Your IP address is 188.8.131.52
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'IBelieveInGod%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_result: Resource id #6
|Date: 2010/11/04 17:16:12, Link|
|Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”|
|Date: 2010/11/04 17:42:12, Link|
Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?
I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)
|Date: 2010/11/04 17:49:53, Link|
It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics?
|Date: 2010/11/04 17:58:03, Link|
Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)
You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.
|Date: 2010/11/04 18:02:05, Link|
How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?
|Date: 2010/11/04 18:07:36, Link|
Are there any square circles?:)
|Date: 2010/11/04 18:21:18, Link|
I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.
Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?
|Date: 2010/11/04 18:45:45, Link|
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes? Absolute Certainty?
|Date: 2010/11/05 03:45:02, Link|
Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.
The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.
Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!
|Date: 2010/11/05 03:49:01, Link|
Is it over your head?
|Date: 2010/11/05 08:42:58, Link|
Here is the difference:
You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:
Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)
1 The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.
Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
|Date: 2010/11/05 09:12:37, Link|
It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, “The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.”
I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
|Date: 2010/11/05 09:43:40, Link|
I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
|Date: 2010/11/06 07:29:30, Link|
|I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.|
|Date: 2010/12/22 11:35:11, Link|
And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.
Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form? This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.
You are not unique.
It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'. They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.
Batteries are designed, it's true. However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed. That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)
In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen. If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions. If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen. If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.
It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way. Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).
As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?
Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis. Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.
I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.
Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders. You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?[/quote]
Don't tell me that scientists are attempting to replicate the conditions of ancient earth and are watching for Abiogenesis to occur, so they are going to wait a billion years for it to happen? If you think that what is done in a lab isn't designed then let me ask you this. Who decides what the chemical makeup and conditions ie. temperatures, if electricity is used, etc... of these Abiogenesis experiments? Intelligent Life does right? No one knows what the actual conditions, temperatures, etc... were on earth at the moment Abigenesis supposedly occurred.
|Date: 2010/12/27 18:39:39, Link|
These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know.
|Date: 2010/12/27 18:56:18, Link|
I'm in a giving spirit, so I will post the questions again here to make it easier for you:
How did bacteria evolve? Please provide evidence that it evolved that way, and not your usual speculation!
What did bacteria evolve from? Again provide actual evidence and not conjecture or speculation!
How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? Provide actual observational evidence to support your claim, and include a link showing the life form it evolved into.
When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition? Please provide actual evidence and not speculation!
How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste? This one is a tough one, but it would be necessary for life to have evolve from a common ancestor. Again provide evidence!
Science it about evidence, and if you don't have observational, testable evidence then you have nothing be speculation, conjecture, presuppositions, etc...
You keep playing little games, so that you don't really have to answer these questions, but it won't work. If you can't answer these questions and provide real evidence and not conjecture, speculation, or presuppositions, then you have nothing.
|Date: 2010/12/27 19:01:21, Link|
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!
|Date: 2010/12/27 21:09:34, Link|
Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.
|Date: 2010/12/27 21:18:09, Link|
Let me say it again. An assumption is not EVIDENCE!!!
|Date: 2010/12/27 21:25:19, Link|
|You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:)|
|Date: 2011/01/04 12:08:46, Link|
Why do I pray?
To communicate with my Heavenly Father.
God wants a relationship with us, He doesn't want to just be an idol to be worshipped, but a Heavenly Father to be loved. When you ask God to prove Himself without believing, then you are essentially saying I don't believe you, therefore prove yourself to me. It would be a form of mockery to do so.
Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
If you don't believe that God exists, then there is no point in asking Him for anything, because He will not answer.
I think you missed the point about Faith, Faith means more the knowing or believing that God exists or not. Faith is to put one's complete trust in God. I know that God exists, because of all the things He has done in my life, and my family and friends lives, but I still need to have Faith (inward conviction and trust) that God will answer when I call His name.
I pray for what many would consider impossible things all the time, and have seen great things happen in my life. I'm not going rehash them all again, because it's obvious that you wouldn't believe that they actually occurred, so there is not point to that exercise. Anyway God does answer many so-called impossible things all the time. As far as "God helps those who help themselves." Let me put it this way "If we do the possible, then God will do the impossible." The problem with many is that they won't do the possible, yet expect God to do the impossible.
Now let me address "Whatever you pray for will be done". Let me start by saying that God will not answer a prayer that is out of His will, goes against His Word, or that fulfills our sinful nature. Many prayers do just that, so we have to pray according to His Word, His Will, and prayers that do not fulfill the lusts of our sinful nature.
1 John 5:14-15 (New International Version)
14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.
Now about worship, many times prayers are actually answered during worship. Thanksgiving and Praise is how we enter into God's presence, and Worship is what we do while in His presence, therefore it would make sense that, once in His presence that prayers are more likely to be answered. The reason many pray without any answers, is because they have essentially turned God into an idol in there own hearts. God wants to be real to you, and wants you to come to Him believing, that He is who He says He is, and that He is able to answer your needs according to His riches in Glory.
My Grandmother was healed of Rheumatoid Arthritis, but I'm sure you would have an explanation other then a miracle anyway i.e. that it just went into remission by itself, so what is the point. Even if God performed a miracle in front of your eyes, you would still be skeptical that God did it, there would always be some other possibility other than God did it.
It's obvious to me that you never went to a Church that truly "Worshipped God In Spirit And In Truth", so IMO God was never real to you. You never really entered into His presence, where God would be able to reveal Himself to you. IMO you were more or less an outside observer.[I][/I]
|Date: 2011/01/04 12:22:39, Link|
I've already done that on Panda's Thumb bathroom wall. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so it would be a wasted of my time to rehash all of that again.
|Date: 2011/01/04 14:56:34, Link|
Their is a difference from believing that God exists, and having Faith and full Trust in Him. God expects us to have Faith and full Trust in Him.
Read the scripture again.
Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version, ©2010)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.[B]
God does not feed off of belief, but it is impossible to please God if we don't believe Him. You seem to think that just believing that God exists is enough to please God, but that isn't the case. Read the last part of the verse I posted "and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." It's important that we have Faith in God, that He will provide, heal, deliver, and take care of us. That is what is meant, and not just to only believe that He exists, which is what you imply.
I could state that "I believe that coach Nick Saban exists," but that is much different then if I were to state, that "I believe that Nick Saban is a fabulous college football coach, and I have faith that He can coach His team to another national championship again in the future." There is a big difference between the two statements.
|Date: 2011/01/04 16:15:46, Link|
I do know that God exists, but you are confusing knowing God exists, with believing in God, trusting that He will take care of me, trusting that He will give me eternal life, trusting that He will heal me if I need it, trusting that He will provide for me. I don't know if you have a spouse or not, but what if you didn't trust anything about your spouse? What would your relationship be like? Would your spouse be pleased?
Jesus' disciples knew He existed, but did they believe He was truly the son of God? Peter did, and Jesus told him upon this rock I will build my church.
You seem to think that God should do things to get you to know that He exists before you believe, which would go against His very will. He wants you to come to Him by faith, and then He will reveal Himself to you. If you seek Him you will find Him, but if you don't seek Him will not find Him.
As far as praying for people, you seem to think that God should answer prayers for the strict purpose of proving His existence. Well He doesn't work that way. When we pray He knows the desires of our heart, and the reason for the prayer, He also uses trials and tribulations to work and build our patience.
God is not the one on trial, we are! We are the ones who have fallen short of the glory of God, and must be born again, and live a life of loving God with all our heart, mind, body and soul, and then to love our neighbor as ourselves.
I'm sorry that you can't see how simple it is to be a child of God, how wonderful it is, and how blessed it is.
|Date: 2011/01/05 18:37:41, Link|
You are a silly ignorant fool! I can say that because the Bible clearly says, "a fool says in his heart that there is no God."
You say that God either acts on perfect fore-knowledge or God does not act on perfect fore-knowledge.
What are you referring to? What perfect fore-knowledge are you referring to?
Every one of use have a free will, are you saying that it isn't your free will to be an atheist? You are an atheist by choice, and if you wanted you could be a follower of Christ right? So, are you saying that God makes you be an atheist? Don't you see how silly your argument is? God can intervene in your life, but He chooses not to so that you do have your free will to be a believer or not, and you chose to not be a believer by your own free will. So, your argument is stupid.
God can and has answered prayers for supposedly impossible situations, I told of the my friend Patty whom God healed of inoperable terminal lung cancer, she was sent home to die and given six months to live, and that was in 1979.
Where did I say that I don't believe the Bible is true?
I can pray for you to become a child of God, and I am praying that right now, but God will not make you become a Christian against your own free will. What you don't know though, is that He can, and will use situations, tragedies, etc... to get your attention, but ultimately you are the one who would have make the decision on your own. You may have to end up in the pig pin like the prodigal son, before you come to a realization that you want something more in life, and that you are tired of living off of the leftover slop of the pigs. You know nothing about how God works. You must really live in a awful state of depression, bitterness, anger, hate! I feel sorry for you, you have no Joy, you have no Peace, and you definitely have no Righteous.
|Date: 2011/01/05 19:29:05, Link|
Here is the problem with your argument, you can just as I type on this computer can become a follower of Christ. It is a choice that you have and will have until you die. Now if you state that God knew that you would be an atheist, then I would agree that He did foreknow, but you like I were born in a fallen earth, and God chooses not to intervene in our lives until we let Him, so is there still hope for you, yes there most certainly is! God created man, and did it so that man would have his own mind, his own free will.
Again you seem to think that God is on trial here, that He must heal diseases just to demonstrate to you and everyone on Panda's Thumb that He is real. God is sovereign, and He can do anything that He wants. You and I are the ones on trial not God. If I'm wrong then I did and go to dust, but if you are wrong then you go to Hell for all eternity.
I am praying that God will use whatever is necessary to bring you to repentance.
Now let me ask you this: you state that you can't hate something that doesn't exist. Tell me, do you have complete knowledge of everything in the universe? Do you have complete knowledge that there is anything beyond the universe? If so it is irrational for you to make such a statement.
I don't do anything out of fear, I serve a God who loves me and I do everything out of love for Him. The only fear I have is being separated from Him, I would never want to live a life separated from His presence. That would be complete and total despair and misery.
I do believe Matthew 17:20, maybe this will help:
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Note 2 at Mt 17:20: The disciples' unbelief in this instance was not a disbelief that God's power could produce deliverance (see note 1 at Lu 9:41), but rather, it was a "natural" kind of unbelief that came from hardened hearts (see note 10 at Mr 6:52) that were more sensitive to what they saw (Mr 9:20) than to what they believed.
Note 3 at Mt 17:20: Jesus did not say that the reason these disciples could not cast this demon out was because they didn't have faith but rather because they had unbelief. On the contrary, Jesus stated that a very small amount of faith (the size of a "mustard seed") was sufficient to remove a mountain if no unbelief was present to hinder it.
Most of us have the concept that we either have faith or unbelief but that we can't have both at the same time. However, Jesus told Jairus to "believe only" (Lu 8:50) implying that faith and fear can operate in us at the same time. This was also the reason James said not to be double-minded (Jas 1:5-8). We can be thinking faith yet having thoughts of unbelief at the same time.
As explained in note 1 at Mt 17:19, these disciples did have faith to cast this demon out, and they exercised that faith but didn't see the same results that they had seen before. This was why they were concerned and asked Jesus what the problem was. They wouldn't have asked if they had not believed. They did have faith, the same faith that had effected many other deliverances. The problem wasn't their faith but rather their unbelief.
Every believer has been given "the measure of faith," but unbelief negates it. It's like hooking a team of horses up to a heavy weight and having them pull it. The weight will move. But if an equal team of horses is hooked up to the same weight and pull in the opposite direction at the same time, although great force may be exerted, the weight won't move. Likewise, unbelief counterbalances our faith. If we will just remove the unbelief, a mustard-seed amount of faith will be sufficient to move our problems.
Instead of trying to build huge amounts of faith to overcome our fears and unbelief, a simpler method is to remove our fears by cutting off their source; then our simple, "child-like" faith that remains will do the job. It doesn't take big faith, just pure faith.
Those of us who tolerate high levels of unbelief in our lives will never be able to build our faith big enough to overcome unbelief's negative force. The only way we can receive is to get others to mix their faith with ours or draw on one of the supernatural ministry gifts in someone else, such as the gift of faith (1Co 12:9). God's best is for us to receive directly from Him. We will only be successful at that when we not only build our faith but also destroy our doubts.
From what you and others write on here, it is clear that you don't have Peace in your life, definitely no Joy, your life is full of bitterness, anger, and depression. You are living in the pig pin and don't even know it. I pray that one day that you will wake up and realize how lost you have been, and that you don't have to live a life of bitterness, anger and depression. You can live a life full of supernatural Joy, and Peace.
Romans 14:17 (King James Version)
17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Clearly I can see that you are far from the kingdom of God, because you have no righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
I pity you!!!
|Date: 2011/01/05 20:11:09, Link|
Clearly you don't know what repentance means! You evidently think it means to just ask forgiveness for something. Repentance means to choose to turn away from sin and to turn to God, which if you think you aren't in need repentance, then you must think that you are a Christian, or that you have turned to God. Very funny!!!
To Repent-"to Turn" or "Return":
The term shubh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man's turning away from sin to righteousness (Deuteronomy 4:30 Nehemiah 1:9 Psalm 7:12 Jeremiah 3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (Exodus 32:12 Joshua 7:26). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Psalm 85:4). When the term is translated by "return" it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (1 Samuel 7:3 Psalm 90:13 (both terms, nacham and shubh; Isaiah 21:12; Isaiah 55:7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by "repent" and "return" (Ezekiel 14:6 Hosea 12:6 Jonah 3:8).
Repent-"to Change the Mind":
The word metanoeo, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner's return to God. The term signifies "to have another mind," to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word "turn." Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Matthew 3:2 Mark 1:15 Acts 2:38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith (Acts 20:21), and as conversion (Acts 3:19); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission and forgiveness of sin (Luke 24:47 Acts 5:31). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God (Mark 1:4 Luke 3:3 Acts 13:24; Acts 19:4). As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (Matthew 3:8).
Repent-"to Turn Over," "to Turn Upon," "to Turn Unto":
The word epistrepho, is used to bring out more clearly the distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God (Acts 9:35 1 Thessalonians 1:9); to strengthen the idea of faith (Acts 11:21); and to complete and emphasize the change required by New Testament repentance (Acts 26:20).
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
I'm sorry that you have been let down by so many Christians, and if I have done anything I'm sorry, but I haven't lied. If I have spoken something that wasn't true then I didn't do it knowingly. I see bitterness in what you write, sure I don't know you, but I do read what you write.
|Date: 2011/01/06 05:08:01, Link|
Oh boy here comes the Hitler claims again!!! Okay let's discuss Hitler, it is claimed that He was a Christian, but was He really? Hitler believed in an "Aryan" Christ, which as you should know Christ was born as a Jew, a race hated by Hitler. Hitler was no more a Christian then you are! Many of our politicians over the years have claimed to be Christians to get ahead in politics, but I wouldn't consider them true Christians. Many have killed in the name of God, but that doesn't make them true followers of Christ, because if they had been true followers of Christ, wouldn't they would have kept His teachings. Hitler was a sick and evil man, and clearly there was no "fruit of the Spirit" in his life, the real sign for knowing whether someone is a Christian or not. The Bible says, "by their fruit you will know them".
Luke 6:27-36 (New International Version, ©2010)
27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Here is the fruit of the spirit, and the best way to know if someone is a Christian or not:
Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version, ©2010)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Now if you can prove to me that Hitler had the above fruit of the Spirit, then I will admit that He was a Christian. Good luck proving that!!!
Talk about revisionist history, you are really good at revising history aren't you? I'm not defending the crusades but didn't the Muslims slaughter the Jews and take over their holy land first without provocation? I believe the crusades were mostly in the beginning an attempt take back the holy land from the muslim captures right? So, do you defend the current attempt by the Palestinians to war against Israel, to destroy Israel to take back land? Isn't that the same? The crusades were sanctioned and mostly fought by the Roman Catholic Forces. They weren't fought by me or any of my Christian friends, and they were fought in the last 100 years either.
Let's look at how many were slaughtered or starved to death in Atheistic non Christian regimes.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49 to 78 million
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23 million
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5 million civilians
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1,600,000
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000
These are just in the last 100 years. I left out Hitler because you seem to think He was a Christian, but there are no such claims with any of the examples I give.
It's sad that you obviously haven't and don't understand the teachings of Christ, otherwise you would know that Jesus taught just the opposite what you claim that Christians do. True followers of Christ would hold to His teachings.
You really have no argument, and you can only attempt to revise history to support your point of view. Well history is as it is and can't be revised, and what I posted above proves that Atheistic, and Non Christian countries do commit evil atrocities. Atheistic countries are far more dangerous then religious countries, just look at how many were killed by Stalin, and Mao! Your argument is baseless, and has no foundation!!!
|Date: 2011/01/06 09:03:26, Link|
Very Funny Answer:):):):)
Clearly you know absolutely nothing about history, what a poor excuse for a scientist you are! I would have thought that you would have done more RESEARCH before posting such a wrong answer!
Where do I start? If Hitler only hated the Jews because they killed Jesus, then why did he hate the gypsies, blacks, and other races? Why did he hate and kill the mentally retarded and those with physical disabilities?
One of the foundations of Hitler's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, a French count; eugenics, a pseudo-science that advocated racial purity; and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were children with physical and developmental disabilities; those killings occurred in a programme dubbed Action T4. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings continued (see Nazi eugenics).
Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere. In addition to those gassed to death, many died as a result of starvation and disease while working as slave labourers (sometimes benefiting private German companies). Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles, Communists and political opponents, members of resistance groups, homosexuals, Roma, the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war (possibly as many as three million), Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed. One of the biggest centres of mass-killing was the industrial extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau. As far as is known, Hitler never visited the concentration camps and did not speak publicly about the killing in precise terms.
The Holocaust (the "Endlösung der jüdischen Frage" or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question") was planned and ordered by leading Nazis, with Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich playing key roles. While no specific order from Hitler authorizing the mass killing has surfaced, there is documentation showing that he approved the Einsatzgruppen killing squads that followed the German army through Poland and Russia, and that he was kept well informed about their activities. The evidence also suggests that in the fall of 1941 Himmler and Hitler decided upon mass extermination by gassing. During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers declassified over fifty years later, Hitler's valet Heinz Linge and his military aide Otto Gunsche said Hitler had "pored over the first blueprints of gas chambers." His private secretary, Traudl Junge, testified that Hitler knew all about the death camps.
Göring gave a written authorisation to Heydrich to "make all necessary preparations" for a "total solution of the Jewish question". To make for smoother cooperation in the implementation of this "Final Solution", the Wannsee conference was held on 20 January 1942, with fifteen senior officials participating (including Adolf Eichmann) and led by Reinhard Heydrich. The records of this meeting provide the clearest evidence of planning for the Holocaust. On 22 February, Hitler was recorded saying to his associates, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews".
Hitler and the Nazi party outlined in clear and unequivocal terms their racial enemies. Those races included Roma (Gypsies), Slavs, African Germans, and especially Jews. Like- wise, people with physical and mental disabilities, viewed as “hereditarily unfit” Germans, were deemed a biological threat to the health of the nation. As the Nazis framed it, the particular threat each so-called enemy posed to the collective whole was slightly different, but the essence was the same. Building on age-old prejudice and suspicion, Nazi rhetoric made a case for the segregation and exclusion of those whom they considered a danger to their racial purity.
In Hitler’s mind, no group was more dangerous and more threatening than the Jews. Because he defined them as a race, he argued that they were instinctively driven to increase their numbers and dominate others. At the same time, he insisted that their methods of expansion were fundamentally suspect. Because Hitler tied racial continuation to territo- rial acquisition, he believed the Jews, who had no land of their own, should not exist at all. In fact, he theorized that when the Romans expelled the Jewish people from Israel more than 2,000 years ago and scattered them across the empire in what has come to be called the Diaspora, the Jews should have begun a long decline, ending ultimately in extinction. So why did they continue to exist and even thrive? Hitler concluded that they must have adapted to their landless environment and cultivated traits—such as cunning, deviousness, and deceitfulness—that would ensure their survival. In so doing, their very existence in his view ran counter to nature and defied the intended course of human history. Specifically, Hitler believed that the Jews escaped extinction by migrating and attaching themselves to existing states or communities, always pushing their own interests and exploiting the native people whose territory they entered. According to Hitler, the Jewish nature was the opposite of the “Aryan” Germans’ nature. Whereas the Nazis prized racial hierarchies and purity of bloodlines, the Jews, in his view, sought race-mixing, assimila- tion, and equality; whereas the Germans valued national strength and loyalty, the Jews weakened states by cultivating international businesses and financial institutions that fostered interdependence among nations. Hitler presented Jews as parasites, who used devious means, such as financial profiteering, media control, and race-mixing, to weaken the “host” nation, dull its race-consciousness, and reduce its capacity to defend itself. He voiced his view in a speech in Nuremberg in January 1923: “The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any Platonic way, for the Jewish spirit is the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have Judaized our people within a very short time.”
Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was the first country in which the Jews had tri- umphed and that the Jews were using the Communist state to enslave the Slavic population. Like other Nazi leaders and right-wing nationalist politicians, he imagined that Jews were creating conditions necessary for a Soviet revolutionary takeover in Germany: massive unemployment, hunger, and homelessness. In his view, then, rather than a legitimate political and economic structure, communism was a tool devised by Jews to disguise their dominance and control of the Slav and so-called Asiatic peoples of eastern Europe and Eurasia. In the fact that two of every three European Jews lived in eastern Europe, Hitler found further corroboration for his view that the region had been infiltrated and taken over by the Jewish people.
For all the information about Hitler, and his hatred towards Jews, you obviously did no research whatsoever. I'm very disappointed in your lack of effort. If you truly are a scientist, then you are lazy at best, or incompetent, otherwise you would have done your research before making such a blatant error. You really make a fool of yourself! Again I pity your soul!
|Date: 2011/01/06 10:19:00, Link|
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
|Date: 2011/01/06 10:25:29, Link|
moving the goal posts again?
|Date: 2011/01/06 10:56:38, Link|
Did you read the link that I posted?
|Date: 2011/01/06 10:59:57, Link|
|Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try 49,551,703|
|Date: 2011/01/06 11:18:46, Link|
But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.
And no I don't agree with violence of any kind against abortion clinics, doctors, etc... So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.
|Date: 2011/01/07 07:12:55, Link|
I've never found where the US Government actually granted such a patent for abiogenesis, but even if it were true, why do you think it somehow proves abiogenesis actually occurred?
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
|Date: 2011/01/07 07:33:52, Link|
Let's see, so if you kill groups of people for practicing their religion, then that is not killing in the name of Atheism? If a country prohibits the practice of any religion and kills any who do so, that is not killing in the name of Atheism? Next thing you will be supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement that the Holocaust never happen!!! You folks don't like history, and the fact that Atheist country do kill in the name of Atheism to create their not religious utopia, so you just revise it. You have to admit that people of faith in the USSR had to practice their religion in secrecy or be severely punished, it is still the same in China and many other Atheistic countries today.
Atheists like many here seem to think like John Lennon, that the answer to a utopia is no religion, therefore if it really came down to it many probably would have no qualms with doing whatever is necessary to stop people from practicing their faith, so that utopia would be possible.
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed.[unreliable source?]
Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.
Christ the Savior Cathedral Moscow after reconstruction
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. A very large segment of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. The widespread persecution and internecine disputes within the church hierarchy lead to the seat of Patriarch of Moscow being vacant from 1925-1943.
|Date: 2011/01/07 08:28:05, Link|
You evidently have a problem with reading comprehension.
"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion."
"Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools."
"It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government"
"Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed."
My logic? It was stated here that no country killed in the name of Atheism! I just proved that point wrong, and if you want I could continue on to more Atheist countries that have killed in the name of Atheism.
I have freely admitted that countries have killed in the name of Religion. So, don't try to change the subject with what you call my inane logic. The point of contention here was that no country has ever killed in the name of Atheism! And since I have freely admitted that countries have killed in the name of Religion, then it is inane for you to even bring up something in this argument that I agree actually happened. I freely admit that many have killed and done awful things in the name of Religion, so why are you even bring up such claims? Could it be that you are attempting to deflect from the fact that Atheist countries have killed in the name of Atheism?
|Date: 2011/01/08 08:33:25, Link|
The point is that Atheist regimes do, and have killed millions in an attempt to repress religion and/or eliminate it altogether. Stalin killed approx. 21 million Christians alone and most of those just because they were practicing their faith. Mao killed 49 to 78 million innocent people just because of their religion.
Without a belief in God, the value of human life is just a manmade concept. Without God right and wrong is just a matter of opinion, because there would be no real standard for judging right or wrong, it would just be a matter of opinion, or a standard set forth by the leaders of any particular country.
I do not know of a single Atheist regime that didn't persecute and kill people who practiced the religious faith.
I never said that killing people, because of their religion makes one an Atheist. My point is that Atheist leaders/regimes have killed to repress and/or eliminate religion altogether in the countries a very different point.
|Date: 2011/01/08 08:50:40, Link|
Where did I state that it was okay for Christians to kill?
It is justifiable to kill in self defense.
The reason Atheist regimes repress/kill those who practice religion in their countries is, because they the leaders want to replace God or gods in their country, so the government must eliminate anything preventing them from imposing their evil, immoral, repressive laws on the people. If there is no moral standard and dissent, then they the government can set their own moral standard, since without God, morality is just a matter of opinion anyway, human rights are just a matter of opinion, the value of a human life is just a matter of opinion, then the government can impose any kind of evil and it is justifiable, because they the government have eliminated most if not all dissenters.
|Date: 2011/01/08 18:53:18, Link|
I don't believe that Christians have killed more people then Atheists, but that was not the point of the argument. So, you admit that Atheists have indeed killed millions of people for practicing their religion?
I will accept that you have conceded, and now we can move on!
|Date: 2011/01/08 18:55:10, Link|
I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
|Date: 2011/01/08 19:22:43, Link|
If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.
God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.
I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
|Date: 2011/01/08 19:31:31, Link|
Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?
Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
|Date: 2011/01/08 19:37:55, Link|
Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!
I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
|Date: 2011/01/08 20:01:21, Link|
|Let me also add, if there were no GOD, we wouldn't be here, nothing would exist:)|
|Date: 2011/01/08 20:47:35, Link|
Then you can't say that Christians killed because they were Christian, there were other factors. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.
I'm sorry but you have no idea what actual history really is. You and your ilk revise history to you liking.
Stalin killed 21 million Christians, because He didn't want anyone to practice their Christianity, or any religion. You don't know what you are talking about. I believe if you were a dictator of a country, that you would outlaw all religions, and would eliminate those who broke your law by imprisonment or death. I really believe that you have that much hatred against the practice of ones faith.
I don't agree with you that Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to. Why do you back that up with actual verifiable numbers, and remember you have to demonstrate that these Christians were true Christians and not (wolves in sheep's clothing) "False Christians" out to devour.
|Date: 2011/01/08 21:01:27, Link|
Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham. They claim that they do only to gain acceptance, but their's is a counterfeit God. If they worship the same God that Christians and Jews do, then there would be no need for them kill Christians and Jews for not converting now would there be.
Where did I state that Muslims are Atheists?
|Date: 2011/01/08 21:05:29, Link|
What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made? Why haven't you answered every single comment that I have made?
|Date: 2011/01/08 21:47:13, Link|
Where in the Bible does it state to kill Jews?
If Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, then why are Christians and Jews considered unbelievers by Muslims, and supposed to be killed according to their Koran?
I don't have any requirement to answer anything if I want, many times questions are posed to change the subject.
|Date: 2011/01/08 22:17:24, Link|
Boy where do I start? Muslims aren't the descendants of Abraham, Arabs are the descendants of Abraham.
I don't have time tonight, but will address the rest of the post later.
|Date: 2011/01/09 07:40:54, Link|
Just because one religion believes that there is one God, and another religion believes that there is one god, does not make that god the same God.
In order to understand if it is the same God you have to compare the nature of the God of each religion to determine if that is true.
So, let's compare Allah to the God of the Bible.
Here is the source for the following information
This study examines the crucial question that needs to be addressed which is whether the God presented in the Quran is indeed the same God revealed in the Holy Bible. The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the God of Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is this the case?
Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the case?
This process of examination is essential since our objective is to discover the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences in regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is the God of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing Islam. But if Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same God only with a different name.
We will examine certain qualities of Allah as stated in the Quran and briefly compare them to Yahweh and see where the evidence leads us. The reason why we are comparing Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh to the quranic portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to the fact that it is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy Bible. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this contention since they believe Allah is the same as Yahweh.
AUTHOR OF EVIL
The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin. James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)
Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:
Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little. S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan
And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54
Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S. 7:99 Pickthall
Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30
And when We make people taste of mercy after an affliction touches them, lo! they devise schemes (makrun) against Our communication. Say: Allah is quicker to scheme (makran); surely Our apostles write down what you plan. S. 10:21
And those before them did indeed scheme (makara), but all scheming (al-makru) is Allah's; He knows what every soul earns, and the unbelievers shall come to know for whom is the (better) issue of the abode. S. 13:42
So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not. S. 27:50
The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver, one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.
This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by Muslim theologians as well.
For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York Press, Albany], p. 165)
After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)
Moreover, here is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad interpreted Q. 8:30:
Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)
In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah adopts in devising evil:
Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43
Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.
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
Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.
They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14
Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their work.
Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157
According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,
"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186
"If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.’" S. 11:118-119
Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim tradition:
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 #6421, 6422
To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.
A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:
"O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived." King James Version
Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity as a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James translates as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars see it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break, smash, crush." (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments, p. 232)
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some of which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief (#7451 of the Hebrew Dictionary Section).
Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in sin and a refusal to come into repentance.
The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is pathath. Strong's lists it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following meanings; allure, enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. In light of the wide range of meanings, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant that God was actually deceiving him.
In fact the context itself shows that the word can only mean "persuade" since Jeremiah is complaining that God is persuading him to continue his ministry, even though he doesn't want to:
"O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
YOU ARE STRONGER THAN I, AND HAVE PREVAILED.
I am in derision daily;
Everyone mocks me.
For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, ‘Violence and plunder!’
Because the word of the LORD was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, ‘I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.’
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not." Jeremiah 20:8-9 NKJV
God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.
Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel 20:25 where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly suggests that God is the author of evil.
The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own desires (all of chapter 20).
Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to embrace the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that they might continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring upon them the judgement that they deserve for their evil (c.f. Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as accurately reflected in the New King James Version:
"Therefore, I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgements by which they could not live."
Yet, the Arabic makara does not allow for other possible meanings. And the Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin to fulfill his will.
AUTHOR OF ABROGATION
According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a short time later:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? S. 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what He reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them understand not. S. 16:101
This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regards to the believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.
This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises:
God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good? Numbers 23:19
For I, Yahweh, do not change. Malachi 3:6
If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2:13
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8
Because the God of the Bible is immutable he can promise, "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
Two responses can possibly be presented and often are by Muslims. The first is the fact that abrogation is not referring to the Quran but to previous scriptures such as the Bible.
Unfortunately for the Muslims making this argument, this interpretation cannot be defended in light of S. 87:6-8:
By degrees shall We teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the Message) so thou shalt not forget, except as Allah Wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee (to follow) the simple (Path).
It becomes obvious that certain parts of the revelation given to Muhammad will eventually be caused to be forgotten, since Allah later willed it.
The second response often presented is that the Bible clearly speaks of God regretting to create man or having repented of bringing on a certain disaster which he had planned to do. (c.f. Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14)
There are basically two responses for this assumed Muslim allegation. First, both the Holy Bible and the Quran use anthropomorphic language in describing both the nature and acts of God. For instance, both books speak of God's eyes, hands and feet without implying that these things are to be taken literally. The purpose of using such language is to communicate certain incomprehensible truths of God in human language in order for man to grasp certain realities of the divine nature. Hence, statements such as God having regrets is used to communicate certain realities to man in relational terms, i.e. that God identifies with our human condition and grieves for man's fallen state, having compassion for him.
Secondly, the reason for indicating that God refrained from fulfilling an act he had decreed is an indication of his divine patience. God does not desire to destroy the wicked but to save them, desiring that they come into repentance:
Say to them: "As I live", says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11
Likewise, if a nation which has been promised prosperity turns to wickedness, God will also refrain from fulfilling his promises of blessing. This is pointed out in Jeremiah 18:7-10:
"The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I thought to bring upon it.
"And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and plant it, if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I would benefit it."
An example of this is seen in I Kings 21:29 where God had sworn to destroy Ahab for his wickedness, but decided against it:
"See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son, I will bring the calamity on his house."
Or God deciding not to destroy Ninevah after seeing their sincere repentance and humbleness:
"Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." Jonah 3:10
These examples indicate that certain warnings are given specifically to lead the person(s) into right standing with God, and are not given as a sign that the matter has been sealed and there is no averting the disaster.
AUTHOR OF HISTORICAL ERRORS
The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately recall historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems we find in the Quran.
In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque, Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that the Aqsa Mosque had not been erected since Abd al-Malik only built it in AD 691. It cannot be referring to the Temple in Jerusalem since that was destroyed by the armies of the Roman general Titus in AD 70.
S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately 309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.
According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called Zhul Qarnain, "the Two Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two Horned One" was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times, the Muslim attempts of trying to deny this fact utterly fails.
According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed because they believed he was a false Messiah:
"And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS to be Christ a king.’" Luke 23:2 NIV
Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from the true God:
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116
Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them ... S. 5:75
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - every one that is on the earth..." S. 5:17
This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she could not possibly be divine. This gives the misleading impression that Christians believe that she is more than simply human.
In fact, the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:
"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu thalaatha)" S. 5:73
"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha): desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171
According to Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq in his work, Sirat Rasulullah, a Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity." (Alfred Guilliame trans., The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 271)
He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down." (Ibid., pp. 271-272)
The errors in the Quranic teaching on what Christians believe becomes apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. Firstly, Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. Secondly, Christians have never said God is three or the third of three which is tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity, ONE God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, Christianity has never taught as part of its doctrine that Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with the Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19
Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus Christ, nor in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This again causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the Father then the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the Father is the third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First Person of the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.
And finally, Christians do not believe that Allah is the Messiah, or that God is the Messiah since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead, which would be modalism. The correct and biblical statement is that Jesus is God, since this suggests that although Jesus is fully God by nature he is not the only Person who shares the essence of Deity perfectly. The Bible also teaches that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God.
Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses, the daughter of Amram:
Behold! The wife of Imran (i.e. Amram) said, "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her Mary... " S. 3:35, 36
"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.
"... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste." S. 19:27-28
"Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20
"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam." Numbers 27:59
This is an error of nearly 1400 years! How could Moses' sister Mary be Jesus' mother, making Moses his uncle?
Muslims give two responses in trying to deal with this anachronism. First, it is stated that the expressions "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram" refers to Mary's lineage, i.e. that Mary was a descendant of Aaron and Amram of the tribe of Levi. Unfortunately for Muslims, this assertion cannot possibly be the case since Mary was a daughter of Judah and a descendant of David:
"Now Jesus Himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of David ... the son of Judah." Luke 3:23, 31, 33
The words, "as was supposed," are given to clarify the fact that it is Mary's genealogy which is being presented, with Joseph acting as the male representative. This is supported by extrabiblical documents such as the Jewish tractate of the Talmud, Chagigah, where a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. There, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades." ( John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)
In the book of Hebrews we are told that, "it is evident that our Lord ( Jesus ) arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood" Heb. 7:14.
"I ( Jesus ) am the Root and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16
It is therefore impossible for Mary to be a descendant of Levi, since both the orthodox Jewish understanding and the biblical record agree that Messiah would arise out of Judah (c.f. Genesis 49:10-12; Matthew 22:42-45).
Someone might interject at this point and suggest that the Bible calls Elizabeth a relation of Mary:
"Now, indeed, Elizabeth your relative also conceived a son in her old age..." Luke 1:36 NKJV
This seems to imply that Mary is of Levitical descent, since Elizabeth is addressed as one of Aaron's descendants. (Cf. Luke 1:5)
The term used for relative in the Greek is syngenes. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich define it as:
a. " The adjective refers to a person of common origin, i.e., belonging to the same family, race, tribe, or people. It can then mean 'related' in disposition, 'corresponding', 'analogous', or 'similar.'
b. The noun means 'relationship' by descent or disposition, then more broadly 'analogy' (e.g. between deity and humanity, or ideas and the senses, or the stars and human destiny), whether in philosophy or popular belief." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in one volume by George W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 1097)
Hence, Elizabeth and Mary were related in the sense of being of the same race of people, i.e. the Israelites. But this meaning seems to be unlikely since this could be said about any other Israelite woman's relationship to Mary. It seems more likely that Elizabeth and Mary were blood relatives. This being the case, this still wouldn't prove that Mary was of the tribe of Aaron. All this would prove is that Elizabeth had Judean blood in her, since Levites were allowed to marry women from any of the twelve tribes:
"The woman he (the Levitical Priests) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his people." Leviticus 21:13-14 NIV
Ezekiel, in his vision of a restored priesthood and temple, further clarifies this point:
"They shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the offspring OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, or a widow who is the widow of a priest." Ezekiel 44:22 ESV
The Holy Bible even provides an example of a priest who had married a woman from Judea, who was actually a descendant of king David:
"Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal family of the house of Judah. But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the king's sons who were about to be put to death, and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not put him to death." 2 Chronicles 22:10-11
The foregoing demonstrates the plausibility of Elizabeth's mother being from the line of David, from the tribe of Judah, accounting for her being related to Mary.
Elizabeth could also be an aunt to Mary, see the entry on Luke 1:36 in the Bible Commentary section.
Muslims are not to be blamed for taking the phrase "brother of" as a reference to Mary's lineage since Muhammad also used a similar line of reasoning to cover up this error. In Sahih Muslim Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrates:
"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read ‘sister of Harun' (i.e., Mary), in the Quran, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: ‘The (people of old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.'" #5326
Ibn Abi Ahaybah and Ahmad and Abdel Hameed and Muslim and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nassaa'I and Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Hibbaan and At-Tabaraani and Ibn Mardaweih ans Al-Bayhaqi in ad-dalaa'il, narrated that Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah said: "The Prophet of God (PBUH) sent me to the people of Najran. They asked me: DO you see what you read? O sister of Harun while Moses precedes Jesus with such a long time? He (Al-Mughirah) said: So I went back to the Prophet and mentioned that to him. He told me: "Would you tell them the folk used to be called after Prophets and pious people who preceded them?" (Jalaaluddeen As-Suyuti, Ad-durr Al-Manthur)
The only difficulty with Muhammad's statement is that the Jews before and during the time of Christ never used this phrase in this manner at all. Not one single reference from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments, the Jewish literature before the birth of Christ, or even the Jewish Talmud and Targums after Christ can be found to support Muhammad's assertion. This is simply a gross error which cannot be swept away.
The second argument is actually a clarification of the first in that it is suggested that both the Bible and the Quran furnish further evidence for the term "sister of" being used to imply ancestry:
"His (Zechariah) wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Luke 1:5
It is obvious that the term "daughters" is speaking of Elizabeth's lineage and is not to be taken to literally mean that her father was actually Aaron the brother of Moses.
Again it is unfortunate for Muslims that this argument does not help them, but actually serves to weaken their argument. Although the Bible does use the phrases "son of," or "daughter of" to refer to ancestry, it never uses the terms "brother of" or "sister of" to indicate this fact. A few examples of the former usage include:
"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound- think of it - for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath'?" Luke 13:16
"And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:9
"And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, 'Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, Son of David.' " Matthew 20:30
Scripture never addresses a person as a "brother of Abraham," or "sister of David" when wishing to imply lineage. Hence, the Muslim position cannot be defended biblically.
The second example is from the Quran where Salih is called Thamud's brother:
"We sent ( aforetime ) to the Thamud, their brother Salih ..." S. 27:45
The term brother here refers to kinsmen, not actual bloodbrothers, exemplifying the many different ways the term is used.
Once again the problem is far from being resolved since the term "brother" is used to address Salih's contemporaries, not his ancestors. This implies that to call Mary Aaron's sister meant that Mary and Aaron were contemporaries, living at the same time.
Unlike the Quran, the Holy Bible contains no historical errors. Most attacks on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent archeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archeology has failed to furnish evidence against an event reported in the Bible. Other attacks center on the precise dating of certain archeological findings which some see as contradicting the Holy Bible's chronology. Again, one cannot say that the Holy Bible is in error when archeologists themselves are divided over the precise dating of certain discoveries. This is especially so when one realizes that there are certain archeologists who provide evidence which they feel proves that the data corresponds perfectly with the Bible's chronology of the events in question.
This is far different from archeology providing evidence to show that certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact, not one archeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading archeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." ( John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16 )
"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M. Blaiklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983], pp. vii-viii)
The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists, stated:
"There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
Nelson Glueck, world renowned archeologist, concurs: "As a matter of fact, however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." ( Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)
It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their conclusions were based strictly on the archeological data, forcing them to make the above admissions.
This cannot be said of the Quran with all of its historical and scientific mistakes.
AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES
The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for believers to engage in throughout eternity:
But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein damsels (Arabic - Houris ) pure (and holy); and they abide therein (forever)." S. 2:25
But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening. S. 4:57
Of a rare creation have We created the Houris, and We have made them ever virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them for the people of the right hand. S. 56:35-38
But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb), their peers in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry and Rodwell translate this part correctly, see also this overview page)
The orthodox Islamic understanding of these references are that Muslim men shall have a host of swelling breasted maidens to engage in sex with, who return to their virginal state after intercourse.
The paradise of Yahweh is one that is devoid of such carnality, being filled with the infinite love and joy of God instead. Hence, the believers' reward is to dwell with God forever in eternal glory:
"Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36
"The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17
"And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:3-4
AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS
The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:
We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom. S. 12:2
"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28
And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and clear. S. 16:103
But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing dozens of foreign words:
Abariq, S. 56:18, Persian
Adam, S. 2:34, Akkadian
Araik, S. 18:31, Persian
Firdaus, S. 18:107, Pahlavi
Fir'awn, S. 73:15, Syriac
Habr, S. 9:31, Hebrew (Haver)
Istabraq, S. 18:31, Persian (Istabar)
Sakina, S. 2:248, Hebrew
Sijjil (baked clay), S. 105:4, Persian
Taghut (idols), S. 2:257, Syriac (Teghutha)
Zakat, S. 2:110, Syriac (Zkhutha)
Zanjabil (ginger), S. 76:17, Pahlavi
Muslims respond by presuming that all living languages adopt words from other cultures, and it is therefore not an error for the Quran to contain foreign words. This argument only works in regard to imperfect human beings who continually adopt and adapt to other cultures and customs.
Unfortunately for Muslims, this argument will not work for an all-powerful Being who is the Originator of human language. Such a Being is capable of inspiring his word in perfect Arabic completely devoid of foreign words, especially when he himself states that the Quran is in pure Arabic. This is even more so in light of the claim that the Quran is the eternal speech of God, i.e. that the Quran existed (on an eternal tablet) before the creation of human language. How can God's speech contain foregin words when these foreign languages did not exist in eternity? As one Muslim writer stated:
The Qur'an itself repeatedly asserts that it is a unique and inimitable "Arabic Qur'an" (12.2, 13.37, 16.103) in order to communicate its meaning in a perfect manner to a people who took great pride in the expressive quality of their language. Much of the early discussion about the linguistic components of the Qur'an centred on the presence, or otherwise, of non-Arabic words in it - of course, based on the premise that it was essentially an Arabic text. The verses referred to above became the key supportive texts for those who argued that the Qur'an did not contain any non-Arabic terms. The earliest exegetes, particularly those associated with 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/67-68), a cousin of Muhammad, freely discussed a large number of non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. Hadith literature credits Ibn 'Abbas and "his school" with having a special interest in seeking their origin and meaning. Later eminent scholars of the Qur'an such as the philologist/exegete Abu 'Ubayd (d. 838), however continued to argue that the Qur'an contained foreign words. Others such as Ibn 'Atiyyah (d. 541/1146), Suyuti (d. 911/1505), and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Tha'labi (d. 1468) tried to reconcile theology with linguistic principles. They argued that the foreign words in the Qur'an came into Arabic through the ancient Arab's contacts with other languages in foreign travel and commerce but that they had been thoroughly Arabized by the time of the Prophet [Sam- If this were so then there would have been no need to highlight the fact that these foreign words had become part of the language since this would have been common knowledge to native Arab speakers like Ibn Abbas. That an explanation was needed to explain why foreign words appear in the Quran demonstrates how weak this Muslim claim actually is!] Various theories were evolved to resolve THE CONTRADICTION between the notion ascribed to Ibn 'Abbas and the one which subsequently gained greater acceptance, i.e., that the Qur'an does not contain any foreign terminology. To deal with the actual occurrence of words in the Arabic language that were also found in non-Arabic languages, some of these scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi (d. 204/819) and Tabari, developed the notion of tawafuq (coincidence). They argued that both Arabic and other languages employ the same words with identical meanings and that this uniformity of meaning was purely coincidental.
The idea of any language or discourse being absolutely free from expressions or words used in another language is alien to one of the most basic linguistic principles, i.e., the inter-relatedness of human speech. While this may sound trite, two factors, however, ensured that this notion was rejected by the "orthodoxy": first, the Qur'an IS NOT REALLY REGARDED AS HUMAN SPEECH BUT RATHER GOD'S AND GOD'S SPEECH CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLES. Indeed, as is commonly known, Qur'anic Arabic became the standard of Arabic grammar. (The problem of God's speech of necessity having to coincide with human speech for effect and meaning remains.) Second, for the "orthodoxy", God's own eternalness and self-subsistence fused with those of His revelation. The Qur'an and its language thus came to be viewed as equally timeless and independent of any "non-divine" elements, non-Arabic included. The fact of God's revelation occurring in Arabic (or any other language for that matter) alongside the insistence that this is the unmediated medium which was used by God raises an interesting question: If all comprehensible language and speech is the result of social interaction THEN DOES THIS IMPLY THAT GOD IS ALSO 'LIMITED' OR CONFINED TO THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE? If so, then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY FOR THE ALL-POWERFUL NATURE OF GOD? (Farid Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 2002], pp. 68-69; bold and capital emphasis mine)
AUTHOR OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:
The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number- illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent- and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structures have been noted... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda Publishers], pp. 48, 50)
A few examples include the following passages:
S. 7:56 - "The mercy of Allah is near"
Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The word qaribun is the predicate of rahmata Allahi, and as such should match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word qaribun (which is masculine ) should be qaribah, its feminine form.
S. 7:160 - "We divided them in twelve tribes"
Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the Arabic asbatan should be sebtan.
S. 5:69 - "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabians, and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
According to scholars, the Arabic Saabi'uuna has been wrongly declined. Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:
S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara was-Saabi'iina..."
S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaara..."
In the last two suras the term was declined correctly, Saabi'iina, as opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the beginning of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" (as in the cases of accusative or subjunctive) with the "yeh" being the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a sign of "rafa" ( as in cases of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the verse in 5:69 is wrong.
S. 91:5 - "By the heaven and that which built it."
Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is Allah, heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning "him who", should have been used instead of the impersonal ma.
It should be pointed out that it is not only Arabic scholars who have discovered dozens of grammatical mistakes within the Quran, but Muhammad's very own companions in the past have also admitted this fact. The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as saying:
"There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M. abd al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-Elmiyah, Beirut], p. 91)
After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)
For the Quran to be the word of Allah and for Allah to be God one should find no grammatical mistakes, especially since Muslims claim that the Quran contains no human element whatsoever. Muslim view is that the Quran was dictated word for word to Muhammad, which implies that Allah is the Author of these grammatical errors. This disqualifies Allah from being God, especially Yahweh God of the Holy Bible.
To avoid this problem, Muslims assert that the Quran was revealed in a style called balaagha, which is an eloquent method of expressing the Arabic. Due to this feature, the Quran is not required to be grammatically correct since its aim is at eloquence.
Once again this assumption serves to undermine the Muslim position. It may be true that a document written by man cannot be both grammatically correct and still retain an optimum level of eloquence, since a human writer most often sacrifices one literary feature over the other. But this cannot be said of God since he can easily produce a book which contains both perfect grammar and eloquence without ever sacrificing one for the other. This the Quran fails to do.
ALLAH AND OATHS
A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16
Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure believers that he will do all that he promises:
"I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23
"I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5
Yet, Allah swears by things less than him:
Swears by the Quran
By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2
By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1
Swears by the sky and constellations
By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1
Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34
By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1
Swears by the pen
By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1
Swears by the city
Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
Swears by the Creation
By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory; by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the one and the same God.
ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE
The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).
Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists in three Persons:
"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1 Peter 1:2
"... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13
The Holy Spirit
"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... you have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4
Three in One
"... baptizing them in the Nam e(singular- implying unity) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28:19
But the Allah of the Quran is not any of the three Persons mentioned above. For example S. 112 states,
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute-, He begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten; And there is none like unto Him. S. 112: 1-4
Allah does not "beget" meaning that Allah has no children either in a spiritual or carnal sense. Thus, Allah can never be the Father. Nor does he allow himself to be "begotten", i.e. does not take on human nature such as God the Son did when he became man for our salvation. Finally, in orthodox Islam the Holy Spirit is not God, but the angel Gabriel. This fact separates Allah from ever possibly being the same God that Christians worship.
Furthermore, we read in I John 2:22-23:
"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."
Thus, to the Christians Allah cannot be the biblical God since the inspired New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God is Antichrist.
One common Muslim allegation needs to be briefly addressed before concluding. In Exodus 31:17 it says that after Yahweh created the universe, he rested on the Sabbath and was refreshed. This description is not befitting God since he never fatigues nor does he need to be refreshed.
In response to this, as we have already noted scripture often uses anthropomorphic language in describing God's relations with man. The context of this passage deals with the necessity of Sabbath observance as a sign between God and Israel, and as such God is speaking to his covenant people in relational terms.
Just as God rested on the seventh day, it is important for Israel to do likewise especially in light of the fact that they are the chosen people of God and must imitate him by observing all his commands.
Furthermore, the term for Sabbath in Hebrew is shabat. It is listed in Strong's as #7673 with the following meanings: to stop, to cease, to rest, to end. Also, the term "refreshed" doesn't necessarily mean that God needed to take a breather after creating the universe anymore than the expression "my heart was refreshed" implies fatigue. Rather, it refers to God rejoicing over the goodness of his creation.
Thus, these terms do not imply that God literally needed to rest and be refreshed. It simply means that after the formation of man God stopped his work of creation and rejoiced at the fact that all creation up to that point was very good. (c.f. Genesis 1:31)
This interpretation is consistent with the clear teaching of Scripture that God never fatigues:
"He will not allow your foot to be moved- He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121: 3-4
"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28
To then try and use Exodus 31:17 as a prooftext while neglecting the overall context of scripture is rather poor exegesis and unscholarly, since the Bible is clear that God has inexhaustible power and energy.
Our brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to conclude that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as described in the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature between Yahweh and Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be reconciled.
With that in mind, we must point out another major difference between the two; namely that the God of the Holy Bible gives an assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord, something which Allah never guarantees:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24
And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47
The Bible clearly teaches that there is no other way for man to be saved, since Jesus alone can guarantee eternal life, something which the Quran cannot promise any Muslim:
"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
The reason why Christ alone can promise salvation is because he alone paid the penalty for sin which is death. By his death on the cross Christ provided the only acceptable sacrifice to God on behalf of sinners:
"Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation) a sacrifice offered which satisfies the divine justice of God) in his blood ..." Romans 3:24-25
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
It is therefore up to Muslims to decide whether to accept Jesus Christ as Yahweh's Son and the Savior of the world and receive the assurance of eternal salvation. Or continue to worship Allah of the Quran who never promises Muslims the joy of knowing that their sins have been forgiven, giving them the assurance of eternal salvation. The choice is left for the reader to decide.
|Date: 2011/01/09 07:59:30, Link|
God is sovereign and is justified it bringing judgement on the earth, and peoples of the earth. So, let's move on from your ignorant understanding of God, and continue to the argument about the killing of innocents by Atheists for practicing their religion.
Is your head so dense that you can't comprehend?
If people are killed because they practice their religion, then they are actually being killed solely because of their religion! I believe Stalin essentially wanted to take the place of God in the hearts of his people, so in one sense he wanted to be their god, therefore he couldn't have gods before him. He wanted complete and total allegiance to him.
God knows me, as I am one of His children. You don't even know what the scripture you included a partial quote from is referring to do you? You really are ignorant!
|Date: 2011/01/09 08:05:58, Link|
"Once there was no life" is clearly wrong, and if by "now there is life", you are referring to there once being no life, then it would be wrong in that context. But, now we do have life.
God always was, therefore there always was life.
|Date: 2011/01/09 08:09:27, Link|
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.
To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
|Date: 2011/01/09 08:42:26, Link|
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.
Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?
|Date: 2011/01/09 10:41:39, Link|
God always was! He wasn't created.
|Date: 2011/01/11 19:40:42, Link|
Are you okay??? I would cut down one the medicine before posting, because it appears that it is influencing your post! Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
|Date: 2011/01/12 06:58:32, Link|
I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?
If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".
If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
|Date: 2011/01/12 18:50:52, Link|
Link To The Patent
|Date: 2011/01/20 08:07:56, Link|
Here is the problem with your answer 1, God would not command people to start eating babies, therefore your point is moot. Without God there would be no morality, without God man would commit more evil then we could ever imagine.
Today the world is attempting to build an ethical system based on morality without God. Men have tried many ways to teach this new godless form of morality. "Values clarification" was a very popular phrase of the last decade in our public schools. It was an attempt to let our children to essentially make their own standards of morality and behavior. It was a disaster as it justified almost any kind of awful behavior.
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.
In your second point you state "God would never do that, because God is moral." and you went on to state that "In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing" The problem with your argument is that God gave each of us a conscienceconscience and it by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us, therefore you are wrong again.
1 Timothy 4:1-2 (New International Version, ©2010)
1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
|Date: 2011/03/03 17:08:25, Link|
You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)
Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.
DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.
|Date: 2011/03/04 07:09:16, Link|
Read the quote that I responded to and see the similar part inserted in my post:)
|Date: 2011/03/04 17:09:48, Link|
Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
|Date: 2011/03/04 17:28:40, Link|
Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.
|Date: 2011/03/04 17:55:58, Link|
The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?
|Date: 2011/03/21 18:15:14, Link|
Jeremiah 17:7-8 (New International Version, ©2011)
7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD,
whose confidence is in him.
8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit.
|Date: 2011/03/21 19:17:39, Link|
Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)
11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.