scripture is quite explicit on this:

      “”And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.””
      Quran 8:60

      “” [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”
      Quran 8:12

      You wouldn’t be practicing taqiyya here now would you, Bilal?

      Like

    • Quran 8:38-39
      Just read a few verses further Q 8:55-62 it says

      “Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are those who have disbelieved, and they will not [ever] believe. The ones with whom you made a treaty but then they break their pledge every time, and they do not fear Allah. So if you, [O Muhammad], gain dominance over them in war, disperse by [means of] them those behind them that perhaps they will be reminded. If you [have reason to] fear from a people betrayal, throw [their treaty] back to them, [putting you] on equal terms. Indeed, Allah does not like traitors. And let not those who disbelieve think they will escape. Indeed, they will not cause failure [to Allah ]. And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged. And if they incline to PEACE, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing. But if they intend to deceive you – then sufficient for you is Allah . It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers”

      Quran 9:29 was a response to the Byzantine army who tried to engage against the Muslims.
      What’s you issue with Quran 3:83? It’s not a command to Muslims. It just says that God makes creatures submit to him willingly or by compulsion. If God wants to do that then that’s His decision. Christians have no business going against that reasoning.

      ““”And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.””
      Quran 8:60”

      Q 8:61
      And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.
      Nice try but you fail again.

      ” [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”
      Quran 8:12

      This was in context with the battle of badr where the pagans marched against the prophet for war.
      You see the Muslims had to be provoked to fight. Where as your jewish prophets committed genocides for breaking exactly ZERO treaties.
      And to show some more stupidity and brainwashing you drop the taqiyya card like a programmed puppy.
      The only religion that practices taqiyya is xtianity as paul said:
      “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”

      Anything else you need to be refuted on.

      Liked by 1 person

    • If you can’t follow a dialogue properly then don’t respond.

      None of that trite you typed refuted anything I posted. My response was simply to counter Paul Williams’ bold claim that Islam outright rejects forced conversions, suicide and terrorism. I cited scripture, context or no context, and scholarly consensus which clearly contradict his attestation thus rendering it baseless.

      The facts are facts my little Muhammadan friend.

      The Quran clearly contains unambiguous passages that incite terrorism and encourage forced conversions. And there exist Hadith that clearly support the application of suicide in the context of war. An idea backed by some well respected Islamic scholars and leaders.

      Like

    • Samaritan
      October 31, 2017 • 9:25 pm
      Intellect,

      It is far stupider to say Islam is non-violent. We’re talking about a religion here that instructs husbands to beat wives into obedience. A religion which sanctions crucifixions, beheadings, and stoning. A religion that prescribes fighting(jihad) and subjugating non-Muslims. A religion who’s founder spread for the most part by the sword. A religion who’s history is steeped in rape, pillaging and conquest. A religion that advocates terrorism as an end justifying the means.

      Look at the fruit it’s producing around the world today. Terrorist attacks becoming almost daily occurrences, suicide bombings, public executions, floggings, rapes, murders, honour killings, female genital mutilations. It’s been pretty much 1400 years of this. Simply an absurdity to suggest that Islam isn’t inherently violent.

      I say;
      May be you did not hear what the Most Reverent Christian woman read from the Bible. You also ignored Jay Smith when he said there is more violence in the Bible than the Quran. I have time to list all for you. If what you wrote above worries you, then you have to leave Christianity.

      I will start by what Jesus said;

      Luke 19:27

      New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

      Christians use the above to kill, destroy, rape, flog, murder, etc. from when they got strong till today.

      Jesus was under Romans and is not a ruler but he god angry(sinfulness and sinful nature), then destroyed tables and chairs i.e. property damage that could land him to jail today.

      Apostasy and rape in Jesus’s Bible.
      Deuteronomy 13:6-9 “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.”

      To be continued……………

      Like

    • Samaritan

      ………continued

      All that you wrote against Islam is more worse in the Bible and Christians have used it to carry crusade against Jews, Muslims and to Christians themselves.

      Sensible Christians like Dr. James White, the Christian woman in my video and even Jay Smith who is not sensible in attacking Islam but is sensible on this one i.e. all that rubbish you threw against Islam is worse in the Bible and Christians have executed it and still executing it not only against others but to themselves(Christians).

      Do you know that Catholic Christians were persecuted by protestant Christians in the USA until the conservatives were defeated by the liberals before freedom of religion was enacted? You are not sensible to know this. Do you know the Christians of the USA allowed ship load of Jews fleeing Europe was sent back to Europe and some of them died in the holocaust? Like how Trump is denying Muslim refugees in the USA today.

      Verses from the Bible that talks of the rubbish you throw against Islam and Muslims and if you are consistent, then leave Christianity.

      —-
      -Matthew 15:1-9
      1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
      2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
      3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
      4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
      -2 Chronicles 15:13 “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”

      -Deuteronomy 17:3-5 “And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, …..and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.”

      Samaritan, you are so stupid if you ignore the above verses and more in your Bible and religion then start attacking Islam about the above verses in your Christian Religion and Bible.

      You are not a smart guy. I have provided 3 educated Christians including Jay Smith who admit the Bible and Christianity is worse in rape, murder, flogging, war etc. than the Quran, Islam and Muslims but as low level person you are, you don’t seem to understand.

      ………to be continued

      Like

    • Samaritan


      Look at the fruit it’s producing around the world today. Terrorist attacks becoming almost daily occurrences, suicide bombings, public executions, floggings, rapes, murders, honour killings, female genital mutilations. It’s been pretty much 1400 years of this. Simply an absurdity to suggest that Islam isn’t inherently violent.”

      I say;
      All the above were not present in the 1960, 1970 and 1980 but Islam was there 1400 years ago, so the above is not Islamic. Fools like you who will not think and research did not know all the above started when Christians want to recolonize the Muslim countries and to spread Christianity by force. The Bush/Blair led war supported by evangelical Christians to go to war and punish the Muslims like how they are supporting Trump today caused the above phenomena.

      The Christians(some) and zionist finished all Muslim countries and it is only left with Iran. Republican candidates who say “I will deal with Iran” will get much votes from the conservative Christians and zionists. There is no single Iranian suicide bomber. Attack Iran and you will start getting Iranian suicide bombers, then blame it on Islam.

      …….to be continued

      Like

    • LOL!
      I responded to every single verse you brought up and this is your response???
      “None of that trite you typed refuted anything I posted.”
      Actually I refuted everything you posted. I quoted what you quoted and gave you my response.
      You bring up one passage and I quote you surrounding passages that refute your pathetic crosstian attempt to make valid arguments. You quote verses where the very next verse refutes your bs. You even quoted a verse that has nothing do with ordering Muslims anything. It was all about God doing something. This is the best you can do??? Am I supposed to be impressed?
      Actually I remember someone quoting these passages before in the same sequence. Perhaps it was you in an earlier post and I responded to that as well. If that’s the case then you’re just a loser that keeps repeating itself. Or perhaps you just copy pasted it from someone else and that gave you a little dopamine rush.

      “The Quran clearly contains unambiguous passages that incite terrorism and encourage forced conversions.”
      Which ones? The ones you brought up? You mean the ones where God says HE will bring His creatures to submit to him. What does that have to do with Muslims doing anything?
      How about you actually give some verses that “incite terrorism and encourage forced conversions”, cus to me you are nothing but a western brainwahed/braindead idiot. The zionist media has done such a good job. A word ‘terrorism’ is hijacked and presented on the news and gets repeated and repeated and for crossworshipers that’s ALL it takes to behave like a little puppy and bark when they’re told to.

      You can’t respond back cus you now you got smacked in the face so you cover it up like a real crosstian and just say ‘None of that trite you typed refuted anything I posted.’.
      Is this really the best the xtians can do?

      So you’re gonna actually respond for ones instead of being a loser and a coward that hides behind words such as “None of that trite you typed refuted anything I posted”, by that trying to give people the impression you are somehow not getting owned and put in your pagan crosstian place?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oops, posted this in the wrong thread.

      Bro, bad samaritan doesn’t actually do any research. He is just another Google scholar. Everything he posts here is usually copied from a third-party source. The guy is a moron, pure and simple.

      Hey sammy, still waiting for you to explain why you worship an old man from Canaan!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Samaritan is a fan of my favorite Anti Islam channel, well judging from his/her personality and comments, the equation seems to make sense…seems your choice of sources has improved my dear Samaritan…keep it up!

      Like

    • Keep patting yourself on the back on a job badly done little Partridge.

      You have not refuted a thing.

      Does Islam command terrorism? Yes.
      Does Islam advocate suicide in the context of war/jihad? Yes.
      Does Islam teach forced conversions? Yes.

      You can throw a hissy fit and your toys out of the pram but facts do not care about your feelings.

      You probably still think you refuted the objections against your prophet’s racist antics.

      Like

    • LOL, believe what you will you moron. No one cares.

      Why do you worship an old man from Canaan?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “but facts do not care about your feelings.”

      Indeed they don’t and that’s why I’ll never be a crosstian. Because I choose facts over emotion, if I want an emotional mumbo jumbo then I’ll go listen to jimmy white like you probably do and get indoctrinated by paganism.

      “You probably still think you refuted the objections against your prophet’s racist antics.”
      I did and the only thing you can say to respond is just to repeat ‘you haven’t refuted anything’.
      You’re just as much as a loser as your pagan friend joel. You did absolutely nothing to but repeat your bullshit here. Look at how pathetic you are. You quote one verse then I give you the one that follows it and refutes the crosstian shit out of you and now you cry like a lil bi***. Can I quote on verses of the holey bible and ignore the context like the VERY NEXT VERSE? You would start whining and bitching about it. Everything you said got bitchslapped. If you can’t refute each point then just get lost.
      Buahahaha. I love wiping my feet of your garbage. That’s why Islam is superior to crosstianity. Heck pretty much every religion is superior to your cult.

      Like

    • “Indeed they don’t and that’s why I’ll never be a crosstian”

      And that’s why you will end up in hell.

      Like

    • Oooh, better be afraid brothers because Bad Samaritan has condemned you all to hell!

      HAHAHAHAHA!

      Liked by 1 person

    • QB,

      No the word the God condemns him(and you) to hell. Reject Jesus and you reject salvation.

      Both of you seriously need to repent and turn to Christ. Muhammad and his Allah ain’t saving you, so stop with this foolishness.

      Only Jesus Christ can save you from judgement and the eventual wrath of God that awaits you.

      Like

    • We don’t do paganism and don’t listen (let alone worship) to mangod. But thanks for trying I guess.

      Liked by 2 people

    • LOL, your empty statements will not fool anyone. People have realized the deception of your cult, sammy. It’s you who is going to hell if you don’t repent. Your foolish cult has been exposed and you have been lied to. Wake up before it’s too late.

      You worship an old man from Canaan. Your religion is just repackaged paganism. You are a pagan. Hell is your destination.

      Like

    • Samaritan

      “Only Jesus Christ can save you from judgement and the eventual wrath of God that awaits you.”

      Amen.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Coco! Where’d ya run off to? Still obsessed with tampons? Or did your kick that habit? 🙂

      So what did you find out about the menstruation issue? Are Christians prohibited to engage in intercourse during menstruation or no?

      Like

  4. Samaritan: A religion that advocates terrorism as an end justifying the means.

    Terrorism is a modern phenomenon whereas Islam has been around for centuries. You’re too stupid to realize that.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Kmak,

      Not sure if you’re trolling here or just ridiculously naive.

      As was the case about Muhammad calling Ethiopians raisin heads you’re simply ignorant of your religions sources.

      Here are two verses in your Quran which completely debunk Paul Williams claim that Islam rejects terrorism.

      “”And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.””
      Quran 8:60

      “” [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.”
      Quran 8:12

      Heck your own prophet is a even said to have uttered the following:

      “I have been made victorious with terror”
      Sahih Bukhari 4:52:220

      Like

    • “”And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.””
      Quran 8:60

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the very next verse says:
      Q 8:61
      “And if they incline to PEACE, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

      This kid just so easy. You got bitchslapped on this before, why are you being like your crossworshiper joel? Just embarrassing yourself.

      Q 8:12 was in the battle of Badr where the pagans ATTACKED the Muslims. So what’s your point???

      “I have been made victorious with terror”
      Yes the enemies who fought against him were filled with terror. And rightly so. You attack the prophet then expect a massive bitchslap in return. By the way the Arabic word used there is not even terror but awe. Not that you care anyways cus your little brainwashed/braindead head has already made up it’s mind.
      Can you actually give me something where the Muslims were the Prophet attacked someone for no reason, for not breaking any treaty?
      I can easily do that with the holey bible though.
      Samuel 15:3
      Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

      O YHWH!!! O jesus your peace and looooooooooooveee, ooooo the holy spirit is filling me with it’s holyness. The prince of peace baby!!! Slaughter all them kids in the name of peace and kill all the animals in the name of JEEEEEEEEEESUUUSSS. Hallelujaaah!

      Like

    • Samaritan’s logic: the Quran promotes terrorism because there are passages that use the word terror.

      What an idiot!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Kmak,

      Spare us the straw mans.

      No, the Quran promotes terrorism because there are clear passages within it of your Allah commanding terrorism in the context of jihad/holy war.

      We’re not stupid we can read your sources and tafsirs.

      There’s a reason Islamic extremist terrorist groups are popping up all over the world waging cowardly jihadi terrorist attacks only a daily basis. And it all comes down to your evil little book and it’s accompanying literature.

      Like

    • Samaritan: No, the Quran promotes terrorism because there are clear passages within it of your Allah commanding terrorism in the context of jihad/holy war.

      You don’t even know how experts define terrorism. Thomas Thornton (1964) defines terrorism as ‘a symbolic act designed to influence political behavior by extra normal means, entailing the use of threat or violence’. This definition is widely accepted in the international literature.

      Similarly, Thomas Hegghammer (2013) writes, ‘Western legal definitions of terrorism were first formulated in the late 20th century and differ among countries. Social scientific definitions also vary but share three core criteria: that terrorism has political aims, targets non-combatants, and has a communicative dimension. Its symbiotic relationship with mass media distinguishes terrorism from other forms of political violence and makes it a FUNDAMENTALLY MODERN phenomenon’ .

      Finally, Timothy and Howe and Lee Brice (2016) write, ‘Terror has been present in every war, and in lesser conflicts including those in the ancient world. But not all terror is terrorism…terrorism of the twenty first century variety would have been extremely difficult…If we rely on twenty first century definitions, then terrorism of any kind was uncommon in the ancient world’.

      In other words, scholars agree that terrorism didn’t really exist back then. On the other hand, an idiotic troll on the internet says the Quran-a 7th century book-promotes terrorism because it uses the word terror. I wonder whose analysis I should go by.

      Samaritan: There’s a reason Islamic extremist terrorist groups are popping up all over the world waging cowardly jihadi terrorist attacks only a daily basis. And it all comes down to your evil little book and it’s accompanying literature.

      But these Islamic extremist terrorists are only popping up TODAY which is further evidence for the claim that terrorism, specifically Muslim terrorism, is a modern phenomenon. The Quran cannot be a cause of terrorism because the Quran is a constant whereas terrorism is a variable, and a constant cannot be correlated with a variable statistically speaking. But you’re way too stupid to understand this.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “We’re not stupid we can read your sources and tafsirs.”

      ROTFL, you mean you can blindly copy the “sources and tafsirs” from Google. Yes, we are all very impressed! Bwhahahaha!

      Like

    • “But these Islamic extremist terrorists are only popping up TODAY which is further evidence for the claim that terrorism, specifically Muslim terrorism, is a modern phenomenon. ”

      No you absolute clown. It goes all the way back to your Muhammad and the sahabah who set the trend. Continued with Abu-Bakr, right the way through the proceeding caliphs. That’s how Islam spread, through intimidation, force, pillaging, conquest, rape, and jizya aka terrorism & extremism. Those pieces of shit salafist groups arising today are only going back to the practice of your cult’s original roots, back to basics.

      Who do you think you’re kidding with that copy n paste job of some disingenuous bs of definitions to suit your incoherent argument?. Honestly the depths you smelly Muslims will sink to in order to protect your dodgy prophet and satanic verses never fails to astound.

      Like

    • Samaritan: Who do you think you’re kidding with that copy n paste job of some disingenuous bs of definitions to suit your incoherent argument?

      Yeah, who cares what experts have to say. An asinine internet troll has figured it all out!

      Like

  5. Good video Yahya, i think the problem with contemporary christian evangelism is down to a lack of confidence in their religion as this fellow in the video explains he simply ignored the verses that didn’t fit in with his evangelical theology which in turn blinded him to the inconsistency within his arguments against other faiths, as is the case with the likes of sam shamoun, david wood etc…

    This man is a good example of the kind of gimmicks that christian evangelists use in order to attract people to their message, this is something that should be addressed by christian pastors, priests, bishops as this does not represent christianity in a positive way but only makes it look worse in the eyes of its audience, the rest of us need only to learn from such people and do the opposite by sticking to the strength of our arguments and let them speak for themselves.

    Secondly I think the bad theology on display here is because of a lack of understanding of the bible, its cultures, history, and language. Christians are required to believe that the laws of the OT were nullified by Jesus when he died for our sins, what this results in is a diminishing in authority for the OT and thus a willingness to ignore its teachings in favour of the supposedly more peaceful teachings of the NT. This is of course an early christian heresy to do this (marcion and the gnostics). This also needs to be addressed by christian leaders and scholars rather than attacking other religions and atheists. Christians get your story straight!

    Finally this should serve as a warning to those who do not take the teachings of their religious scriptures seriously nor study them in depth, or make their modern theology based upon secular standards of morality which contradict your own scriptures, following the crowd for the last two hundred years in europe and america has destroyed the classical understanding of christianity even within the church and replaced with a window dressing christianity with a secular/atheistic meta-narrative at the core.

    Fin

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Joshua 6:20-21 and I Samuel 15 were under the authority of that day of Theocratic Israel to establish the government and justice of Israel in the promised land. It did not apply to any one outside of the promised land. God also was patient with the pagan Canaanite tribes for over 400 years. (see Genesis 15:13-18 – “for the iniquity (sin) of the Amorite is not yet complete”. Israel was under those commands “until the iniquity of the Amorites is complete”. The Amorites were one of those Canaanite pagan tribes, that had sexual perversions and homosexuality in their own rituals of their gross religious ceremonies. Sodom and Gomorrah were Canaanite cities that God judged for their homosexuality – Genesis 19.)

    Jesus took the authority of the Theocratic kingdom away from Israel.
    Matthew 21:33-46

    see especially verses 43-45

    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.

    The flow of the OT to the NT is “Theocracy in OT to Love your enemies, church, and freedom of religion principles”. Both the Anabaptists and the Baptists were the first groups to object to the unity of church and state, not the secular enlightenment movement later.

    Jesus said, “love your enemies” – Matthew 5:43-48

    The flow of Islam and the Qur’an is Meccan persecution period to all out war in Surah 9:29 and 8:39 and 9:5 against the pagans and people of the book to subjugate them in war and apply Dhimmi principles to the people of the book. Under Omar it is obvious that the Umma of that day took all theses verses and Hadith passages as commands to first conquer by aggressive war and apply Dhimmi principles and then after they established Sharia (law), then many of the Dhimmis became Muslims slowly over the centuries because they were oppressed by the Jiziye and Dhimmi principles.
    Whereas in Islam, Islam actually skipped the NT truth and went back to the principles of Theocratic OT Israel and claimed it for itself in the Umma and Khalipha and Sharia.

    The NT principles also allow for just war and police action agains criminals and the death penalty for first degree murder – most Christians would agree with that today – Romans 13:1-8; Genesis 9:5-6; Ecclesiastes 8:11.

    The great difference is still Christians do not do Joshua 6:20-21 or 1 Sam. 15 today; but SOME Muslims ( Al Qaeda and ISIS, etc.) are actually doing their evil actions based on the Qur’an, Sunna, Sira, Hadith, Tafsirs, Tarikh, Fiq, Sharia, etc.

    Like

    • You have been refuted on this nonsense before. Blindly repeating the same nonsense does nothing for you. The Tanakh states that the laws are for all times. Even if they were not, how does that change the fact that your god allowed genocide? Genocide is evil, no matter what century it happened in. So whether it was theocratic Israel or not is irrelevant. You are still an apologist for mass murder.

      Liked by 2 people

    • No; because Jesus Himself clearly said that the authority for those laws was taken away from Israel, and there is no more Theocratic Israel.
      Matthew 21:43-45

      It is you who have refuted clearly with this and other passages.

      Modern Zionist Israel is not Theocratic Israel, since they do not believe nor follow their own God anymore. (only Messianic Jews, like Dr. Michael Brown and others like him, are true Jews who believe in the Messiah Jesus and get connected back to the true God.

      Most modern Jews are secularists, atheists, and agnostics.

      No; I and other Biblical Christians reject mass murder.

      You are refuted.

      Like

    • Matthew 21:43-45

      It is you who have BEEN refuted clearly with this and other passages.

      Like

    • You are blind to the problems with Surah 9:29; 8:39, 9:5 and many Hadiths, etc.

      Like

    • Unless it’s perpetuated by your prophet against the Jews, right QB?

      Like

    • “No; because Jesus Himself clearly said that the authority for those laws was taken away from Israel, and there is no more Theocratic Israel.
      Matthew 21:43-45

      It is you who have refuted clearly with this and other passages.

      Modern Zionist Israel is not Theocratic Israel, since they do not believe nor follow their own God anymore. (only Messianic Jews, like Dr. Michael Brown and others like him, are true Jews who believe in the Messiah Jesus and get connected back to the true God.

      Most modern Jews are secularists, atheists, and agnostics.

      No; I and other Biblical Christians reject mass murder.

      You are refuted.”

      No, you are just a simpleton. Your NT contradicts the Tanakh. It’s as simple as that.

      Regardless of whether you “reject” mass murder or not, the fact is that you STILL make excuses for GENOCIDE and INFANTICIDE. Get that through your think head and stop repeating same nonsensical company line like a robot.

      YOU ARE REFUTED.

      Like

    • No; you are the one who needs repentance and get it through your thick head. (since I fully answered the challenge Paul W. put up; and answered with context and progressive theology from OT to NT revelation).

      You are the one who is a simpleton and you repeat your ideas like a robot.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, you answered nothing that we have not heard and refuted before. You are a nutjob who blindly repeats the same tired apologetic drivel. No one takes it seriously.

      Keep your advice to yourself. If anyone needs to repent, it’s you for making excuses for baby killing.

      Like

    • “Jesus took the authority of the Theocratic kingdom away from Israel.”
      Yet your prophet Paul returned it back to the pagan Romans.

      “Modern Zionist Israel is not Theocratic Israel, since they do not believe nor follow their own God anymore”
      Most if it’s not all evangelical christians have been supporting that state established by violence and force including yourself, Ken.

      Like

    • No, each country can use police/military force “for the punishment of evil and approval of good”. Romans 13 does not give permission to do evil, as the Roman Empire did sometimes, but it gives authority to punish criminals, murderers, thieves, raptists, etc.

      Wrong on the second point, as it was the Muslims who did not accept the 2 state plan of 1948, and things went down hill ever since then.

      Like

    • Subhan Allah.
      So Allah(sw) has no right to establish his own law on the land while He is the King of kings?
      When those pagan Romans forced their invented rules on the land they had occupied is ok for you and your prophet Paul , but when the God does that, it would be a big problem for you? No wonder that Jesus will choose these words to condemn when he will describe you as ( Lawless people).

      Regarding Israel, it’s just another example when you switch on the button of hypocrisy. Muslims had every right to reject 2 states solution. Why would they have to accept that “solution” ?
      Maybe you’re ok with that state since it’s for you the fulfillment of verse about (occupying and plunder) in Isaiah. Still hypocrisy from your side though.

      Like

    • “Wrong on the second point, as it was the Muslims who did not accept the 2 state plan of 1948, and things went down hill ever since then”

      Wow Ken , just WOW! Why are evangelicals so easy to use and abuse?
      Someone takes their land and give it to someone else! Who the hell is gonna agree to that? They TOOK their land. Where do you people get the nerve to think yourselves to be gods and make decisions like that? Who the **** is the UN to take someone else’s land?
      Ok can I come into your house throw you and your kids in the basement and just take the rest? Why not right, cus someone wrote it on a piece of paper and that makes it divine intervention (somehow, someway). And if you retaliate you’ll get manhandled as will your family and you’ll get called the f***ing like-you-wouldn’t-believe hijacked word ‘terrorists’.

      Listen to this jew who tells it like it is:

      by Miko Peled.

      Like

    • The Ottoman Empire was the legal government until the end of WW1 (1914-1918). Jews had been slowly going back to their original homeland. Jews were buying land back from rich Arab land owners from 1880s until 1947-1948. They wanted to restore some of what they had under David, Solomon, and before the Roman Empire ruled them. That is their perspective.

      I don’t agree with “Christian Zionism”. They are not the kingdom of God and there is no more Biblical Theocratic Israel. They are doing what they do based on human power and politics; but it seems that God has allowed it, even in their unbelief and apostasy from the true God. (Jesus Al Massih is the eternal Word/Son and second person of the Trinity, which the Jews reject, except for Messianic Jews. Personally, I do not believe 1948 is a fulfillment of prophesy as many Evangelicals do. I believe the OT promises were fulfilled in 1 Kings 4:20-21; and Hebrews chapter 4; and Hebrews 11:10, 16; 12:22-23; 13:14, with Galatians 3:16 and 4:26 and Rev. 21:1-3 shows that the land promises are fulfilled in Christ and the church and that the promised land in the OT are fulfilled in heaven as the heavenly Jerusalem/ eternal life. I don’t agree that Ezekiel 40-48 is some kind of a literal prophesy that a future temple is going to be rebuilt. (future to us in a literal millennial kingdom on earth) – I disagree with that view. Ezekiel 40-48 is fufilled in Christ, who is the glory of God who returned to the land and temple in His first coming – John 1:14. Christ is the final sacrifice (Hebrews chapters 8-10). No more temple. No more sacrifices.

      From a perspective of “this world”, I wish the other Muslims would agree to 2 states, but since they never do; the result is that Israel kept winning more and more – like gaining Jerusalem back after 1967 and winning in 1973, etc.

      Like

    • QB,

      Why is genocide only wrong when it’s carried out by anybody other than your prophet?

      Why the double standards, dude? Why does Mo get a free pass for ethnically cleansing the Banu Qurayza?

      Like

    • “They wanted to restore some of what they had under David, Solomon, and before the Roman Empire ruled them. That is their perspective”

      “Modern Zionist Israel is not Theocratic Israel, since they do not believe nor follow their own God anymore”

      Mr.Temple cannot stop lying. This subject removes your mask.

      FYI, muslims have been ruling that land more than jews and christians combined.
      Moreover, Arabs have been dwelling there before, during, and after jews “ruled” that land by that “kingdom”. That kingdom which has not been proven historically nor archeologically. What we have from the Israeli side is just a religious claim supported by the UN & USA while the international law is not supposed to be connected with the religions.

      Muslims have not created this problem in the first place to accept 2 state solution offer, which is not practical or real. It’s waste of time as Dr. Reza Aslan says.

      Like

    • Reza Aslan made a lot of good points. Canaanites and Amorites and Palestinians of the OT though were not Arabs.
      The Arabs were in Arabia / Jordan and came and invaded Israel in the 636 AD and onward, started by Umar and Khalid. They came after the Jews, after the Romans, after the Byzantines/Greeks.

      Like

    • “Jews were buying land back from rich Arab land owners from 1880s until 1947-1948.”
      This’s a cliché lie which doesn’t even worth to be refuted.
      I imagine that you have not heard how the Palestinian cities and villages got fallen. It’s by force and violence. Have you heard about Al Bassa or Dir Yassen?

      And by the way, there’s a whole world beyond the borders of the land that you’ve stolen from its people ! DAH!
      http://time.com/4155228/amiercans-bomb-aladdin-agrabah/

      Like

    • Ken said
      “The Arabs were in Arabia / Jordan and came and invaded Israel in the 636 AD and onward”
      Wrong! Arabs have been till the Roman period inhabitants in all Arabia whose borders historically are not like now politically. Arabs before Islam inhabited and reached until Mount Amanus (Southern of Turkey today), and that why (Philip the Arab) got his name because he was born in Syria!

      However, let’s say it’s not true , and Arab came only after Islam ,what would be the problem?
      All semitic people have their roots to Arabia land. The people that got mentioned in your bible have become muslims as a great fulfillment for almost all profound prophecies in your bible such as Daniel 2. It’s a fulfillment to the prayer of our father Abraham pbuh.
      The irony here that Torah states this law in Deut!
      “If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, 16 then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. 17 He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion[a] of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.”

      Moreover, if you believe in your God, then you have to believe that land definitely will vomit those jews who came from Europe to the holy land with the values of “western civilization”.
      “lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.”
      I mean two years ago, there’s a Pride parade in Jerusalem, so you may imagine what is happening in Tel Aviv and other cities. Although jews are so angry from your prophet Paul, yet they have adopted his religion by giving the right of legalization to Roman/western men not God. Both christians and jews think God is not wise enough so there’s no need for his law.

      “That is because they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.
      Those are the ones over whose hearts and hearing and vision Allah has sealed, and it is those who are the heedless.
      Assuredly, it is they, in the Hereafter, who will be the losers.” QT

      Finally, John Hagee believes that jews don’t need Jesus even. Personally, I don’t think the term(hypocrisy) can describe the relation between jews and christians. It’s a pure satanic one.

      Like

    • John Hagee is a heretic and false teacher of many false teachings – that Jews don’t need the gospel and the “Word of Faith” Prosperity Health and Wealth false gospel.

      Like

    • There were and are several different ethnicities of Arabs in those days as today. Gulf Arabs were different than the Northern Arabs. Today there is 5 kinds of Arabic all over the Muslim world. The original Yemei / Sheba Arabs were different ethnically from those in Northern areas of Jordan, Syria, etc. Ishmael was half Egyptian and half Hebrew (Abraham) and different ethnicity than the Sheba / Yemeni and Hejaz Arabs. What later unified them all was the language of Arabic and the conquering wars of Islam.

      Like

    • You want to steal our identities as well? So Arabs have transformed to other people after Islam? Dah!
      Arabs have been obsessed about their genealogy and tribes. This’s even before Islam, so please don’t cross this line because it’s obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
      Sham and Yemen have always been linked to Arabs.
      However, this is not the problem. The people in all that land have embraced Islam the religion of Abraham and all prophets.
      The holy land will vomit those European jews whom you have been supporting. This is what your book says.

      Like

  7. Luke 19:27 is the end of a parable. See context, Luke 19:13 – “until I come back”

    Only at the second coming of Al Masih / Jesus the Messiah, (which you also believe in) will He make just war and have judgment day (which you also believe in) – Revelation 19:11; and chapter 20:10-15 (judgment day).

    Luke 19:27 is about judgment day when all unbelievers are thrown into hell. Rev. 20:10-15
    It was NEVER intended for anyone to do literally now.

    Revelation 19:11

    Christ will return riding on a white horse and He will make just war against unbelievers.

    Until then, Jesus said that the church does NOT have authority to do what OT Theocratic Israel did.
    Acts 1:6-8 – stop predicting the future (Matthew 24:36 – no one knows the time of Christ’s return) and stop focusing on military power or politics, rather focus on evangelism and missions and the power of the Holy Spirit to live holy lives and witness to people.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      Ken Temple
      November 1, 2017 • 1:47 pm
      Luke 19:27 is the end of a parable. See context, Luke 19:13 – “until I come back”

      I say;
      It is killing enemies and that is what you are against. You accuse somebody’s God and prophet for killing enemies and your God and prophet Jesus is doing the killing of enemies. Why won’t Christians learn a lesson.

      The killing in New York is from isis who are fighting with the West. They are at war with the West. Don’t you know that? This thing was not there in 1960, 1970,1980 until the evangelical Christians voted for war in Muslim countries.

      Like

    • No; Omar started wars against both the west (Byzantine Empire) and the east (Persia, later vs. India, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)

      Islam attacked Europe in unjust wars for centuries until they were stopped. Battles of Tours (France), 732 AD, Battle of Vienna of 1683, The Turks were stopped.

      Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Taliban, Hamas, etc. – they use passages from the Qur’an, Hadith, Sunna, Tafsirs, Tarikh, Sharia, Fiq, Sira, in order to justify what they do.

      Like

    • You’re taking from a land that you’ve killed its people and stolen its sources. How dare you?

      Like

    • Never did that. I don’t know what you are talking about. Iraq and other places always have authority to use their own oil on the world markets. The British used Iranian oil and developed it early in the 1900s, but later they got their independence. Saudi, Kuwait, etc., they use their own oil for their own countries in the global world market of trade, so I don’t know what you are talking about. Kuwaitis appreciate USA for getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The Kurds appreciate USA for getting liberating them from Saddam, etc.

      Like

    • “I don’t know what you are talking about”
      I know that because the white christians seemingly have a “gene” called (every thing is mine), so of course you didn’t figure out what I mean.
      what I mean that you’re writing from your house sitting on a comfortable sofa probably and telling muslims how violent they are, but in the same time you don’t notice the log that is in your own eye.

      Like

    • such a stupid and ridiculous claim of yours.

      Like

    • The truth hurts , Ken.

      Like

    • All human beings are sinfully violent.

      The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
      Genesis 6:5;

      Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
      Genesis 6:11-12

      Your cherry picked chart does not include all the wars that Muslims started beginning with Omar and the Mongols and China and other Asian history of wars and does not include all the tribal wars of African tribes long before any white European went there. It is a skewed bias and lie to say that “all wars are from the white people”, etc.

      Japan joined Hitler in WW 2 and Japan aggressively conquered Manchuria and Korea and a lot of ancient history there also.

      There are lots of wars between humans that we don’t even have records of.

      Jesus said the roots of sinful behavior is from the sinful thoughts in the heart:

      Jesus went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
      Mark 7:20-23

      Like

    • Again the truth hurts, Ken.

      The subject of the original sin is another issue in your religion which has been heavily influenced by the pagan environment.

      Like

    • Genesis 6:5, 6:11-12; Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51; Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 – these are not pagan influences, but Jewish Monotheism and Jesus Himself.

      The key is to not avoid this, but face it head on in your own heart and today’s world. Islam needs to realize the truth of the doctrine of original sin.

      Like

    • and Islam needs to realize that they need to stop always blaming others for their own problems.
      Genesis 3
      part of sinfulness is blaming others rather than confession and honesty.

      Like

    • Jews don’t believe in that doctrine.
      You need Islam to understand this life and how Sunan (laws) of this universe work.
      I’m really not in the mood to discuss this subject.

      Like

    • The true Jews DO believe in that doctrine – Moses: Genesis 6:5; 6:11-12; Genesis chapter 3 – Adam and Eve blaming others for their own sin
      Jeremiah: Jeremiah 17:9, 13:23
      David: Psalm 51:4-5
      Jesus: Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30

      and God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) who inspired the Bible!

      Like

    • The sin nature in human hearts produced evil dictators like Hafez Al Assad and his son Bashir, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Qaddafi of Lybia and the sinful nature in the heart of man produced Al Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram, Hamas, Taliban, Al Shabbab, etc.

      (along with European sins, which you guys focus on all the time and link to non-sequiter things)

      Like

    • You imply that born again christians do not sin.
      Well… I let the answer to the disappointing reality of yours to slap on your face. If you are not convinced yet, then you may prepare your other cheek.

      Like

    • I did not imply that, since I also have fully admitted all the sinful actions of European Christian history.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Muslims are being killed in their thousands in Burma just like in Bosnia. Did you ever produce the footage of the Burmese terrorist here? I called you Right Reverend and wanted to promote you to Most Reverend then Very Reverend. Now I withdraw my title because you are not truthful. You are David Wood hiding in Dr. James White skin.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Except I have fully answered the point of the post by explaining the progression of OT Theocratic Israel, (which no longer exists), to the NT principles of love and churches in all nations, and freedom of religion.

      I condemn what the Serbians did to the Bosnians and I condemn what the Burma government ( are they Buddhists in name / culture only? or doing Buddhism principles) is doing to the minority Muslim Rohingya people.

      Like

    • Ken, since you’re a student of that clown, I wanna ask a very simple question.
      Why would you consider that act as “Jihad”?

      Like

    • Some Muslims do – if say, 10 % (who do or approve of it, yet are quiet) of over one Billion people is still a lot of people.

      I agree with James White’s emphasis MORE on focusing on doctrinal issues; (But Paul W. and others are attacking the OT passages, and so it is necessary to give a full refutation, which I did); but David Wood is correct in showing SOME Muslims are motivated and taking those passages he quotes straight from Hadith and Qur’an and doing their own Jihads / Harb / terrorism.

      Like

    • “I condemn” ! 😑
      You don’t condemn enough! That what we keep hearing from ignorant christians. These days you’re celebrating with ease one of the most anti-Semitic figure in history whose writings inspired Nazism. Imagine if muslims did that, what would the clown and your media say?
      Also, you don’t even condemn your terrorism in Iraq after your god had told your president to do that terror, and christians such as Michael Licon, are still praising those who’re killing Iraqis . Christians,such as James White, are still praising what happened to Japan as if it’s the Judgement of God on that nation.
      Christians in a general sense are still praising the”Jihd” of Samson when he killed the civilian people in that story of your people.

      Like

    • Allan Ruhl is right here:

      “The Catholic Church bears zero responsibility for the holocaust. Martin Luther bears zero responsibility for the holocaust.

      Here’s the question for those who want to blame Christianity for the holocaust:

      Why didn’t the holocaust happen when Christianity was 100% in control? Why did it happen in the extremely secular 20th century as opposed to the extremely religious centuries. Christianity gained political power in the 4th century under the Roman Emperors and had a large amount of power until the “enlightenment” when Freemasonry and the French Revolution started to take large chunks of that political power away. The Jews who lived in those centuries rejected Christ just as much as the Jews of the 20th century. Where was the holocaust at those times if it was such a Christian thing?”

      http://allanruhl.com/in-defence-of-luther-and-a-challenge-to-the-rabbis/

      Like

    • My response to Allan Ruhl’s article. (Waiting in moderation)

      The Catholic Church bears zero responsibility for the holocaust. Martin Luther bears zero responsibility for the holocaust.

      Agreed.

      That was a good article, thanks Allan.
      (even though, from my perspective, theologically and Biblically, Martin Luther was right on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and the priesthood of all believers in Christ)

      A book about Dietrich Bonhoffer ( by Eric Metaxas) is really good that explains the thinking of the Nazis, a chapter called “Nazi Theology” (Chapter 11). Metaxas demonstrates that Himmler, Rosenberg, Borman, and Reinhart Heydrick were the real “Nazi theologians” and pagans and anti-semitites, along with Hitler, but Hitler did not want to go as far as they did as soon as they did. Metaxas demonstrates that Hitler wanted to first deceive the church and the German people; and THEN later do what those 4 were calling for earlier. (they wanted to replace the German Churches with a new pagan and warlike religion based on old paganism.)

      Hitler admired Islam and the Japanese religion because they were warlike and not like, as Hitler put it, “weak and wimpy and flabby like Christianity”.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/hitler-admired-islam/

      Like

    • Ken said
      “Some Muslims do – if say, 10 % (who do or approve of it, yet are quiet) of over one Billion people is still a lot of people.”
      Notice that you didn’t answer me. You promote for clown’s videos, so I’m asking again why would you consider that act as a “Jihad” ?

      “So Muslims”
      Then what can I say regarding your religion if I consider this rule of “some”?, especially that we don’t deal with “some” rather we deal with the whole bulk of the church hsitory including most of your church fathers? In some cases, we’re talking about the head of state.
      In fact, let’s just deal with the one whom you’re celebrating about right now, for example. I’m not talking about “some” rather I’m talking about the founder of your sect.
      Accordingly, I think we and you have more reason to show how violent christians are, especially that you are with the fantasy notion of “pacifisms” .

      “but David Wood is correct in showing SOME Muslims are motivated and taking those passages he quotes straight from Hadith and Qur’an and doing their own Jihads / Harb / terrorism.”
      David Wood is just an angry man. I can hear his screaming in each video he posts.
      His videos don’t tell beside his ignorance,arrogance, and lies anything except that Islam is really a problem for his man mad religion. EvenJames White said this fact.
      Moreover, I think this’s the real problem in your country containing 70% as christians.

      I’d be glad to hear his videos about that matter.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You are changing the subject to gun violence in general and drug overdose. You don’t even deal honestly with the passages in the Qur’an and Hadith that SOME Muslims use to justify their actions.

      Like

    • I will not give you any chance to escape.
      Why would you consider that acts as a “jihad”? I’m just gonna show you how ignornat your teacher is.

      I didn’t change the subject. It’s the core of the subject which is how hypocrite you’re
      Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Ken Temple

      There is another mass shooter at a Church who is not a Muslim. He killed 26 people in a Church and wounded many. You are a bad Reverend. Why did you not post the video here? You only posted a terrorist Muslim but forgot about terrorist non Muslim. This a the double standards we are talking about. According to statistics, killings and terrorism in the USA is a threat from White nationalist and not Islam.

      Donald Trump says is mental health issue and not gun issue. When a white or non Muslim kills, it is a mental issue but when a person with a Middle Eastern name kills he is a terrorist. Terrorism is to inflict terror on people. Is killing people in a Church, cinema hall or musical hall not terrorizing the victims?

      Like

    • I just now heard about this about 1 hour ago after I woke up this morning, at 6:00 am my time.

      Mental illness is real; but so is sin in the heart. The root of all of this is not guns but sin and sinful anger and sinful thoughts of revenge, self-pity, bitterness, rancour, spite, that has been nurtured in the heart without forgiving others and without looking to God and Christ – “forgive others, as Christ forgave you” – Ephesians 4:30-32.

      The guy in Texas apparently let bitterness and anger and rancour and vengeance build up in his heart. “from the heart come evil thoughts” (Mark 7:20-23)

      Jesus said the roots of murder are sinful anger and hatred and vengeance that is allowed to be nurtured in the heart. (Matthew 5:21-26) The Biblical doctrine of original sin and roots of sin in the thoughts and the heart is a much more realistic and true understanding of the problems of this world, both mass shootings of western people, and the Islamic terrorism of SOME Muslims, who use some texts from the Qur’an and Hadith to justify their actions. (ISIS, Al Qaedah, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Taliban, Hamas, etc. )

      Ecclesiastes 9:3 shows us that insanity and mental illness comes from sinful thoughts nurtured in the heart of mankind. There is some mental illness that is chemical and physical, but I also believe that a lot of mental illness is caused by people who nurture self-pity, anger, hatred, feelings of injustice, jealousy, envy, pride, arrogance, etc. and also people who do not have a mediator who has forgiven them of their own sins, can allow the injustices and trials of this world to affect them negatively. Humans need to worship the true God, the God of the Bible, only He can give peace and forgiveness.

      Also blaming society and others for one’s own problems and sins is also a problem that leads to more sin and vengeance and mental breakdowns and violence. (Genesis 3 – Adam blaming Eve and Eve blaming the serpent (the devil). God holds us all responsible for our own sins.

      Like

    • I agree with Dr. White more on emphasizing doctrine and doctrinal issues. But it was Paul W. who put up the video for Christians to respond to the Joshua 6 and 1 Sam. 15 passage; and I fully answered that and no one can deal with the real progression from OT Theocratic Israel to the CHANGE to the NT church, freedom, love, etc.

      Like

    • The news reports show that the guy who killed people in the church in Texas was an atheist, full of anger and a history of violence; and did violence against his wife and child and was punished in the military. He let his sinful nature of pride, selfishness, anger, hatred be cherished and nurtured in his heart and had no belief in a forgiving God (Christ, the eternal Son/Word, who became a man, and who died as a substitutionary atonement for sins, who is the only one who can forgive your sins) .

      Ecclesiastes 9:3
      “The sons of man (humans) are full of sin and insanity is in their hearts . . .”

      If you don’t learn to forgive and deal with bitterness, it will eat you up.

      Intellect,
      This has nothing to with “white nationalism” – a totally bogus left wing secular ploy as a cover to be against Judeo-Christian historical moral values.

      Like

    • “I fully answered that and no one can deal with the real progression from OT Theocratic Israel to the CHANGE to the NT church, freedom, love, etc.”
      If you want to be taken seriously, I really encourage you to stop this nonsense. You’ve already degraded yourself when you posted the clown’s video.

      Like

    • You have no argument against my point of
      “the real progression from OT Theocratic Israel to the CHANGE to the NT church, freedom, love”

      Like

    • Ken
      “Mental illness is real…”
      So is hypocrisy manifested with white christians.
      The dose of your hypocrisy has reached at its zenith. It’s so disgusting!

      Like

    • Why the “race baiting” ?
      The issue has nothing to do with skin color.
      I never use those tactics in debate. Please stop.

      We Christians say all sin is sin in the heart of all humans, whether white or black, brown, red, yellow, etc.

      God loves all the nations (ta ethna / τα εθνη (Matthew 28:19; Revelation 5:9; 7:9), so please stop the accusations against about race or ethnicity that have nothing to do with the issues.

      Like

    • “You have no argument against my point of the evidenceTheocratic Israel to the CHANGE to the NT church, freedom, love”
      Rather we have presented FACTS substantiated by all kinds of evidences about how violent your religion is.
      Notice that the theory of “progression from OT” implies that the god of OT is not about freedom & love. So we shouldn’t be surprised that many early christians believed they’re 2 gods.
      This theory proves nothing except that you’re telling us that you believe in 2 gods who differ in their natures and attitudes toward their creations. Ok! Then SAY it loudly, and let us hear that!
      Moreover, that “progression from OT” gave the pagan romans all the rights to decide what the law which should be applied on the people and the land not God. Apparently that your religion thinks if we gave this right to the King of kings, He would become again the god of OT who is about killing children and genocide.

      In sum, It’s not our fault that your religion by its nature is schizophrenic. It’s not our fault that you play with it depending on your hypocrisy and the mood of the era you live in.

      Like

    • There is no change in God Himself (He has always been the Holy Trinity – John 1:1; John 17:5 – “with the glory I had with You before the world was”, Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14, Genesis 1:1-3 (The Spirit of God was hovering above the waters, etc.)

      The change was the WAY in which God works in the world – from the OT Theocratic Israel in the promised land to the New Testament Church spreading into all the nations by love, evangelism, and freedom; a separation between government and the church.

      No, not 2 or 3 gods; only ONE God, in three persons.

      Like

    • “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. ” John 17:5

      “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” John 1:1

      Like

    • “New Testament Church spreading into all the nations by love, evangelism, and freedom; a separation between government and the church”
      This is a LIE. It’s simple as that.
      You have always been in affair relationship with the all kind of political powers to spread your “love”. You’d been with pagans as your false prophet Paul had, with christian, and finally with the secular one.
      Christians relation with the political powers is like the “whore” who lusts after her lovers and bestowed her whoring upon them, and she defiled herself with all the idols of everyone after whom she lusted,and she did not give up her whoring that she had begun with Romans; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their whoring lust upon her.Therefore She has been delivered her into the hands of her lovers,after whom she lusted. These powers, such as the secular one in the west, uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and as for her, they killed her with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed on her.

      Also, you still prove that the god’s morality in the OT differs so much than the god’s morality in NT. 2 gods? Just admit it!

      Like

    • Not true at all. It is not a lie to explain Christian principle and theology, no matter how skewed your understanding of history is. Christians have always taught the Old covenant is gone and the new covenant has arrived. (see Hebrews chapter 8 and 2 Corinthians chapter 3) God’s morality never changes, but the ways of God’s involvement with human political powers changed from Theocracy in OT and ONLY for the promised land borders; to the New Testament principles of the church (es) spreading to all nations through evangelism, persuasion, love, truth, and good works.

      Like

    • “Not true at all. It is not a lie to explain Christian principle and theology”
      Where did I say that? It seems that you’re a student for the clown more than I expect.
      I affirm again that christians’ relationship with the political powers regardless what they are is like the “whore” who has not given up her whoring since your prophet Paul established that kind of relationship with the pagan romans.


      That result came with a good reason, don’t you think? .

      Like

    • Christian grew in centuries 1, 2, 3, and 4 under persecution and had no political power – only at the end of the 4th century (381-390 AD) was there a merger of church and state. So, you are wrong.

      Like

    • Not true, since the Gnostics were not even Christians at all. Irenaeus and Tertullian (and many others) in the last 2nd Century and early third century destroyed their arguments and heresies. (180-220 AD)

      Like

    • Aslan is just repeating the already refuted arguments of Walter Bauer, F. C. Bauer, Elaine Pagels, and Bart Ehrman.

      Micheal Kruger and Andreas Kostenberger fully refuted them in “The Heresy of Orthodoxy”

      Like

    • Aslan discredited himself by constantly lying about his Phd and expertise and constantly bragging about himself and his book Zealot has been totally demolished and refuted many times.

      Like

    • Craig Evans, whom Paul W. and Yahya Snow have used here, “Eviserates Reza Aslan’s Zealot”.
      Ka-Boom !

      http://www.dennyburk.com/craig-evans-eviscerates-reza-aslans-zealot/

      Like

    • Most of the church fathers are not christians by your definition, btw.
      It’s so clear that christians of today use (2 gods card) who differ in their morality to avoid the embarrassment in the nature of god in the OT which is not about love and freedom.

      Dr.Reza Aslan is a good scholar not a perfect as many scholars are. I didn’t refer to his work (Zealous), yet that work got praised by dr Bart Ehrman. Moreover, he did not come with new ideas. He just has revealed those ideas to the level of ordinary people, which I have no idea why christian scholars have not done that till Phds like Reza and Bart have done that.
      Did they cause pain for you?

      Like

    • no; the only real heretic of the main church fathers was Origen (circa 250 AD), because he said that all people will eventually be saved, even the devil.

      The Gnostics were not Christians. (Basiledes, Valentinius, Marcion, Cerinthius, Encrates, etc.)

      Ehrman did not praise Zealot, he rather said he would not comment because he did not read it; but he did say Aslan is NOT a scholar in New Testament.

      Ehrman wrote:

      I HAVEN’T READ IT! And unlike some people I know (oh so well), I don’t believe in passing judgment on a book I haven’t read.
      “My first post on the book was in response to a question of whether I consider to Aslan to be a scholar in the field of New Testament or early Christian studies. In fact, my consideration has almost nothing to do with it. He is decidedly NOT a scholar in the field. Some people think that has some relevance to the quality of his book; other people think that it has no relevance to the quality of his book; I haven’t taken a stand on that issue one way or the other. He’s not a NT/Early Christianity scholar, and he does not and cannot *claim* to be. ”
      Bart Ehrman, at his blog about questions about Aslan and Zealot.

      Like

    • I believe that dr Ehrman said that Reza’s thesis is defensible in his some of his lectures. Also, I think he stated that Reza is a scholar in his lecture in university of Florida in Tampa as I remember.
      Regardless, what dr Reza said about Jesus and the fraction in the early church between your prophet paul and the true disciples is not new in the academic field.

      “only at the end of the 4th century (381-390 AD) was there a merger of church and state. So, you are wrong.”
      Notice I didn’t say that your relationship has been ” a legitimate marriage” rather it’s been like the “whore” who lusts after her lovers.

      Like

    • you ignored what Ehrman wrote above regarding Aslan’s book and credentials.

      Like

    • I did not ignore that. If that what dr Ehrman wrote, then it’s fine. However, I’m sure that he said that Reza’s Aslan’s thesis is (defensible). Dr. Reza, after all, did not wrote about textual criticism in the NT.

      Like

  8. SOME Muslims take Hadith passages like this to do what they do today; inflicting murder and chaos all over the world.

    Sahih Al Bukhari

    https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/186

    Narrated Abu Huraira:
    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

    Sahih al-Bukhari 2977
    Book 56, Hadith 186
    Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 220

    Like

    • Ken Temple
      November 1, 2017 • 2:33 pm
      SOME Muslims take Hadith passages like this to do what they do today; inflicting murder and chaos all over the world.

      Sahih Al Bukhar

      I say;
      Some Christians use Biblical verses to persecute not only Muslims but persecute Catholic Christians in the USA. This simple thing a lady Most Reverend and Very Reverend understands all religions have some people using the scripture to kill but Reverend Ken does not understand it that way. It makes you a dishonest person. The lady Most Reverend is better than you.

      Jesus said;
      Luke 19:27

      New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

      Christians use the above to kill, destroy, rape, flog, murder, etc. from when they got strong till today.

      Jesus was under Romans and is not a ruler but he god angry(sinfulness and sinful nature), then destroyed tables and chairs i.e. property damage that could land him to jail today.

      Before the New York terrorist attack, a white Christian shot and killed about 50 people and injured hundreds. Did he not get his motivation from the Bible. You did not post the footage here. Why the double standard and Islam hate?

      Like

    • No; I fully answered Paul Williams’ invitation to respond to the 2 passages. Christians do not persecute Roman Catholics anymore and Luke 19:27 is a parable about judgment day in the end, and the white guy in Las Vegas a few weeks ago was not a Christian and never said his motivation was the Bible or Christianity. His anger is actually leftism / Marxism/ secularism since he targeted conservatives at a country music event.

      Like

    • Amen for this hadith. This indeed a miracle for the prophet ﷺ. He didn’t even need to engage in real fight with the enemies of Allah because Allah made his enemy fear before anything would happened. It’s not what the clown tries to say. David is so stupid when he applies the terminology of today projecting them in the past. It’s like when he wore his wife cloth assuming that what hadith says about the prophetﷺ.
      In fact, this a real problem even within Christianity itself. for example, It’s like when christians use some verbs to say that Jesus got worshiped while these verbs have another meaning.

      “I will send my terror before you and will throw into confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you”
      Are you familiar with this verse above , Ken?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Stephen Paddock was not a Christian, just a very angry person who took out his anger on people at a country music festival in Las Vegas.

    But true Christians learn to deal with their anger in their hearts, and learn to forgive and learn to get rid of anger and bitterness and vengeance.

    Hebrews 12:14-15
    Matthew 5:21-26
    Matthew 5:36-48
    Ephesians 4:30-32
    Colossians 3:1-17

    Like

    • We have heard this cliché already again & again. We got that christians are just the angels in heaven. All history of christianity which has been influenced by your bible is not christian.

      “But true Christians learn to deal with their anger in their hearts, and learn to forgive and learn to get rid of anger and bitterness and vengeance”
      I pray to Allah to see that day when christians apply these teachings.

      Like

    • Do you have any evidence that Stephen Paddock was a born again Christian?

      Jesus said, “You MUST be born again” John 3:3-21

      Like

    • Whaaaat?
      You didn’t get the point!

      Nevertheless, what if I did? How would that affect on your hypocrisy?

      Like

    • You have not proven any hypocrisy on my part. I answered the challenge about the OT verses honestly with the way that NT Christians have always understood these things.

      Like

    • ” answered the challenge about the OT verses honestly with the way that NT Christians have always understood these things.”
      Mirror this false statement on your acts & your history to see that I’ve already proven that you’re hypocrites.

      Like

    • Ken enough with the bullshit. After WWII the Christians said ‘never again’.
      How many Muslim countries has the West invaded?
      Now let’s ask the question how many Western countries have the Muslims countries invaded?

      Like

    • The situation after WW 2, was the results of the situation after WW 1 (1914-1918) The Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in World War I. They were wrong and so were justly punished. They were the aggressors in the war, and justly punished. They were the government over Israel/Palestine. There was no sovereign government of “Palestine”. Jews were buying property legally from rich Arab land owners and the area that was deemed as Israel by the UN in 1948 was from the legal buying and developing of land from the 1880s onward. The Arabs had no problem selling land from the 1800s until 1947-1948. Both secular and religious Jews wanted to go back to their original homeland that was theirs in the time of David and Solomon, etc. The survivors were wanderers and in exile since 70 AD (destruction of the temple and Jerusalem) and 135 AD (The Bar Kokhba rebellion scattered most of the Jews out of the land of Israel into other areas.)

      After WW 1, The countries of Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia (the Arabs wanted independence from the Ottoman Turks), etc. were the results of the justly dismantled Ottoman Empire.

      The dictators later who gained power in those countries through coups and violence were wrong – later – such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Hafez Al Assad family in Syria.

      Some of the invasions were justified because some of those dictators were doing bad things in the world. (Saddam, Qaddafi in Libya, etc.) Mistakes were made (Libya, 2003 invasion of Iraq, 1952- 53 CIA backed coup in Iran), so under Obama, the USA stayed out of the Syria -Bashir Al Assad problem and Civil War, etc. and look at the results. Of course it is all complicated. Getting involved in Libya resulted in chaos, even though the motives seemed right for providing air cover for letting the people take out the evil dictator Qaddaffi to go. The problem is in a lot of the Muslim world does not really know how to behave itself. (Jihadists like Al Qaeda, Isis, etc. grow when there is no dictator, it seems.) It seems to have either bad dictators or radical Jihadists.

      Like

    • Ken, but how much was the percentage purchased by the way? i’ve been reading about this subject on Foreign Policy Journal and apparently according to The 1946 “survey of Palestine” statistics Jews owned 1,514,247 whereas Arabs and other non jews used to own 24,670,455 which makes it only 5.8% for Jews…here’s a link to the original table

      Like

    • Those are good points if true.
      “Blood Brothers” by Elias Chakour is an excellent book about a Palestinian’s struggle after the 1947-1948 war. His family was treated wrong by the Israelis; and his emphasis on peace and reconciliation is good.
      Colin Chapman’s book, “Whose Promised Land?” also a good book. I think Muslims would enjoy both of those books.

      Like

    • Ken, i enjoy Hasbara books to be honest…thanks for recommending those books by the way…

      Like

    • Those 2 books are not “Hasbara” (Israeli propoganda books); those 2 books are actually giving the balance to the Israel/ Pro-Zionist, Pro-Jewish view.

      Like

    • Ken, no you misunderstood me bro, i was trying to say that i rather prefer hasbara books compared to anti zionist ones but still i thanked you for your recommendation…

      Like

    • Why do you prefer Hasbara books?
      You are right, I misunderstood you and now confused.
      Those 2 books are not “anti-Zionist” but they bring balance to a complicated issue.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, oh thought they were anti Zionist, sorry about that…well hasbara books and articles are great don’t you think? You get to see their hypocrisy in detail, but some are honest, brutally honest…

      Like

    • I think you would appreciate the balance of those 2 books, especially “Blood Brothers”.

      Like

    • Ken, thanks mate

      Liked by 1 person

    • A major chunk of your comment has nothing to do with my comment.
      And secondly ‘Mistakes were made’. Really Ken. You too????
      This is it. Mistakes were made? You know George carlin might be a arrogant bastard but he was right when it come to politicians.

      ‘Mistakes were made’

      Like

  10. I don’t agree with “Christian Zionism”. They (Israel 1948) are not the kingdom of God and there is no more Biblical Theocratic Israel. They are doing what they do based on human power and politics; but it seems that God has allowed it in history, even in their unbelief and apostasy from the true God. (Jesus Al Massih is the eternal Word/Son and second person of the Trinity, which the Jews reject, except for Messianic Jews. Personally, I do not believe 1948 is a fulfillment of prophesy as many Evangelicals do. I believe the OT land promises were fulfilled in 1 Kings 4:20-21; and Hebrews chapter 4; and Hebrews 11:10, 16; 12:22-23; 13:14, with Galatians 3:16 and 4:26 and Rev. 21:1-3 shows that the land promises are fulfilled in Christ and the church and that the promised land in the OT are fulfilled in heaven as the heavenly Jerusalem/ eternal life. I don’t agree that Ezekiel 40-48 is some kind of a literal prophesy that a future temple is going to be rebuilt. (future to us in a literal millennial kingdom on earth) – I disagree with that view. Ezekiel 40-48 is fufilled in Christ, who is the glory of God who returned to the land and He is the temple in His first coming – John 1:14. (fulfilled Ezekiel 43:2 (glory returning) and also Rev. 1:15) Jesus said He is the new temple (John 2:19-22) and that He has the “water of life” for the healing of the nations. (John 4, John 7, as fulfillment of Ezekiel 47 and seen also in Rev. 22:1, 17 and 22:2. Christ is the final sacrifice (Hebrews chapters 8-10) and fullfilled Ezekiel 43 & 45 (verses that say “to make atonement”). No more temple. (Revelation 21:22-24) No more sacrifices (Hebrews chapters 7-11). Modern Jews need to repent and come to faith in Christ as the Messiah and eternal Son / eternal Word of God for salvation. Repent and return – Acts 3:19 ff.

    Like

    • The above is the basic Amillennial position. That there will not be a literal kingdom of Israel restored to this earth, but that Christ, the church, and eternal life in heaven are the fulfillments of the land promises to Israel in the Old Testament. The 1,000 years of Rev. 20:1-6 is seen as just a large number (like that way Psalm 50:10 ( “the cattle of 1,000 hills” – does God not also own the cattle on the 1,001th and 2,000th and 5,000th hill on the earth?) The 1,000 years in Rev. 201-6 is just a large number symbolizing the time period from the first coming of the Messiah to the second coming of the Messiah.

      Here is a good article that the church is the inclusion and expanded definition of the people of God, of the spreading of the Kingdom of God on earth through churches being planted in all nations/people groups.

      http://effectualgrace.com/2017/11/01/inclusion-not-replacement/

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Islam kills is not self defense as the Muslims explains BUT Christian kill is parable, theocratic, old Israel, Jesus will come back. It is ok. to kill if it is Christian kill but not ok. to kill if it is a Muslim kill. Whether parable or no parable it is a killing of enemies by Jesus my dear Reverend. Killing children in any century is not good. If you keep repeating this nonsense my dear Reverend I will insult you.

      If Jesus comes back and kills his enemies how dare you criticizing other God and prophets fighting and defending their wives and children from their enemies?

      My friend and I will not call you the Right Reverend, Most Reverend or The Very Reverend. You are bullshitting. Paul Williams will agree with me on this one. What nonsense do you keep spewing on us?

      You accuse Muslims and Islam for killing. We accuse Christians and Christianity for killings. You want to justify your killings and condemn other killings. Dr. James White will say shame on you. It is bullshit for a Christian(any) to accuse Islam of violence because this is what Jesus who is both God and prophet said and did.


      Luke 19:27

      New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

      Christians use the above to kill, destroy, rape, flog, murder, etc. from when they got strong till today.

      Jesus was under Romans and is not a ruler but he god angry(sinfulness and sinful nature), then destroyed tables and chairs i.e. property damage that could land him to jail today.

      It is stupid to compare head of states(Moses/Mohammed/George Bush/Obama/David of the Bible etc.) with Jesus who was not a ruler.

      If Jesus was a ruler, he will not turn the other cheek to anyone who is comming to kill his population and take their property. His anger(sinfulness) by destroying tables will tell you that he will kill when he has the chance. He did not get the chance to kill under the Roman rule because he will be killed in turn. That is why he will come back to rule the kill his enemies.

      How dare you call Islam a violent religion when Christianity is more violence than Islam? Jay Smith says violence in the Bible is more when compared to the Quran which has less.

      Thanks.

      Like

  11. Yes, the way Umar the 2nd Caliph and those after him, attacked and conquered the Byzantine Empire and North Africa and Spain and the Persian Empire and beyond was aggressive unjust wars for centuries and wrong. from 636 AD onward – it was wrong of Islam to do that. Unjust. Zolm va Zolmat ظلم و ظلمت

    Like

  12. Luke 19:27 is about judgment day and is a parable (see verse 11 – “He went on to tell a parable” – a parable is a story with symbols and spiritual lessons – not literal) about what will happen with Jesus returns. Didn’t you read the context? see verse 13 – “do business until I come back” (be busy in living right, holy, godly, do evangelism, discipleship, and missions . . . until Jesus returns.)

    When He comes back, then is judgment day and you also believe in that – that God will punish on that day.

    When Jesus comes back, He will wage righteous and just war against all unbelievers.
    See Revelation 19:11
    and Revelation 20:10-15 – judgment on Satan and the false prophet and the Anti-Christ (Dajja دجالl) and all unbelievers in Christ.

    10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

    11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
    Revelation 20:10-15

    You have to repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord in order to get your name written into the book of life.
    Mark 1:15
    John 3:16
    John 5:24
    John 20:30-31
    Luke 10:20
    Revelation 21:27
    1 John 2:25
    1 John 4:9-15
    1 John 5:11-14

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      Luke 19:27 is about judgment day and is a parable (see verse 11 – “He went on to tell a parable” – a parable is a story with symbols and spiritual lessons – not literal) about what will happen with Jesus returns.

      I say’
      The parable to return and terrorize those who do not want to be ruled by force is good parable to you? It is a bad parable.

      Just imagine if a Muslim figure say
      New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’

      Fortunately, no Muslim figure ever uttered this barbaric saying by Jesus whether parable or not. It is about killing those who do not want to be ruled by force. It is very bad parable if it is because Christians have used it to massacre people until the liberals, atheists and freedom fighters in the West defeated the Christians.

      Calvin, Martin Luther, Hitler, Crusaders etc. who are Christians used the verses of Jesus saying to massacre people. Jesus himself was angry(sinful nature and sinfulness in Jesus as God), then destroyed tables. If he was a ruler and not under the watchful eyes of the Roman rulers who will put him(Jesus) to death, he would have killed the pharisees. He was not strong then but kill those who will not allow him to rule them by force when he returned.

      —–
      Ken Temple
      November 3, 2017 • 1:56 am
      Yes, the way Umar the 2nd Caliph and those after him, attacked and conquered the Byzantine Empire and North Africa and Spain and the Persian Empire and beyond was aggressive unjust wars for centuries and wrong. from 636 AD onward – it was wrong of Islam to do that. Unjust. Zolm va Zolmat ظلم و ظلمت

      I say;
      It was the Christians who were attacking and killing Jews and those who do not want them to rule them by force. They even killed more Christians i.e. stronger Christians killing weaker Christians in Spain. The Byzantine attacked first and Muslims defended themselves. Also, in those days of warfare, people do defend themselves because if you do not defend yourselves others will attack and kill you, so you argument is mute.

      Ask Jews and Christian copts who liberated them from Christian bondage? You know that. In the USA liberals, atheists and secularists have to save the Jews, Catholics, Mormons and blacks from Christian bondage. You know that. Now the evangelical last resort is to use womanizer(Trump) to put their centuries of hate to minorities.

      Thanks.\

      Like

    • Fortunately, no Muslim figure ever uttered this barbaric saying by Jesus whether parable or not.

      Since your religion also has judgement day, and you cannot be a Muslim without belief in the last day of judgment, and unbelievers (those who are unwilling to submit – which is what Jesus is talking about) – you also have to agree with this parable. You are forced by your doctrine of the last day and judgemnt day and that who who submitted to Allah and His prophet go to paradise and those who do not submit are doomed to hell – because that is Islamic doctrine also; then you are forced to agree with Luke 19:27 as to what it means – on judgement day, all unbelievers go to hell.

      Like

  13. about what will happen WHEN Jesus returns.

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You accuse other religions of force rule and killings and that is exactly what Jesus said. His followers have been using it to kill and he will come to kill and rule by force. That is barbaric. Imagine if it was our prophet who said this. It is about KILLING and RULING BY FORCE. You are against killing and ruling by force and that is what Jesus said, so condemn his statement first before attacking other religions. And killing children and livestock as well. If you think killing babies is good because you think it is for a particular century, I tell you that killing babies is not good in all centuries. Stop defending the indefensible.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      My judgement day did not say anyone must be ruled by force otherwise if he resist he must be killed. We do not have that barbaric statement in Islam.

      This is what Christians used and are using kill i.e. Arians and Ebionites were killed, Christians persecution in Europe until 30 years of war that finally stopped the Christians and freedom of religion force on them(Christians). Jews and copts persecuted until Muslims saved them. Catholics, Jews, Mormons and black Africans were persecuted in USA. Ship loads of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe by Christians was refused entry into the USA just like how they voted for Trump to refuse Muslim, Latinos, blacks etc. entry into the USA except Christians alone. Yes, the first ban on Muslims includes allowing Christians to migrate to USA but not Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists but Christians alone.

      This is what Christians learnt from Jesus’s own statement. Ruled or be killed and hatred.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Yes, your judgment does – as the Al Mahdi and Al Masih will return and do just war against the Dajjal and his followers, etc. (against all unbelievers) In the Hadith, Al Masih returns and breaks all the crosses and kills all pigs and many Hadith say that the Muslims will not cease fighting the Jews until the last day, etc.

      The very root of Al Jabbar (one of the 99 names of Allah) is force. جبر و الجبار
      Jabr and Al Jabbar.

      Like

    • Intellect’s method is to throw everything out hoping something will stick and connecting everything back to Donald Trump. Amazing in your simplistic view of history.

      Arius was exiled, not killed. Ebionites were not killed. You have no record of your claims and exaggerations.

      Like

  14. What is there to respond to? The video did not make any meaningful point.

    Like

    • The simple point is that an inconsistent methodology will eventually lead Christians away from Christianity when they start studying their own religion with intellectually honesty. When one removes the double standards that Christians apply to all other religions, the Christian falsehood is exposed.

      Like

    • I saw no evidence presented in the video that christians apply double standards to all other religions. Christianity is the fastest growing religion in china because it is true. With the chinese on our side, islam will fail.

      Like

    • Joel,
      You saw no evidence of double standards…….because as usual you were applying your own double standards!

      Islam will never fail simply because one group accepts or denies it. Islamic theology is built on firm foundations and will always remain available to anyone who wishes to base their faith on intellect and logic.

      Contrast to the house of cards that is Christianity which is only growing in China and Africa, because the people there are uninformed about the new findings based on NT Historical criticism which has proven that Christianity is based on innovated doctrines and falsehood.

      Once this information becomes available to the masses in those countries, they will drop Christianity as quickly as they accepted it, and will then return to their own traditional faiths, or to atheism, or they will come into Islam inshallah.

      Like

    • Ibn

      ” Islamic theology is built on firm foundations and will always remain available to anyone who wishes to base their faith on intellect and logic.”

      Let’s be honest. ISlam is built on the foundation of the hadith which are historically dubious traditions written way too long after mohammed lived, and without significant supporting prime source documents to render them credible.

      What you have left is the quran, which if you followed, you would have a religion that is nothing like the religion your call “islam”.

      The objective investigation into islamic sources is mere decades old, and is subject to political correctness such that some quranic scholars have to publish under pseudonyms to stave off death threats, and avoid damaging their career from critics who accuse them of islamophobia because they question the tenets of islam.

      I suspect that there are few muslims who realize that so much of the quran comes from christian apocrypha, jewish talmudic speculation, and pagan fables – once people stop fearing speaking the truth about this islam will be gone as quickly as it spread like veil of ignorance over the middle east and north africa.

      Like

  15. Intellect,
    You are skewed on the details of history.

    The Spanish Inquisition was done by the Roman Catholic Church in Spain against Jews, Muslims and heretics, etc. The Crusades were the Roman Catholic Church vs. Muslims.

    Some of the historical records (that we know about, but there is doubt as to those also, since most of what we know comes from Muslims who have a bias in their reporting. Some other primary and original sources say otherwise – see Robert Hoyland – “Seeing Islam as Others Saw it” – original documents.

    https://archive.org/details/SeeingIslamAsOthersSawItASurveyAndEvaluationOfChristianJewishAndZoroastrianWritingsOnEarlyIslam

    Some typical history books say that the Copts and other Monophysites “welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators” – yes, some records say that; but 1. the primary sources contradict that – see Hoyland’s book; and 2. but the Copts and Monophysites in Syria and Armenia were deceived and once Islam took over, it was too late – no Dhimmi can ever complain because the Muslims in power just killed them and persecuted them and wiped them out and slowly drained them by the Jiziye and Dhimmi rules of Omar 2 Ibn Abdul Azziz ( Caliph from 717-720 AD – the Dhimmi rules were developed into more harsh rules, based on Omar 1 Ibn Al Khattab 634-644 AD). Since Islamic law trapped them – no freedom, no evangelism, Jiziye, no complaining – they were forced into inward communities and the only way out was to convert to Islam or escape to other lands.

    The movement to free the African slaves was led by Evangelicals William Wilberforce, lord Shaftsbury, and Granville Sharp (a Biblical scholar and Greek grammarian). They quoted 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ( verse 10 – “human trafficking”, or “man stealers”, “kidnapping humans”, “Slave traders”) and Revelation 18:13 shows that the slave trade was sin and wrong. Those that started that were the unbelieving, secular, worldly, greedy business men / traders of that time. Not all traders or business men were evil, but those who started the slave trader were evil and wrong and not Christians.

    Like

  16. According to Islamic records, the Ghassanids (Arab states (in today’s areas of Jordan, Syria, Iraq) that were “client” states of the Byzantine Empire) were held accountable for the death of a Muslim emissary (Al Harith) who was sent to them in 629 AD, and said, “Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, invites you to Islam, if you submit, you will be safe, but if you resist . . . ” The result was the battle of Mu’tah and the Muslims were defeated. that issue was finished by the death of Muhammad in 632 AD. Later, the battle of Tabouk, was in 630, but no Byzantine garissions were found there – the Battle of Tabouk is usually said to be the context of Surah 9:29-30.

    But Omar used the defeat later as an excuse to start attacking ALL of Byzantine. (later at Battle of Yarmouk, (636 AD)

    The Hadith shows that when the emissary went to Hericlius, the Byzantine Emperor, the Muslim emissary WAS NOT KILLED.
    see:
    Sahih al-Bukhari 7
    Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 6

    From Wikipedia:

    “In Muslim histories, the battle is usually described as the Muslims’ attempt to take retribution against a Ghassanid chief for taking the life of an emissary. According to Byzantine sources, the Muslims planned to launch their attack on a feast day. The local Byzantine Vicarius learned of their plans and collected the garrisons of the fortresses. According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Muslims were routed after three of their leaders were killed.[5][2]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mu%27tah

    Like

  17. Part of the famous Hadith about the invitation going to Hericlius, Emperor of Byzantine.

    Seems like force when he says, “If you submit you will be safe . . . but if you don’t . . . (the implication is that we will attack you, and that is exactly what the Muslims did.)

    Interesting also that that is the Asbab ol Nuzul for Surah 3:64 (“come to a common word between us and you”) = seems to mean that if you do not, we will attack you in war.)

    “Heraclius then asked for the letter addressed by Allah’s Apostle
    which was delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows: “In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah’s Statement:)
    ‘O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).’ (Qur’an, Surah 3:64).
    Abu Sufyan then added, “When Heraclius had finished his speech and had read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha) (the Prophet (ﷺ) Muhammad) has become so prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of him. Then I started to become sure that he (the Prophet) would be the conqueror in the near future till I embraced Islam (i.e. Allah guided me to it).”

    Sahih Al Bukhari 1, 7
    or 1:1:6

    Notice that Abu Sufyan and his group “we were turned out of the court” – the Byzantines did NOT kill them, but told them to leave.

    https://sunnah.com/bukhari/1/7

    Like

    • Heraclius replied :
      “If what you have said is true, he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet and I knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you, and if I could reach him definitely, I would go immediately to meet him and if I were with him, I would certainly wash his feet.”

      Have you thought about that , Ken?

      Like

    • That is in a different Hadith narrative than the one I gave. I found it. No, I had not thought about that before; and I don’t know what to think about it, since it just may not even be true. There is no way to know; but how can that be true, when history tells us that Heraclius fought against Omar and Khalid, etc. – it does not make sense and is a contradiction. (the part about reaching him and washing his feet). the other part just seems to be an anachronistic (after the fact) (the part about “he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet and I knew it (from the scriptures)” – seems like a claim of prophecy fulfilled. But written after the events took place.
      https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/153

      Like

    • No, it’s the same hadith in the first link you posted. That statement said by Heraclius is found in both links.

      “but how can that be true”
      Well…we can know. It’s not your bible you don’t know the men who wrote it.
      Bukhari and Muslim both narrated this narrative with golden chain.
      I can give you the names of those men who narrated this story layer by layer and who they were( their status) till the companion of the prophetﷺ Ibn Abbas(ra). 5 teachers of Bukhari & Muslim narrated this story.

      “history tells us that Heraclius fought against Omar and Khalid, etc. – it does not make sense and is a contradiction.”
      No it’s not a contradiction:) Finish reading hadith to know why. It seems that you don’t how humans might think sometimes though you’re a missionary yourself! You should have experience by now!
      The reason is the love for this world
      “That is because they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” QT

      “but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.” Mark.

      “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
      For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” Matthew.

      Richard wrote this statement in this blog
      “While the classical liberal in me is uncomfortable with elements of Shariah, in light of the OT I think Christians need to be nuanced in interacting with it, or critiquing it if they wish to do so.”
      This is the reason why most christians in the west reject the true message of Islam.
      However, they have forgotten what Jesus said
      “For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
      For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few”
      Choose for yourself, Ken!
      As a result, there’s no any contradictory by any meaning!

      Finally,the point is not about the prophecy fulfilled though it’s a good point rather it’s about the Heraclius’ knowledge about the prophetﷺ. That prophecy has been told by him not muslims!
      What was that knowledge that Heraclius had that christians don’t have today. That knowledge of scriptures by Heraclius led him to this conclusion;
      “I knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you”

      Why? Why did he say that? Didn’t he know that Jesus had fulfilled all things and no prophet after him? Why did he know that a true prophet would appear after Jesus?

      Like

    • Muslim writers, about 200 years later, put those words into the mouth of Heraclius. (Like Bart Ehrman, John D. Crossan, and Paul Williams says about the Gospel of John)

      Like

    • Enter by the narrow gate – that is our Scripture – Matthew 7:13-14
      Yes, there is only one way to God, through Jesus Christ, in repentance from sin (Mark 1:15; Luke 5:32; Acts 17:30-31) and faith in all who Christ (Al Masih) is in the NT and His atonement (eternal sacrifice) and resurrection from the dead.
      John 14:6 – Jesus said “I am THE Way . . . ”
      Acts 4:12 – there is only one name by which we must be saved
      John 3:18 – human beings are condemned already, must trust in Jesus Al Masih

      Like

    • We don’t know the one who wrote John. He did not name the men who heard these saying of Jesus,
      so according to Hadith standard science even if we found a manuscript for John’s gospel identical to the gospel of John as we you have today, it would be still unreliable since we don’t know who wrote that gospel. Imagine what scholars of hadith would say about that gospel with the disappointing reality status of it
      Bukhari and Muslim both named their teachers.

      “put those words into the mouth of Heraclius”
      Unless you want to be skeptical , I see no reason to have this reason because Bukhari and Muslim didn’t have to put those words into the mouth of Heraclius. Also, why would 5 teachers well known(scholars) of Bukhari and Muslim do that as well?
      Read what Abu Sufyan said in the same hadith even before he converted to Islam
      “By Allah! Had it not been shameful that my companions label me a liar, I would not have spoken the truth about him(i.e the prophet) when he asked me.”

      I just want you to reflect in that statement of Heraclius, especially if we know that Ashama Ibn Abjar, the christian king of Abyssinia did believe in the prophet ﷺand his message.

      What did those christians know that christians of today don’t know?

      Like

    • Warqa Ibn Naufal also claimed to be a Christian, but obviously if he encouraged Muhammad that he was getting revelation from the Naumos ( Law ) ( ?) (Muslims interpret that to mean Gabriel), but the word means “law” (Namus, “namos” = νομος -Greek, etc.)

      رَأَى فَقَالَ وَرَقَةُ هَذَا النَّامُوسُ الَّذِي أُنْزِلَ عَلَى مُوسَى،

      https://sunnah.com/bukhari/91/1

      “O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew.” Waraqa asked, “O my nephew! What have you seen?” The Prophet (ﷺ) described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, “This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses.”

      the word “Gabriel” is not there. Seems to be confusion in Islamic sources. Waraqa seems to say that the law was given like the law was given to Moses.

      But a Christian should have known that revelation ceased with the NT. (Jude 3 – “the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints”)

      Most sources say Waraqa was a Nestorian; but modern Muslims sources claim he was an Ebionite. They are very different groups. He was confused and untaught.

      Like

    • Yes we do know who wrote the gospel of John – the apostle and eyewitness and disciple of Jesus, John, son of Zebedee, brother of James (they are mentioned a lot in the gospels)

      Like

    • According to Islamic sources, that Abbysian king was just agreeing with some of what he heard from Surah Maryam – the virgin birth, sinlessness of Jesus (19:19), etc. If they had read Surah 4:157 (was it even revealed yet?) if he was a true Christian, he would have rejected that.
      Also, coins have been found from that King/era that shows 3 crosses – that they believed in the historical reality of what the gospels and history tells us – Jesus was crucified and died between two thieves / criminals/robbers/revolutionaries.

      Like

    • What you said is just a circular reasoning.
      The word Namoos lexiconically comes from (N- M-S). To tell some one good things . The opposite form it is Jasoos from (J -S -S). which is the one who spies for bad things or the one who tells you bad things.
      However, it’s really an interesting point you made from Greek language. I just know that.
      It seems many christians were waiting for a true coming prophet who is gonna be like Moses a prophet with a law.

      “But a Christian should have known that revelation ceased with the NT. (Jude 3 – “the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints”
      It’s so circular! Who wrote that statement? Who are the saints? The word (orthodox) has no meaning in christian history. All the NT scholars know that.

      Like

    • Jude the half-brother of Jesus and brother of James, who also wrote the letter of James.

      Yes to some points – Jasoos جاسوس means “spy” – we have that also in Farsi.
      🙂

      Like

    • The saints are the Christians in the first century. Most every book/ letter of the NT is written to the saints in the churches. See the first verses of each NT letter.

      Like

    • “Yes we do know who wrote the gospel of John – the apostle and eyewitness and disciple of Jesus, John, son of Zebedee, brother of James (they are mentioned a lot in the gospels)”
      🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve given you an advice to look to the history from another point of view, especially that you cannot apparently give any reason except a circular one. It’s your choice.

      However, I have a question just popped into my head;
      With the fact that you believe in a prophet who considered the eyewitnesses as “nothing”, and he claimed proudly that he got his knowledge from the heavenly Jesus, can a christian heve the same experience and why?

      Like

    • “According to Islamic sources, that Abbysian king was just agreeing with some of what he heard from Surah Maryam”
      He believed that Jesus is just a creature and a prophet from Allah(sw). He believed that a true prophet
      must come after Jesus.
      Asmaha didn’t call to for an Islamic state, but he remained a faithful muslim. That why the prophet pbuh prayed for him when the news reached the prophet pbuh that Asmaha died in Sahih Bukhari.

      Moreover, If you have the earthly sources, then we have the revelation from heaven that Jesus didn’t get crucified. Jesus was crying for his God to be saved.
      That incident was not really matter except for you since you have evolved a pagan belief around it.

      Like

    • He believed that Jesus is just a creature and a prophet from Allah(sw). He believed that a true prophet
      must come after Jesus.

      Then he was not a Christian.

      “Truly truly I say to you unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24
      “I am” – Yahweh
      Isaiah 43:10
      Exodus 3:14

      John 8:56-58
      John 10:27-30
      John 18:1-6
      John 13:19

      Like

    • I’ve given you an advice to look to the history from another point of view, especially that you cannot apparently give any reason except a circular one. It’s your choice.

      May you answer this question?
      With the fact that you believe in a prophet who considered the eyewitnesses as “nothing”, and he claimed proudly that he got his knowledge from the heavenly Jesus, can a christian have the same experience and why?

      Like

    • If you read all of Galatians chapters 1 and 2 in context, you would see that you are wrong about your statements above.

      Galatians 1:16 – “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood . . . ”

      Galatians 2:2 – “I submitted to them (the disciples who were with Jesus for 3 years, Peter, John, James, Jesus’ half-brother, etc. ) the gospel which I preach . . . ”

      But later, the apostle Paul proved that his revelation really was real revelation from Jesus Himself, and then he confirmed it with visiting with the disciples and they agreed completely – Galatians 1:16-19
      Galatians 1:23-24 – he was now preaching the same faith he was formerly trying to destroy. They agreed with him.

      Galatians 2:7-9 – complete unity with the other 11 disciples and James, the half-brother of Jesus.
      Acts 15 – total agreement with Peter and James and the rest of the apostles and disciples and elders.

      Like

    • no one can have that experience after 100 AD, after Jude and Revelation were written and the last apostle, the apostle John, died. (around 100 AD)

      “the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints” Jude 3

      Like

    • Why? I’m not sure if Jude 1:3 has to do with 100 AD notion!
      Saints? Your prophet Paul was warning people from Super saints and angels even!
      It seems that your prophet Paul did violate Jude 3.

      Like

    • “the faith delivered once for all time” shows revelation ended with this era, whether Jude or Revelation was written last, after the last apostle of Jesus died (John around 100 AD), revelation ceased. No more after that. Paul was before from 36 AD to 67 AD, writing around 49 AD to 67 AD. (Galatians to 2 Timothy)

      Like

    • That verse doesn’t speak about (scriptures) for sure. Also, who said that Paul is a saint who can write scripture for others while in the same time he was warning people from accepting the gospel preached by the super saints?
      I tried to read Jude 1 in Arabic , and I didn’t find any notion about 100 AD. The irony is that the book of Jude quotes a lot from books which are not found in your biblical canon.

      Why can Paul claim that he got his knowledge from no body but from heavenly Jesus, but other christians cannot claim that?

      Like

    • “the faith delivered once for all time” conveys the idea that the doctrines of the faith was already delivered and in existence; implying that the books were finished; whether Revelation or Jude was the last one.

      Like

    • Jesus said that the Father revealed the truth that Jesus is the Son of God – to Peter’s heart without human agency.
      Matthew 16:13-18

      Like

    • ” delivered once for all time”
      Do you imply that christians in the 1st century had a biblical canon?
      You must be kidding? right?

      Like

    • yes, all 27 books were written by 96 ad; they were individual scrolls sent to different areas. that it took a while for all the churches to get all the 27 books under one “book cover” is not a problem. Irenaeus and Tertullian around 180-200 listed most all the books; and no one wrote much before them. “Canon” Greek: κανων = criterion, standard, from Hebrew Qaneh קאה = “reed”, “measuring stick”, “rule” (related cognate to the Arabic word, Qanoon قانون (law). It is was inspired/God-breathed, then automatically, it was “Canon” by God’s authority of the nature of the books; and then later discovered, discerned, affirmed and sifted by the early church until everyone was in agreement.

      Like

    • there was no such thing as a book in existence in those days. A codex (sheets made flat and tied together) started in later 2 to 3rd century and it was Christians who made it popular, which developed into the way we bind books today.

      Like

    • A Good book to read on the issue:

      Like

  18. Ibn Issam wrote:
    The simple point is that an inconsistent methodology will eventually lead Christians away from Christianity when they start studying their own religion with intellectually honesty. When one removes the double standards that Christians apply to all other religions, the Christian falsehood is exposed.

    But it is not inconsistent since I fully answered the issues of Joshua 6 and I Sam. 15 above, in light of progressive revelation and progression from OT Theocratic Israel to NT church, love, evangelism and that Jesus took the kingdom of God away from political Israel.

    Again, which no one has refuted:

    Joshua 6:20-21 and I Samuel 15 were under the authority of that day of Theocratic Israel to establish the government and justice of Israel in the promised land. It did not apply to any one outside of the promised land. God also was patient with the pagan Canaanite tribes for over 400 years. (see Genesis 15:13-18 – “for the iniquity (sin) of the Amorite is not yet complete”. Israel was under those commands “until the iniquity of the Amorites is complete”. The Amorites were one of those Canaanite pagan tribes, that had sexual perversions and homosexuality in their own rituals of their gross religious ceremonies. Sodom and Gomorrah were Canaanite cities that God judged for their homosexuality – Genesis 19.)

    Jesus took the authority of the Theocratic kingdom away from Israel.
    Matthew 21:33-46

    see especially verses 43-45

    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.

    The flow of the OT to the NT is “Theocracy in OT to Love your enemies, church, and freedom of religion principles”. Both the Anabaptists and the Baptists were the first groups to object to the unity of church and state, not the secular enlightenment movement later.

    Jesus said, “love your enemies” – Matthew 5:43-48

    The flow of Islam and the Qur’an is Meccan persecution period to all out war in Surah 9:29 and 8:39 and 9:5 against the pagans and people of the book to subjugate them in war and apply Dhimmi principles to the people of the book. Under Omar it is obvious that the Umma of that day took all theses verses and Hadith passages as commands to first conquer by aggressive war and apply Dhimmi principles and then after they established Sharia (law), then many of the Dhimmis became Muslims slowly over the centuries because they were oppressed by the Jiziye and Dhimmi principles.
    Whereas in Islam, Islam actually skipped the NT truth and went back to the principles of Theocratic OT Israel and claimed it for itself in the Umma and Khalipha and Sharia.

    The NT principles also allow for just war and police action agains criminals and the death penalty for first degree murder – most Christians would agree with that today – Romans 13:1-8; Genesis 9:5-6; Ecclesiastes 8:11.

    The great difference is still Christians do not do Joshua 6:20-21 or 1 Sam. 15 today; but SOME Muslims ( Al Qaeda and ISIS, etc.) are actually doing their evil actions based on the Qur’an, Sunna, Sira, Hadith, Tafsirs, Tarikh, Fiq, Sharia, etc.

    Like

    • “The great difference is still Christians do not do Joshua 6”
      Except that Jesus told your president to invade Iraq and to kill its people.
      It’s really a great difference!

      Like

    • Jesus did not tell him that. Bush mistakenly thought whatever feeling he had was guidance and/or peace or wisdom, but it is a false claim. But even so, the justice against Saddam Hussein and his army was not against the people of Iraq, it was against the evil regime and generals, etc. (although not wise and many mistakes were made, etc.) The people were rejoicing and destroying statues of Saddam and hitting his face with the bottom of their shoes, etc.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      Justice? Ariel Sharon committed massacre and was declared wanted by the British but he wined and dined with Bush. Netanyahu commanded the killing of children in UN marked compound for children but the US congress gave Netanyahu standing ovation several times no president of the US has ever had. Your evangelical Christian filled congress and senate have double standards when it comes to justice.

      Bush mistakenly thought Jesus guided him? Nabeel Quraish also mistakenly thought Jesus guided him since we can know peoples thought and how mistake they are.

      Christians are doing Joshua by helping Israel to kill children in UN marked compound for children because of a verse in the Bible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well ..Ken, your opinion doesn’t really matter. White christians have been and still the most violent people on this world. You have no right to say a word about this matter. Remember, you’re sitting now in your house based on the skulls of indigenous people who had lived in that land before you.
      You provide the fuel to your economy by injustice wars as always you have been doing that.
      If you really think that Jesus told your president to invade Iraq to establish justice, then you really need to find your brain in your head. We know why white christians launch injustice wars. It’s the spirit of Romans. In fact, in most hadiths Romans & christians are synonymous words because the west/ christianity is the legitimate son for that pagan heritage.
      Your fallacies that your bible has nothing to do with violent done by christians is really nothing but lies.
      I’m telling you from now, once your economy gets shaken, you will hear Jesus tell you to invade Islamic nations in the Middle East. The prophet pbuh told us that 1400 years ago, and that why the final battle between christians who “love”t heir enemy and muslims will be in Syria not in the west. You are the ones who will attack first.
      In sum, neither your history nor your present support your fallacies, Ken rather they are screaming how wrong you are.


      You have no right to criticize the noble concept of Jihad in Islam based on some ignorant individuals’ act.
      I’ve asked you why you consider what happened in NY as “Jihad”? You’ve not answered.

      Like

    • Mongolian invasions and stacking up skulls was not a “white man’s war” – Timor Lang, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, etc.

      Like

    • “Mongolian invasions and stacking up skulls”
      Well… you have to thank the doctrine of Jihad which stopped that invasion otherwise it would have reached to Europe.

      Like

  19. They claim it for themselves as “Jihad” (striving against the west, putting forth effort to “cast terror into their hearts” – like the Hadith I quoted that you said was great.) “They” = the Uzbek guy with ISIS, and similar things by Al Qaedah, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Taliban, etc. – it is their view.

    Like

  20. All human beings are sinfully violent.

    The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
    Genesis 6:5;

    Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
    Genesis 6:11-12

    Your cherry picked chart does not include all the wars that Muslims started beginning with Omar and the Mongols and China and other Asian history of wars and does not include all the tribal wars of African tribes long before any white European went there. It is a skewed bias and lie to say that “all wars are from the white people”, etc.

    Japan joined Hitler in WW 2 and Japan aggressively conquered Manchuria and Korea and a lot of ancient history there also.

    There are lots of wars between humans that we don’t even have records of.

    Jesus said the roots of sinful behavior is from the sinful thoughts in the heart:

    Jesus went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
    Mark 7:20-23

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      You forgot to add anger. Jesus anger(sinful behavior) to violently destroy tables strip him of his sinless.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Jesus’ anger there was righteous and good anger against evil.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      November 4, 2017 • 3:36 pm
      Jesus’ anger there was righteous and good anger against evil.

      I say;
      So you now admit there is righteousness and not sinfulness alone? We follow Jesus and we use our righteousness to fight sinfulness like how Jesus did. Humans were born with righteousness or righteous nature.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Only Jesus was sinless and totally righteous.

      Al Qaeda and Isis and Taliban and Hamas and Al Shabab and Boko Haram are evil to the core.

      Like

    • If you can turn Jesus’s anger to righteousness, then we can also turn our anger to righteousness by not allowing our anger to proceed. Jesus allowed his anger to proceed, so it is sinfulness.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • no, even the Qur’an agrees that Jesus Al Masih was sin-less – Surah Maryam 19:19; and the Bible teaches clearly that Jesus is sinless. John 8:46-48; 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26-27

      Like

  21. I have said SOME Muslims are taking those passages from Qur’an, Ahadith, Tafsirs, Sira, Fiq, Tarikh, etc. and doing violence and evil terrorism in this world. Those that approve of it – if it is 10 % – that is still a lot of people and a big problem.

    The west admits its mistakes and sins of the past (against Native American Indians, African slavery, Crusades, Spanish Inquistion, etc.) but Islam does not seem to admit its own sins and mistakes. Everything is blame it on the USA and Zionists and Jews, etc. (or the British, etc.)

    Like Adam blaming Eve for his own sin; and Eve blaming the serpent (the devil) for her sin.
    It is a human sinful tendency to blame someone else for one’s own sin.

    But the Bible teaches you to face up to your own sin and sinfulness in your heart and repent and turn to Christ, who is the only one who can save you from that selfishness, pride and arrogance, Narcissism, jealousy, blaming others, victim mentality, self-pity, etc.

    Like

    • Ken Temple
      November 4, 2017 • 3:30 pm
      Crusades were a response (although very late) to the Arab unjust wars of Omar and they continued under the Caliphs and the Seljuk Turks continued invading and attacking and then the Ottoman Turks continued that after the Crusades.

      I say;
      Christian violence started way back before Crusaders. The Arians and Ebionites were persecuted by other Christians for not believing in Trinity. When Calving was ordering the killing of Michael, he did not do it because Muslims attacked. When Europe was under the cruel and hash Christian laws, no Muslim invaded them. When Christians were killing Catholics, Mormons, Jews, blacks, native Indians in the USA, no Muslim attack them. To blame Christian atrocities to Muslims is childish my dear Reverend.

      Christians atrocities were stopped by uprising against their injustice;

      Proof:

      “Along with the religious consequences of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation came deep and lasting political changes. Northern Europe’s new religious and political freedoms came at a great cost, with decades of rebellions, wars and bloody persecutions. The Thirty Years’ War alone may have cost Germany 40 percent of its population.”

      Source: http://www.history.com/topics/reformation

      And Muslims to some extent stopped them(Christians) from exterminating Jews and other Christians.

      Proof:
      This Jews learn their history from their ancestors passed down to them and not what an evangelical Christian of the USA said.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • I never justify the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition or the wrong aspects of the Crusades.

      Like

    • Jumping all over the place from Arians and Ebionites (they were not wars, etc. the Ebionites just died out; Arius was exiled as a heretic. – using them is a stupid example)
      Then you jump from that to Calvin and Servetus (who had fled Roman Catholic areas where he was going to be executed for spreading heresy, etc.)
      then
      you jump to the Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition to the Ottoman Empire.

      non sequiters.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      November 4, 2017 • 3:25 pm
      I have said SOME Muslims are taking those passages from Qur’an, Ahadith, Tafsirs, Sira, Fiq, Tarikh, etc. and doing violence and evil terrorism in this world. Those that approve of it – if it is 10 % – that is still a lot of people and a big problem.

      I say;
      Some Christians take this;

      —–
      Luke 19:27
      New International Version
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
      ——

      and many other verses from the Bible, inspiration from Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, White Supremacists, Hitler etc. to kill. Those that approve of it-if it is 50% is more than a lot. That is why they voted for Donald Trump to bring their segregation, hatred, divisiveness etc. to the world as they keep doing to the world.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • you are a nut-ball in how you connect everything back to Hitler and Donald Trump again.
      not logical nor reasonable.
      Not “intellect” – ual at all. 🙂
      Goofy.

      Like

    • “In order then that we may preserve our composure in the midst of troubles, Christ informs us that he will return, and that at his coming he will punish wicked rebellion.”

      Calvin’s commentary on Luke 19:27
      = about the second coming of Jesus and judgement day.

      nothing to do with the punishment on the heretic Servetus.

      Like

  22. Crusades were a response (although very late) to the Arab unjust wars of Omar and they continued under the Caliphs and the Seljuk Turks continued invading and attacking and then the Ottoman Turks continued that after the Crusades.

    The Vietnam war was a response to the Communist / Marxist Vietnamese who started the war.
    The Korean War was a response to the Communist / Marxist Koreans (now North Korea) – Asian wars started by Asians – not a white man’s war. They were influenced by China and Chairman Mow.

    “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mow, you ain’t gunna make it with anyone anyhow. . . ”

    So they are not all “white man’s wars”.

    Like

    • Ken Temple
      November 4, 2017 • 4:01 pm
      I never justify the Roman Catholic Spanish Inquisition or the wrong aspects of the Crusades.

      I say;
      I don’t care about your justification. Keep it to yourself. We are talking about Christian atrocities using the Bible and Jesus’s saying here.

      Do you justify Christian protestants killing Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Blacks, Native Indians etc. in the USA and now voting for a womanizer(Trump) to use him to do their dirty job for them by banning Muslims, Latinos, blacks and allow only Christians to migrate to the USA as per the first ban?

      You keep blaming the Catholics but you persecuted and killed the Catholics in USA. The Jews flourished under Muslim rule. Any Jew will tell you that. The Christian USA did not allow ship load of Jews fleeing persecution by Christians of Europe to enter USA. The ship was returned to Europe and most Jews in that ship ended up dying in the holocaust. Where was the Christians to save them?

      It was a Muslim ruler who chartered ship to go to Europe to evacuate all the Jews to Muslim lands.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • The temporary ban on 6 countries is NOT a “Muslim ban” – since it does not include Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslims in India (over 10 Million), Egypt, etc.

      It only includes areas where there is chaos and ISIS type stuff and Yemen civil war (Al Qaedah is prominent there) where they cannot vet people and find out their ideology and background.

      No Evangelical Christian agrees with Trump’s womanizing.

      No Evangelical Christian agrees with “white supremacy” (a small group of stupid people)

      Like

  23. Again, which no one has refuted my original refutation of Paul Williams original post on this thread:

    Joshua 6:20-21 and I Samuel 15 were under the authority of that day of Theocratic Israel to establish the government and justice of Israel in the promised land. It did not apply to any one outside of the promised land. God also was patient with the pagan Canaanite tribes for over 400 years. (see Genesis 15:13-18 – “for the iniquity (sin) of the Amorite is not yet complete”. Israel was under those commands “until the iniquity of the Amorites is complete”. The Amorites were one of those Canaanite pagan tribes, that had sexual perversions and homosexuality in their own rituals of their gross religious ceremonies. Sodom and Gomorrah were Canaanite cities that God judged for their homosexuality – Genesis 19.)

    Jesus took the authority of the Theocratic kingdom away from Israel.
    Matthew 21:33-46

    see especially verses 43-45

    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.

    The flow of the OT to the NT is “Theocracy in OT to Love your enemies, church, and freedom of religion principles”. Both the Anabaptists and the Baptists were the first groups to object to the unity of church and state, not the secular enlightenment movement later.

    Jesus said, “love your enemies” – Matthew 5:43-48

    The flow of Islam and the Qur’an is Meccan persecution period to all out war in Surah 9:29 and 8:39 and 9:5 against the pagans and people of the book to subjugate them in war and apply Dhimmi principles to the people of the book. Under Omar it is obvious that the Umma of that day took all theses verses and Hadith passages as commands to first conquer by aggressive war and apply Dhimmi principles and then after they established Sharia (law), then many of the Dhimmis became Muslims slowly over the centuries because they were oppressed by the Jiziye and Dhimmi principles.
    Whereas in Islam, Islam actually skipped the NT truth and went back to the principles of Theocratic OT Israel and claimed it for itself in the Umma and Khalipha and Sharia.

    The NT principles also allow for just war and police action agains criminals and the death penalty for first degree murder – most Christians would agree with that today – Romans 13:1-8; Genesis 9:5-6; Ecclesiastes 8:11.

    The great difference is still Christians do not do Joshua 6:20-21 or 1 Sam. 15 today; but SOME Muslims ( Al Qaeda and ISIS, etc.) are actually doing their evil actions based on the Qur’an, Sunna, Sira, Hadith, Tafsirs, Tarikh, Fiq, Sharia, etc.

    Like

    • Christians were forced to stop their atrocities by defeating them. They still do it today by war on Muslim lands to spread their religion. Yes, the Christians to Joshua today. Doing it in those days is equally sin as it is today. It is only individual Muslim terrorists or group that engage in terrorism but Christians have individuals and government influence by voting to Trump to do Joshua 6:20 and also supporting Israel to do Joshua 6:20 to Palestinian children.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Nope; no Christian does Joshua 6:20.

      Why do you keep mentioning Trump? He has nothing to do with these subjects at all.

      Like

  24. LOL, Selea! Are you really playing this game? I see you didn’t answer my question about what university you got your “MD” in classical anthropology. Hmmm…

    “Which “scholarly consensus” are you talking about? You have no minimal clue of what you are talking about.

    וְעַתִּיק יוֹמִין – watiq yomin – it is a classic Hebrew idiom meaning “one from eternity”, hence representing God. It has absolutely nothing to do with an “old man” and, as always, you have no clue of what you are saying.

    Do you know what the Donner-Kruger effect is. “Research” on Google about it (you seem to be pretty good at it while you accuse others to do the same – even here a typical psychological behavior, assuming that others are doing what YOU are doing)

    P.S: Don’t let me push you on telling me something about Canaanite myths, you would not like it as you know absolutely nothing about them. I know it, you know it, stop the facade if for even once in your life if you can. You aren’t harming nobody but yourself with your perennial pantomimes (as not listening, double standards, pretending to be an expert in fields you know nothing about etc.). Try to have some humility for a change.”

    LOL, well I guess you are playing this game! You are obviously a nitwit who thinks he knows everything and needs to educate others. Save your time. I have already done the requisite research and I have come to the conclusion that “Yahweh” is a composite of older myths. No scholar of repute denies this. I suggest you read Jason Bembry’s book “Yahweh’s Coming of Age”. It provides a scholarly discussion of the imagery in Daniel 7. Here are some interesting excerpts:

    “I will demonstrate how the relationship between the “one like a son of man” and the “Ancient of Days” mirrors the relationship between Baal and El as portrayed in Ugaritic narrative poetry” (p. 107).

    Hmm, now isn’t that interesting!

    “We first encounter the “Ancient of Days” in Dan 7:9, when Daniel sees this figure in his night dream. The Aramaic construct chain is ʿattîq yômîn, in which the nomen rectum is the Aramaic reflex of the Hebrew yāmîm ‘days’, and the nomen regens is an adjectival form of the verb ʿtq ‘to advance’. […] While ‘Advanced of Days’ is more precise, the usual English rendering, ‘Ancient of Days’, captures the sentiment” (p. 109).

    So Selea the pseudoscholar gets exposed yet again!

    “In addition to the senescent epithet in Daniel 7, a second important phrase is kaʿămar nĕqēʾ (v. 9). This describes the hair of the Ancient of Days and is rendered in the rsv ‘like pure wool’. […] Whether the word is a noun meaning ‘lamb’ rather than an adjective, whether ‘pure’ or ‘white’, the focus of the metaphor is captured by the Greek papyrus’s rendering ‘pure white’, which denotes, as does the comparison to lamb’s wool, the hair of the deity portrayed as an old man” (pp. 109-110).

    “Most scholars agree that the portrait of the Ancient of Days has its antecedents in Canaanite mythology, such as the portrayal of El at Ugarit, along with data preserved in the work of Eusebius. Despite this consensus, however, not all are so convinced. Arthur Ferch argues that there are too many differences between the Ugaritic texts and Daniel 7 to permit a connection.45 Ferch assumes that the details of every deity involved in the supposed connection must be present to demonstrate continuity between both traditions. Surely, however, an author can borrow mythological motifs without appropriating every feature of a particular deity” (p. 113).

    WOW!! So Selea is is the one who has no idea what he talking about! Ouch!!

    “I am suggesting that the source of Yahweh’s old-age attributes in Daniel 7 is the depiction of El as attested in the texts from Ugarit. Before I make my case for this grounding of the imagery, it will be necessary to explain why other suggested external influences are less likely” (p. 115).

    I think we can stop here. Selea’s lies and nonsense have been thoroughly exposed. The scholarly consensus is that the imagery of Daniel 7 draws heavily upon Canaanite myths. What was that you said? Oh yeah…try and have some humility for a change. Get over yourself. You are a loser and a liar for your religion.

    Like

  25. Selea the genocide defender still cannot understand why no one is taking him seriously. He still thinks that appealing to a stupid myth about angels and humans getting it on somehow makes the killing of children on the orders of his god better. I think you need medical attention, Selea. It’s not normal to justify killing babies in any situation, let alone justify it by appealing to a childish myth.

    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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: