A common misconception is that Muslim women are the only ones who cover their hair. It may be true that Islam is the only religion in which most women follow its directives to cover the hair, but it is not the only religion to have such directives.
It is particularly interesting to look at the case of Christianity, since Christianity is the predominant religion in the West, and it is Westerners, including observant Christians, who are often the first to criticize Islam because of the hijab (modest dress, including headcovering). But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels.Corinthians, chapter 11
The meaning of this passage is plain enough. We can make the following syllogisms:
Syllogism 1
Praying with an uncovered head is a disgrace
Having a shaved head is the same as praying with an uncovered head. Therefore, having a shaved head is a disgrace
Syllogism 2 If it is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head, she should cover her head
It is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head - see syllogism 1
Therefore, a woman should cover her head.
In other words, the passage means what it says. Have you ever wondered why Catholic nuns dress like they're wearing hijab (Muslim hijabi women, have you ever been mistaken for a nun? I have, more than once). Have you ever wondered why Mary the mother of Jesus (peace be upon them both) is always depicted in Christian art with her hair covered? Did you know that until the 1960s, it was obligatory for Catholic women to cover their heads in church (then they "modernized" the service)?
There are some interesting points that can be made about the Christian directive.
1) The explicit purpose of the Christian woman's headcovering, as stated by Paul, is that it is a sign of man's authority over woman. The explicit purpose of Islamic hijab is modesty. Strange how so many Westerners think that the purpose of hijab is a symbol of male authority. Maybe they know that that's what it is in their own religion (Christianity) so they assume that Islam must be the same...!
2) The Christian woman is to cover her head whenever she is praying, whether it be at the church service or just personal prayer at home. This may mean that if she is not praying at home, she is uncovered around male guests who are not related to her; or if she is praying at home, that she is covered around her own husband and family. If any more proof were needed than Paul's own words that the Christian headcovering is not about modesty, this must certainly be it!
This puts hijab in a whole new perspective, doesn't it! To my non-hijabi Muslim sister who feels that hijab is a sign of oppression for the Muslim female, please do read the above and then read the Quran. Believe me, if Allah SWT meant for hijab to be a sign of male authority, the Quran would be as unambiguous about it as Paul is in the Bible. Isn't this difference the kind of thing that attracted you to Islam in the first place?
Do Any Christian Women Today Cover Their Heads?
It is true that most Christian women do not, and many don't take other teachings of the Bible (against pre-marital sex, adultery, etc) literally either. However, there do seem to be a growing number of Christian women out there who are committed to following the Bible as it is written. Below are some webpages that I found that call for Christian women to cover their heads in accordance with the commandment of the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by 'Shahrazat: A common misconception is that Muslim women are the only ones who cover their hair. It may be true that Islam is the only religion in which most women follow its directives to cover the hair, but it is not the only religion to have such directives.
It is particularly interesting to look at the case of Christianity, since Christianity is the predominant religion in the West, and it is Westerners, including observant Christians, who are often the first to criticize Islam because of the hijab (modest dress, including headcovering). But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels.Corinthians, chapter 11
The meaning of this passage is plain enough. We can make the following syllogisms:
Syllogism 1
Praying with an uncovered head is a disgrace
Having a shaved head is the same as praying with an uncovered head. Therefore, having a shaved head is a disgrace
Syllogism 2 If it is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head, she should cover her head
It is a disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head - see syllogism 1
Therefore, a woman should cover her head.
In other words, the passage means what it says. Have you ever wondered why Catholic nuns dress like they're wearing hijab (Muslim hijabi women, have you ever been mistaken for a nun? I have, more than once). Have you ever wondered why Mary the mother of Jesus (peace be upon them both) is always depicted in Christian art with her hair covered? Did you know that until the 1960s, it was obligatory for Catholic women to cover their heads in church (then they "modernized" the service)?
There are some interesting points that can be made about the Christian directive.
1) The explicit purpose of the Christian woman's headcovering, as stated by Paul, is that it is a sign of man's authority over woman. The explicit purpose of Islamic hijab is modesty. Strange how so many Westerners think that the purpose of hijab is a symbol of male authority. Maybe they know that that's what it is in their own religion (Christianity) so they assume that Islam must be the same...!
2) The Christian woman is to cover her head whenever she is praying, whether it be at the church service or just personal prayer at home. This may mean that if she is not praying at home, she is uncovered around male guests who are not related to her; or if she is praying at home, that she is covered around her own husband and family. If any more proof were needed than Paul's own words that the Christian headcovering is not about modesty, this must certainly be it!
This puts hijab in a whole new perspective, doesn't it! To my non-hijabi Muslim sister who feels that hijab is a sign of oppression for the Muslim female, please do read the above and then read the Quran. Believe me, if Allah SWT meant for hijab to be a sign of male authority, the Quran would be as unambiguous about it as Paul is in the Bible. Isn't this difference the kind of thing that attracted you to Islam in the first place?
Do Any Christian Women Today Cover Their Heads?
It is true that most Christian women do not, and many don't take other teachings of the Bible (against pre-marital sex, adultery, etc) literally either. However, there do seem to be a growing number of Christian women out there who are committed to following the Bible as it is written. Below are some webpages that I found that call for Christian women to cover their heads in accordance with the commandment of the Bible.
Orthodox Christians DO cover when they pray, copts cover when they pray too as they are orthodox Christians.
I disagree about there being a directive to cover the hair in Islam, but then you know that, and no I do not think it is a sign of male oppression and no that is not what attracted me to Islam in the first place.
The Christian AND Jewish religions both speak about covering the head and both to do with the male being 'the image of God' and woman being only there for a man. It says HEAD, not HAIR.
The Bible verses you have posted also state for a man NOT to cover his head so are you going to tell all your muslim brother to remove their skull caps when they go into the mosque while the women cover their heads?
Pauls words have nothing to do with a christian woman being uncovered around unrelated males.
The verse also says it is a disgrace for a woman to cut her hair but nuns DO have short hair under their hijabs.
Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins.
And yes I have been mistaken for a nun when I was wearing hijab Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
"Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins."
You're getting there Ayisha! Some day you may even get to really understand what you now write with such gleeful mockery. Insh'Allah!
Posted by Stephie_ELH (Member # 16197) on :
I do not believe that hijab is a requirement of Islam and I am a Muslim woman. I will wear it for its purpose of protection, thus, if I am in a situation where I need protection I will wear it.
I can be modest without wearing a scrap of cloth on my head, just like some women can be tarty when covered from head to toe!
Islam is about attitude and effort, not clothes!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: "Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins."
You're getting there Ayisha! Some day you may even get to really understand what you now write with such gleeful mockery. Insh'Allah!
That wasn't gleeful mockery, I was stating it as it is. If that is wrong then please correct me.
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
JESUS never actually said that women should cover their hair, or that it was a requirement for them to cover their hair. That was *Paul* speaking.
Look at the history of the time Corinthians was written. If you understand the context in which Paul was writing to a specific church, you may understand this verse better. Women had long hair. The only women who did not have long hair were prostitutes. If prostitutes were becoming believers then they should cover their head so they show the change in their lives. Covering their heads was a sign, only a cultural sign. It's significance to today is pretty much gone. Maybe if Paul was writing today it would say "woman shouldn't show have tight revealing clothes so every man lusts over them during church." It's the same idea. It's just that there was no sign a man was a prostitute unlike women.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv: JESUS never actually said that women should cover their hair, or that it was a requirement for them to cover their hair. That was *Paul* speaking.
Look at the history of the time Corinthians was written. If you understand the context in which Paul was writing to a specific church, you may understand this verse better. Women had long hair. The only women who did not have long hair were prostitutes. If prostitutes were becoming believers then they should cover their head so they show the change in their lives. Covering their heads was a sign, only a cultural sign. It's significance to today is pretty much gone. Maybe if Paul was writing today it would say "woman shouldn't show have tight revealing clothes so every man lusts over them during church." It's just that there was no sign a man was a prostitute unlike women.
That sounds amazingly like ISLAM
Edit Which bits of the Bible do you actually follow then? Is it just the 4 Gospels according to.... and pick and choose on the rest? Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
As usual you can't see the tree for the wood.
Paul worked within the boundaries of his culture where necessary for the sake of the gospel. He used some general principles but addressed a specific cultural situation.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv: As usual you can't see the tree for the wood.
Paul worked within the boundaries of his culture where necessary for the sake of the gospel. Paul used some general principles but addressed a specific cultural situation.
it's can't see the wood for the trees and that didn't answer my question.
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
"Which bits of the Bible do you actually follow then? Is it just the 4 Gospels according to.... and pick and choose on the rest?"
ALL bits of the Bible.
From the outset it should be noted that Paul does not wish to set in concrete a rule about specific practices for all places and regarding head coverings. When he does state a universal and permanent rule for practice he often refers to a direct command from God, as in 1 Cor. 14:37, or to the teaching or practice "in every church" or "in all the churches," .
Rather, he is establishing the universal and permanent principle that men and women at worship should conduct themselves modestly and sensibly, in keeping with whatever happen to be the customs of the time.
In a similar way, Jesus laid down the permanent principle ("a new commandment") that his disciples should love one another and in keeping with the custom of his day, exemplified that principle by washing the disciples' feet, but Jesus did not command the specific practice of foot-washing for all Christians of all times.
The universal and binding principle of love finds expression today in different ways of showing consideration and courtesy to one another. Paul was trying to reflect the culture in which Christianity was attempting to find acceptance.
In ancient Corinth there was a temple in honor of the goddess Aphrodite and there one thousand priestesses. These cult-prostitutes did not use veil in public. But married women did. It was normal that women put a veil over the head when they appeared in public. The Corinthians, must have thought Christianity was just another swell religion with "friendly" priestesses.
There are many reasons why Paul would ask women to be veiled. It seems that many of these reasons have melted away as the symbol has lost its meaning.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Actually when I was younger the women in my Church wore Chapel Caps..
Many Modern Christians wear Chapel Caps in the Church. Just as many Muslim women DON'T wear Hijabs.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
So I have to ask why Paul, an enemy of Jesus until his 'vision', is being followed as if he was some reincarnation of Jesus himself and how you are ok with accepting and perhaps even 'twisting' these said verses to be 'whatever is in keeping with the customs of the time', which could lead to total freedom of everything if in another 500 years the custom is to pray in church totally naked.
Also, why with most of what you say it seems that you read or quote then give your meaning, which appears to be very similar to how you view Islam and Quran in that you would rather find something bad from Islam in hadith/tradition/verse and manage to find a way of making the bible verses mean other than what they actually 'say'.
As for the love, I see very little of that from you when you are trying to put Islam in a bad light so as to 'shine the christian light of love' and you show very little to zero consideration and courtesy either.
When you post about Islam and Muhammed, who you do not accept is a prophet while at the same time accepting an enemy of Jesus to be 'reformed' and allowed to actually write the Bible, you will not accept anyone telling you blah blah customs blah culture blah traditions but it's accepted all fine and dandy for the enemy of Jesus turned 'saint'. These are the sort of double standard things I don't understand.
I am not having a go in any way at all and really am trying to understand how this all works. Please don't come back at me with 25 copy pastes about Paul and how Muhammed blah blah because i wont even read them but please explain to me the love, consideration and courtesy that you are supposed to extend to ANYONE as Jesus did and explain how your trying to tell what I consider lies about Islam while not even wanting a discussion about it is actually showing what a good Christian you are.
Really I am NOT wanting a fight and it's 3am here so I am going to bed so please think before you post, I am slapping you with an olive branch here! Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
Posted by 'Shahrazat (Member # 12769) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: So I have to ask why Paul, an enemy of Jesus until his 'vision', is being followed as if he was some reincarnation of Jesus himself and how you are ok with accepting and perhaps even 'twisting' these said verses to be 'whatever is in keeping with the customs of the time', which could lead to total freedom of everything if in another 500 years the custom is to pray in church totally naked.
Also, why with most of what you say it seems that you read or quote then give your meaning, which appears to be very similar to how you view Islam and Quran in that you would rather find something bad from Islam in hadith/tradition/verse and manage to find a way of making the bible verses mean other than what they actually 'say'.
As for the love, I see very little of that from you when you are trying to put Islam in a bad light so as to 'shine the christian light of love' and you show very little to zero consideration and courtesy either.
When you post about Islam and Muhammed, who you do not accept is a prophet while at the same time accepting an enemy of Jesus to be 'reformed' and allowed to actually write the Bible, you will not accept anyone telling you blah blah customs blah culture blah traditions but it's accepted all fine and dandy for the enemy of Jesus turned 'saint'. These are the sort of double standard things I don't understand.
I am not having a go in any way at all and really am trying to understand how this all works. Please don't come back at me with 25 copy pastes about Paul and how Muhammed blah blah because i wont even read them but please explain to me the love, consideration and courtesy that you are supposed to extend to ANYONE as Jesus did and explain how your trying to tell what I consider lies about Islam while not even wanting a discussion about it is actually showing what a good Christian you are.
Really I am NOT wanting a fight and it's 3am here so I am going to bed so please think before you post, I am slapping you with an olive branch here!
Great post Ayisha !!
Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Actually when I was younger the women in my Church wore Chapel Caps..
Many Modern Christians wear Chapel Caps in the Church. Just as many Muslim women DON'T wear Hijabs.
I wore this to church growing up too. I liked wearing it. I still have mine ....
Personally, I think that most are not interested in understanding the other and more interested in "one upping each other". Anyway, thought I would share my views on this.
First of all I do not believe that Christians criticize Islam because of the hijab. Christians, for the most part, do not understand Islam and know very little about it. (Keep in mind that I am speaking from an American standpoint. ) I personally have never heard anyone here criticize the hijab. I have heard criticisms of the face covering which I have my own share of criticisms for and I do not believe this is a criticism of Islam.
Second, the Bible is a spiritual book.
quote: 2Cr 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
If you read on in this chapter of Corinthians you will see that it also says that a woman's hair is given her for a covering:
quote: 1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.
This chapter also puts a woman under a man saying that the man is the image and glory of God and the woman was created for the man and is the glory of the man.
I personally take issue with this, possibly because of my experience with men... .... although in some aspects I can understand it. Yet, there would have to be an exceptional man for me to concede to this.
In a spiritual sense the woman is the church and Christ is the head of the church. aka "the covering".
It could also be taken that the man is the covering for the woman... so in this case does that leave unmarried women without a covering?
Then there is this:
quote: Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 ¶ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
What if finally comes down to is that Jesus has fulfilled the law and we are no longer judged by it. Faith has come and we no longer have need of a school master.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv:
Ok, olive branch was waved and instead of excepting that you posted more copy paste crap picking at MY faith but made a new thread.
Thank you for your courtesy and consideration and for showing the shining light of christian love and hypocrisy.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Actually when I was younger the women in my Church wore Chapel Caps..
Many Modern Christians wear Chapel Caps in the Church. Just as many Muslim women DON'T wear Hijabs.
I wore this to church growing up too. I liked wearing it. I still have mine ....
Personally, I think that most are not interested in understanding the other and more interested in "one upping each other". Anyway, thought I would share my views on this.
Doro, a REAL Christian! Actually I am not more interested in 'upping' over UT, I was seeing if there was anything 'in' there that she would come out and have a discussion. Obviously there is not and I have to take her as false. you my Christian friend are in a completely different class altogether.
quote:First of all I do not believe that Christians criticize Islam because of the hijab. Christians, for the most part, do not understand Islam and know very little about it. (Keep in mind that I am speaking from an American standpoint. ) I personally have never heard anyone here criticize the hijab. I have heard criticisms of the face covering which I have my own share of criticisms for and I do not believe this is a criticism of Islam.
agreed, but as you say many don't understand Islam and the only thing they 'see' is the 'oppression' of women by covering them up. Shah has rightly pointed out that orthodox Christians and nuns are also covered up but there is that invisible barrier to understanding that many Christians do not want to cross. It's not just the hijab, it's the beard, the dress, the staying home, many things. A jew wears a beard for his faith, a muslim wears a beard he is a terrorist. A Christian woman stays home to care for the home and children she is a good woman, a muslim woman doing the same is oppressed. A nun covers head to toe for her love of God, a muslimah doing the same is oppressed. lots of those double standards propogated by people like vwvwv.
quote:Second, the Bible is a spiritual book.
quote: 2Cr 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
If you read on in this chapter of Corinthians you will see that it also says that a woman's hair is given her for a covering:
quote: 1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.
This chapter also puts a woman under a man saying that the man is the image and glory of God and the woman was created for the man and is the glory of the man.
I personally take issue with this, possibly because of my experience with men... .... although in some aspects I can understand it. Yet, there would have to be an exceptional man for me to concede to this.
In a spiritual sense the woman is the church and Christ is the head of the church. aka "the covering".
It could also be taken that the man is the covering for the woman... so in this case does that leave unmarried women without a covering?
Then there is this:
quote: Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 ¶ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
What if finally comes down to is that Jesus has fulfilled the law and we are no longer judged by it. Faith has come and we no longer have need of a school master.
One thing stands out there, if the woman was given hair AS a covering then why should she cover it, if the hair IS the covering?
You say that Jesus has fulfilled the law and we no longer need a school master. rape, murder, sex crimes against kids, theft, the list is endless, yes we still need a school master as this mankind is getting more barbaric than it was back in the days of beating each other with clubs, the only difference now is that you have been told by the enemy of Jesus that all is fine and dandy. My take on it is that the law is fulfilled at the end of it all, that day in Revelations when we all meet our maker and get to know the real truth of it all.
What you have quoted is all Paul, the guy who hated Jesus and spent very little time if any actually WITH him, am I right? Then Paul 'has a vision' AFTER Jesus death and comes back with the biggest chunk of the bible which is pretty much going against and twisting what Jesus said. Paul pretty much made Jesus into GOD. Now from my standpoint I see Paul as some kind of Bukhari who has given a bunch of lies about a great prophet of God to show a totally different viewpoint to the whole thing which the Nicene council who needed to control the people took on as 'gospel', pardon the pun! In effect Paul came and 'finished' what he seemed to think Jesus had not.
Question is HOW is this accepted without THINKING?
I suppose the answer is the same in a way as how Bukhari is accepted by muslims without thinking. Bukhari et al said it was what the prophet did and said and Paul heard it in his vision from Jesus. No one questions and it controls the masses nicely. Back then if they went against it or questioned they burnt them or killed them and if a muslim questions he/she is 'out of the fold of Islam' and also possibly killed. NONE of which were the teachings of ANY prophet.
Paul (SAUL) made Christianity what it is now and it would be a good thing for ALL of us to drag out those lost books and lay all this out on the floor, each piece of the whole jigsaw of OT, NT, Quran and all those banished writings and piece together what we have left of TRUTH from the creator then maybe we would all be able to see and understand better - not each others faith, but what the GOD actually said and wanted from mankind.
Personally I am at a stage now I believe that all that came from God from day one is a complete message we need to look at but humans along the way have hidden pieces of the jigsaw and dropped a few pieces in from other jigsaws to make the way harder, but most of the pieces are there and are still being found. It's all ONE message from ONE God.
end of ramble. Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
This forum is about RELIGION, and everyone should be free to discuss and criticize religion if they want to. You have tried to put Christianity in a bad light million of times before, and noone attacked you for that. We respected your RIGHT to say it, although you have denied the same right to anyone else who disagreed with your view of Islam, by belittling them, mocking them and insulting their person. Where is YOUR "consideration" and "love"? I have never attacked a Muslim for his views on Christianity, I do not attack *people* for their views, you do. Take a look at your own self first before criticizing others.
quote:When you post about Islam and Muhammed, who you do not accept is a prophet while at the same time accepting an enemy of Jesus to be 'reformed' and allowed to actually write the Bible, you will not accept anyone telling you blah blah customs blah culture blah traditions but it's accepted all fine and dandy for the enemy of Jesus turned 'saint'. These are the sort of double standard things I don't understand.
Just like YOU follow the Quran and accept and trust a man like Muhammad as the messenger of God, Christians trust that the disciples of Jesus were telling the truth.
For Christians, the best proof of the resurrection of Jesus is the change in Jesus own disciples. Before the resurrection those same apostles were scared, hiding from persecution. After their encounter with a rising Jesus they became brave to preach the gospel and the fact that all of the apostles were willing to die horrible deaths, refusing to renounce their faith in Christ, is evidence that they had truly witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ. People will not die for something they know to be a lie.
quote:for the enemy of Jesus turned 'saint'
Paul DID live a saintLy life. Do you know something we don't? Can you prove otherwise? Can you find me something 'bad' that Paul did or said? Did he assasinate any of his critics? Did he loot or attack anyone? Did he kill anyone? Finally, did he ever proclaim himself as the best example for humans to follow?
Wasn't Paul that proclaimed: "Love your wife as Christ loved the Church."(Ephesians 5:25)?
Paul lived a sainty life, and "by his fruits" I judge him. Likewise, I judge Muhammad: by his fruits. If you assasinate, raid, loot, torture, massacre, you can’t be an ambassador of peace. It's an oxymoron. As you see it is YOUR Prophet that puts Islam in a bad light. It is Quran itself that puts Islam in a bad light, merely quoting verses from the Quran is enough to put Islam in a bad light. I don't understand the 'double standards' you are talking about.
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
You feel entitled to say things like this:
"Paul (SAUL) made Christianity what it is now and it would be a good thing for ALL of us to drag out those lost books and lay all this out on the floor"
but when I do the same it's lack of "consideration and courtesy"
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, but so am I.
Are Paul teachings contrary to what Jesus taught? If Paul really invented Christianity, then one would expect that his teachings would be different from Jesus, the other apostles, and disciples. But what Paul taught were no different to what the other disciples taught:
-Belief in Jesus for eternal life -Righteousness by faith -Justification by faith -Forgiveness of sin through faith -Repentance
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)
If it were true that Paul received his teaching directly from Jesus Christ, then surely Jesus Himself would have taught what Paul was preaching.
Even the Quran itself affirms that Paul passed the true Gospel of Jesus. Link
It may come as a surprise to some to hear that the Quran implicitly affirms that the teachings of the Apostle Paul, which has become the foundation of Christianity, are derived from Christ. In other words, the Quran indirectly testifies that Paul’s theology wasn’t something that he simply concocted in order to win converts from the Gentiles, but came from God through Christ.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv: This forum is about RELIGION, and everyone should be free to discuss and criticize religion if they want to. You have tried to put Christianity in a bad light million of times before, and noone attacked you for that.
show me where I have started threads attacking Christianity or putting it in a bad light and where no one attacked me for it. There are 2 things there please note.
quote:We respected your RIGHT to say it, although you have denied the same right to anyone else who disagreed with your view of Islam, by belittling them, mocking them and insulting their person. Where is YOUR "consideration" and "love"? I have never attacked a Muslim for his views on Christianity, I do not attack *people* for their views, you do. Take a look at your own self first before criticizing others.
Are we actually reading the same forum here? The ONLY thing I have said about 'your person' is that you post one after the other and do not discuss or debate, prove me wrong, that is not an attack that is FACT. YOU are the one constantly attacking and mocking not me. If you call mocking me saying what ourluxor assumed was also mocking then correct me, that IS your view on Christianity and my putting it in words does not mean mocking, it is me putting exactly what you DO believe in words!
quote:
quote:When you post about Islam and Muhammed, who you do not accept is a prophet while at the same time accepting an enemy of Jesus to be 'reformed' and allowed to actually write the Bible, you will not accept anyone telling you blah blah customs blah culture blah traditions but it's accepted all fine and dandy for the enemy of Jesus turned 'saint'. These are the sort of double standard things I don't understand.
Just like YOU follow the Quran and accept and trust a man like Muhammad as the messenger of God, Christians trust that the disciples of Jesus were telling the truth.
Paul was not a disciple. I was asking for an explanation for that, it was not an attack, just explain why the double standard. Why is it ok and accepted for you to follow who was an enemy of Jesus while he was alive while at the same time you attack who I consider to be a prophet?
quote:For Christians, the best proof of the resurrection of Jesus is the change in Jesus own disciples. Before the resurrection those same apostles were scared, hiding from persecution. After their encounter with a rising Jesus they became brave to preach the gospel and the fact that all of the apostles were willing to die horrible deaths, refusing to renounce their faith in Christ, is evidence that they had truly witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ. People will not die for something they know to be a lie.
True, I would die for God right now. I was not questioning the resurrection nor was I questioning Jesus, but again you attack rather than answer the simple questions in a reasonable manner.
quote:
quote:for the enemy of Jesus turned 'saint'
Paul DID live a saintLy life. Do you know something we don't? Can you prove otherwise? Can you find me something 'bad' that Paul did or said? Did he assasinate any of his critics? Did he loot or attack anyone? Did he kill anyone? Finally, did he ever proclaim himself as the best example for humans to follow?
there we go again. There have been discussions about paul in this forum where I said my piece. if you want to play 'my enemy of Jesus is better than your false prophet' then go ahead and play it on your own, hope you enjoy it and are rewarded for you 'courtesy, compassion and love towards your fellow man while spreading the message of Love'
quote:Wasn't Paul that proclaimed: "Love your wife as Christ loved the Church."(Ephesians 5:25)?
Paul lived a sainty life, and "by his fruits" I judge him. Likewise, I judge Muhammad: by his fruits.
so you judge him by his fruits, by his DEEDS yet you follow that no one is any longer judged by his deeds?
quote: If you assasinate, raid, loot, torture, massacre, you can’t be an ambassador of peace. It's an oxymoron. As you see it is YOUR Prophet that puts Islam in a bad light. It is Quran itself that puts Islam in a bad light, merely quoting verses from the Quran is enough to put Islam in a bad light. I don't understand the 'double standards' you are talking about.
No of course you wouldn't. Take off your blinkers.
Good day.
Posted by Questionmarks (Member # 12336) on :
Ow, this forum isn't about religion it is about religious intolerance! What do I care about what's written in Quran and what do you care about what has been written in the Bible, the new testament etc? As long as you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen and that counts from christians in islamic countries and the other way around. This is only bashing...
Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
Questionmarks, A person who puts his/her faith in the written word only as a list of rules and sayings which he/she must follow to gain Paradise is definitely someone who deserves our utmost care! It is unthinkable that Christianity and individual Christians should not put the case for God's love versus the tenets of a religion which lately came to try to discredit the true faith and (in the Christian view) deliberately leads people astray! You may well say "Ow" but we have to keep on accepting the blows of insult and deliberate misconstruing of our explanations etc. It's as nothing compared to what was done to our forbears, or to our Saviour, is it not? Or would you rather that we "tolerated" our brothers and sisters in Islam being led by the nose to an eternity of separation from God, without a murmur of protest on their behalf?
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
quote:YOU are the one constantly attacking and mocking not me.
I am attacking arguments, you are attacking persons. There IS a difference.
Btw, does quoting verses from the Quran and the Ahadith count as "mocking"?
Could it be that it was Muhammad himself who made a mockery of his Prophetic claim?
quote:Paul was not a disciple. I was asking for an explanation for that, it was not an attack, just explain why the double standard. Why is it ok and accepted for you to follow who was an enemy of Jesus while he was alive while at the same time you attack who I consider to be a prophet?
Did I ever say it is not okay for you to worship/believe in whatever you want?
The reason I attack Muhammad's claim of Prophethood is because his actions contradict his words. A person who does not walk his own talk is not worthy of trust.
quote:so you judge him by his fruits, by his DEEDS yet you follow that no one is any longer judged by his deeds?
If we are saved by Grace through faith, that grace will result in good works.
Jesus said: 'You will know them by their fruits'.
We are not saved by our good deeds but by mercy through God alone.
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: Ow, this forum isn't about religion it is about religious intolerance!
Intolerance is when you take action to stop someone from exercising their rights or expression. Don't confuse criticism with intolerance.
Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
"Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins."
"That wasn't gleeful mockery, I was stating it as it is. If that is wrong then please correct me."
"that IS your view on Christianity and my putting it in words does not mean mocking, it is me putting exactly what you DO believe in words!"
I'm sure that you must have been a QC while you lived in England, Ayisha! They are the only group of people I have ever come across who can take a simple statement and twist it around so stealthilly that it comes out the other end meaning something completely different! I'm sorry to say it, but I cannot believe that your powers of understanding are so weak that you don't understand the difference between vwvwv's judging of Paul "by his deeds" and "that no one is any longer judged by his deeds?" We are told that we will "know" the Christian "by his deeds", we are also told that we will no longer be "judged" by our deeds, but God alone has this right to forego that judgement where our eternal souls are at risk, as it is only He who has arranged our salvation.
"Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days"
Deliberately taking your words out of context, I congratulate you on getting nearer to the essence of Christianity! Except that it has always been a "free for all", mainly because we could NEVER pay the price on our own, or even if we banded together as a co-op. And, yes we can "do what you like", when what we like is what God likes! We can only know what God likes if He tells us what it is in a given circumstance. In order to facilitate this commumication, He has put His Holy spirit within us, you can read about it in the (corrupted or not) Bible, (about Pentecost) if you really need to see it written down from "antiquity". "By their works shall ye know them", that is the form of the quote which springs to my mind. Therefore, child molesting clergymen, or Spanish Inquisitors, or Whitchfinder Generals could not have been Christian. This is surely a logical conclusion?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
First of all I do not believe that Christians criticize Islam because of the hijab. Christians, for the most part, do not understand Islam and know very little about it. (Keep in mind that I am speaking from an American standpoint. ) I personally have never heard anyone here criticize the hijab. I have heard criticisms of the face covering which I have my own share of criticisms for and I do not believe this is a criticism of Islam.
Well that depends on the situation and location. The main critisism of Islam by Christians stems from the Intolerance in many Muslim Countries esp. of Christians, while Muslims in the West Expect Christians to accept them with open arms. This is why many Christians don't Trust Islam because they will be your friend until they become a majority then they will demand Islamic rights and persecute non Muslims.
Also in the West no matter how Neo-Athiest claim, Our Nations were founded on Christian Values, its in the Arch. the Education, the legacy and the European Identity.
My question would be how would Muslims feel if a Bunch of Christians from Europe and America Emigrated to Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and started having a bunch of Fundamental Christian Children, started demanding Christian Rights but were persecuting Muslims back home. Would Muslims NOT be Angry, skeptical, and un Trust worthy of these Christian Emigrants.
agreed, but as you say many don't understand Islam and the only thing they 'see' is the 'oppression' of women by covering them up. Shah has rightly pointed out that orthodox Christians and nuns are also covered up but there is that invisible barrier to understanding that many Christians do not want to cross. It's not just the hijab, it's the beard, the dress, the staying home, many things. A jew wears a beard for his faith, a muslim wears a beard he is a terrorist. A Christian woman stays home to care for the home and children she is a good woman, a muslim woman doing the same is oppressed. A nun covers head to toe for her love of God, a muslimah doing the same is oppressed. lots of those double standards propogated by people like vwvwv.
Actually the biggest critics of Islam by Christians understand Islam very well. If you pay attention the biggest Critisism of Islamic opression of Women is the fact that Wifes are allowed to be beaten in Islam. The Biggest Complaint of Islam is the opression of Non-Muslims mainly Christians in Muslim lands.
Ayesha worte:
Paul was not a disciple. I was asking for an explanation for that, it was not an attack, just explain why the double standard. Why is it ok and accepted for you to follow who was an enemy of Jesus while he was alive while at the same time you attack who I consider to be a prophet? You don't understand Paul, so you accuse him of being opposed to Jesus, the thing is yes he persecuted Christians but he was forgiven and turned his life around. If not for Paul alot of the Laws that were a burden to the Early Church and the Jews would still be in effect.
If we put Pauls Record against Muhammed, I don't think it would be hard to see who was leading folks down the wrong track. Considering Muhammed's blatant lying, contradictions, murdering of infedels, robbing and stealing of traders on trade routes etc.
As Christ Said, You will know them by their works.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
"Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins." ^^^^ 1)Yeah there are different Sects of Christianity, Who is the Free for all you are talking about. Its funny the Hypocisy of Islam, yall will bitch and whine when say Radical Islam is the real Islam or dying for 34 Vigins is the goal of Every Muslim. the Baptists, the 7 day Adventists, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox.-who is this "Free For All" Christianity?? -Stupid statement. 2)As far as Eating, the Gentiles were not required to refrain from certain foods, they are encouraged but not required, this is found in Acts.
Once again our religion is about Love of God, Faith in Jesus and not what you Eat. Second it makes no sense for people who's people did not grow up under the Levitical laws to Follow them. The Levitical Laws were for the O.T Jews.
3) Actually Christians don't say everyone will get into heaven, unlike those who if they follow 5 tenents and Bow to a rock 5 times a day will supposedly get into Paradise full of Naked Virgins.
quote:YOU are the one constantly attacking and mocking not me.
I am attacking arguments, you are attacking persons. There IS a difference.
Posted by vwvwv: "Who is talking to you? You are a posting bullshit in this forum, a bully, and a very manipulative person in your arguments.
All you care is to win an argument, and clearly not interested in any type of debate..unless you have the last word. Not to mention how patronising and rude and intolerant of other people you are! Putting down other posters makes you feel so important eh? No wonder noone wants to discuss anything with you! And you judge ME!
It is funny how you have to attack my person everytime you cannot adress any of my arguments. It must be very upsetting for you since you can't bring yourself to ignore me.
What 'attack on your person' I made to get that attack on MY person was
"Edit: Don't waste time with vwvwv, it's a posting robot that does neither discuss nor debate. Previously known as Unfinished Thought."
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: "Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins."
"That wasn't gleeful mockery, I was stating it as it is. If that is wrong then please correct me."
"that IS your view on Christianity and my putting it in words does not mean mocking, it is me putting exactly what you DO believe in words!"
I'm sure that you must have been a QC while you lived in England, Ayisha! They are the only group of people I have ever come across who can take a simple statement and twist it around so stealthilly that it comes out the other end meaning something completely different!
No not a QC, a boring accountant So ourluxor, explain it to me. Show me where I have twisted anything. Christians believe that as long as they believe Jesus had died for our sins they go to heaven, right? So basically they can do as they like in private and public and only in public or when it becomes public then those like you can say 'oh he or she isn't a real christian anyway'. Who are you to decided? Surely that decision rests with God alone?
quote:I'm sorry to say it, but I cannot believe that your powers of understanding are so weak that you don't understand the difference between vwvwv's judging of Paul "by his deeds" and "that no one is any longer judged by his deeds?" We are told that we will "know" the Christian "by his deeds", we are also told that we will no longer be "judged" by our deeds, but God alone has this right to forego that judgement where our eternal souls are at risk, as it is only He who has arranged our salvation.
I agree with that last bit yes. But Paul is another matter.
quote:"Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days"
Deliberately taking your words out of context, I congratulate you on getting nearer to the essence of Christianity! Except that it has always been a "free for all", mainly because we could NEVER pay the price on our own, or even if we banded together as a co-op.
Congratulate for taking words out of context and that makes me nearer to the essence of Christianity??
I was looking to the future seeing as things seem to change in Christianity as to what rules are followed according to whoever wants to say the rules are no longer there in regards to what vwvwv was saying. So in 500 years time who knows what will happen and it may become normal to walk about naked, so then that will be fine too according to the ever changing laws of God according to christians.
If we could never pay the price on our own then are you saying God created man and gave him laws to uphold and one was to worship no other Gods but Him but all the time knowing man could never do what he was created to do? Bit of a disrespect for God and His powers of knowing everything about all His creation there and not much point in giving those laws of He knew they couldn't ever be upheld even with mankind as a group. Seems like God was playing cruel games
quote:And, yes we can "do what you like", when what we like is what God likes! We can only know what God likes if He tells us what it is in a given circumstance. In order to facilitate this commumication, He has put His Holy spirit within us, you can read about it in the (corrupted or not) Bible, (about Pentecost) if you really need to see it written down from "antiquity". "By their works shall ye know them", that is the form of the quote which springs to my mind. Therefore, child molesting clergymen, or Spanish Inquisitors, or Whitchfinder Generals could not have been Christian. This is surely a logical conclusion?
So someone who is a good person, a charitable person that loves his fellow man and gives in charity and prays etc would be considered a good Christian and a priest that molests kids would not be? What if that good person, that kind charitable person is Muslim, do you still consider them to be good Christians?
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: First of all I do not believe that Christians criticize Islam because of the hijab. Christians, for the most part, do not understand Islam and know very little about it. (Keep in mind that I am speaking from an American standpoint. ) I personally have never heard anyone here criticize the hijab. I have heard criticisms of the face covering which I have my own share of criticisms for and I do not believe this is a criticism of Islam.
Well that depends on the situation and location. The main critisism of Islam by Christians stems from the Intolerance in many Muslim Countries esp. of Christians, while Muslims in the West Expect Christians to accept them with open arms. This is why many Christians don't Trust Islam because they will be your friend until they become a majority then they will demand Islamic rights and persecute non Muslims.
Also in the West no matter how Neo-Athiest claim, Our Nations were founded on Christian Values, its in the Arch. the Education, the legacy and the European Identity.
My question would be how would Muslims feel if a Bunch of Christians from Europe and America Emigrated to Arabia, Yemen, Sudan and started having a bunch of Fundamental Christian Children, started demanding Christian Rights but were persecuting Muslims back home. Would Muslims NOT be Angry, skeptical, and un Trust worthy of these Christian Emigrants.
You are comparing apples with pears jari
For one there has been just as much persecution on Muslims in many lands as there has of christians. Here in Egypt we all pretty much get on even though you will probably pull up a few cases it is not rife, it is not the norm.
The difference is you are saying that Christians coming ot Muslim lands and demanding rights they have in their own lands when that is not right, they come to muslim countries and they should abide by the laws of those countries and not bring their own with them in the very same way muslims should not go to Europe and demand sharia law for ALL but should also have the rights that everyone else living there should have. This is a case of where one lives and not of religion. If I am in UK or USA or France I expect the same rights as anyone else living there and to abide by the laws of that land the same as everyone else does, and here in Egypt I have to live by the laws here and not expect the same laws to apply as they do in UK. The health and safety inspector for one would close the country! I can moan about it but it's not my right to demand it.
quote:agreed, but as you say many don't understand Islam and the only thing they 'see' is the 'oppression' of women by covering them up. Shah has rightly pointed out that orthodox Christians and nuns are also covered up but there is that invisible barrier to understanding that many Christians do not want to cross. It's not just the hijab, it's the beard, the dress, the staying home, many things. A jew wears a beard for his faith, a muslim wears a beard he is a terrorist. A Christian woman stays home to care for the home and children she is a good woman, a muslim woman doing the same is oppressed. A nun covers head to toe for her love of God, a muslimah doing the same is oppressed. lots of those double standards propogated by people like vwvwv.
Actually the biggest critics of Islam by Christians understand Islam very well. If you pay attention the biggest Critisism of Islamic opression of Women is the fact that Wifes are allowed to be beaten in Islam.
Now this I disagree with. No wives are not allowed to be beaten and as with many words and verses they are misused and 'meaning' has been taken away from the Quran and been given by hadith, which I strongly am opposed to. Taking the whole context of man and woman in Quran and the verses regarding husband and wife this cannot possibly mean to beat. This is of course another arguement which also many traditional muslims will disagree with me on.
quote:The Biggest Complaint of Islam is the opression of Non-Muslims mainly Christians in Muslim lands.
So what about the Americans oppressing Muslims in their own lands? that comes under the term 'liberation' I suppose?
Oppression BY Muslims is so against the Quran it's on another planet but again hadith have given meanings other than that which God intended and said. Another arguement again. I strongly disagree with oppression of anyone and Muslims are actually required to fight against it for anyone.
quote:Ayesha worte:
Paul was not a disciple. I was asking for an explanation for that, it was not an attack, just explain why the double standard. Why is it ok and accepted for you to follow who was an enemy of Jesus while he was alive while at the same time you attack who I consider to be a prophet? You don't understand Paul, so you accuse him of being opposed to Jesus, the thing is yes he persecuted Christians but he was forgiven and turned his life around. If not for Paul alot of the Laws that were a burden to the Early Church and the Jews would still be in effect.
so there we have it. Paul WAS against Jesus, he persecuted Christians and you accept him to chnge the bible and give new rules yet you have just been talking about Muslims persecuting Christians? Does that mean Muslims can now come and give you more new 'bible' like Paul did?
The laws that were a burden to the early church were the laws jesus followed and LEFT IN PLACE and Paul changed. He said he had not come to abolish the law, he abided by the law, he was a Jew yet Paul changed all that Jesus followed and gave you a whole new religion that was NOT part of what Jesus gave you. You do not follow Jesus, you follow PAUL.
quote:If we put Pauls Record against Muhammed, I don't think it would be hard to see who was leading folks down the wrong track. Considering Muhammed's blatant lying, contradictions, murdering of infedels, robbing and stealing of traders on trade routes etc.
As Christ Said, You will know them by their works.
Islam has its enemies too and yes for years the muslims have adopted that as truth. These things you will find in hadith, this is what is considered the history, this is not in Quran though and not what Muhammed taught. So yes, we have both been led up the garden path by enemies of the God. I have chosen NOT to follow these and only to follow God and His words.
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
Let's see, you have been insulting me for God knows how long, and yet you cry foul when I react to your insults once in a blue moon. The above post of mine was a reaction to your constant unprovoked attacks on my person, 99 times out of 100 I have ignored your name-calling... don't cry foul now for replying you in kind.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: "Christianity is pretty much a free for all these days with not much being taken apart from eat what you like and do what you like as you're all going to heaven anyway as Jesus/God has already been and died for all your sins." ^^^^ 1)Yeah there are different Sects of Christianity, Who is the Free for all you are talking about. Its funny the Hypocisy of Islam, yall will bitch and whine when say Radical Islam is the real Islam or dying for 34 Vigins is the goal of Every Muslim. the Baptists, the 7 day Adventists, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox.-who is this "Free For All" Christianity?? -Stupid statement.
Which of the numerous sects of Christianity do not believe Jesus died for the sins of the world or that he was the son of God or God in the flesh?
By free for all I mean it doesn't matter what you do, say, eat or whatever as long as you believe in Jesus you are guaranteed a place in heaven, isn't that right?
it's apparently 72 virgins, not 34 and what a bloody stupid hadith that one is!
No one will ever tell me this or that is real Islam as I will not follow blindly and will search for truth for myself as God instructs me to. Sunni say theirs is real islam, salafi says theirs is, wahabbi say theirs is, I am none of these.
quote:2)As far as Eating, the Gentiles were not required to refrain from certain foods, they are encouraged but not required, this is found in Acts.
added by Paul again. Jesus was a Jew and Jews do not eat pork.
quote:Once again our religion is about Love of God, Faith in Jesus and not what you Eat. Second it makes no sense for people who's people did not grow up under the Levitical laws to Follow them. The Levitical Laws were for the O.T Jews.
Islam is also about love of God and not what you eat actually.
jesus was a Jew and grew up under those laws and upheld those laws.
quote:3) Actually Christians don't say everyone will get into heaven, unlike those who if they follow 5 tenents and Bow to a rock 5 times a day will supposedly get into Paradise full of Naked Virgins.
Quran doesn't say all muslims will get there either, nor does it say piety is bowing to east or west, in fact it says this is NOT piety. Nor does it say paradise is full of naked virgins.
I follow Quran, not what I have been brainwashed to follow from hadith and told I cannot question. I don't blame you for thinking all muslims are the same though but we are not, some actually search and study the Quran to find what God really said and need no other hadith but the one from God, and by that believe it or not, I also mean the Law of Moses and the Gospels which Quran confirms. Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
quote:Paul WAS against Jesus, he persecuted Christians and you accept him to chnge the bible and give new rules yet you have just been talking about Muslims persecuting Christians? Does that mean Muslims can now come and give you more new 'bible' like Paul did?
The Scripture per se, as a written work, as a book, is not “the Word of God”. If this were the case, then we would be transforming it into a 'Quran'.
For Christians Jesus is their Quran. So how could Paul "change" what already had been witnessed by the 11 disciples of Jesus?
In the words of a Saint of our Church: “If all the Books of the Holy Bible (both the Old and the New Testament) were burnt simultaneously at once, a Saint could re-write the Holy Bible, in the Holy Spirit, because he is a true “bearer” of the Holy Bible, of God’s Revelations.”
That is also why we assert that the parable of the Prodigal son is the gospel of gospels: Even if nothing else could be salvaged except the parable of the Prodigal son, we would learn that God exists and why He exists; we would learn about man and his relationship to God in fact, all the mysteries of the faith could be solved therein.
Those who experience revelation actually experience these things, and that is what “the Word of God” means.
This was the experience that the Apostle Paul had. That experience per se, was “the Word of God”; it was a case of “there came the Word of God”; God’s Word…
Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
"So ourluxor, explain it to me. Show me where I have twisted anything. Christians believe that as long as they believe Jesus had died for our sins they go to heaven, right? So basically they can do as they like in private and public and only in public or when it becomes public then those like you can say 'oh he or she isn't a real christian anyway'. Who are you to decided? Surely that decision rests with God alone?"
Answer: I don't have the time or the inclination to trawl through your old postings to find where you said words to the effect that the Christian could then go around murdering etc. and still claim that Jesus died for him. But you did, (and to a certain extent it is true) but that would still not make them the actions of a Christian! I’m exactly no-one to decide. Jesus said, “By their works shall ye know them”.
"I was looking to the future seeing as things seem to change in Christianity as to what rules are followed according to whoever wants to say the rules are no longer there in regards to what vwvwv was saying. So in 500 years time who knows what will happen and it may become normal to walk about naked, so then that will be fine too according to the ever changing laws of God according to christians."
Answer: While I agree that Christianity is a dynamic religion which suits all people in all ages, (it has to be dynamic as it is alive and not dead like all the others) it doesn’t actually change. We have two (or it could be classed as one, possibly) “commandments”, which are “Love God and love your neighbour as yourself”
"If we could never pay the price on our own then are you saying God created man and gave him laws to uphold and one was to worship no other Gods but Him but all the time knowing man could never do what he was created to do? Bit of a disrespect for God and His powers of knowing everything about all His creation there and not much point in giving those laws of He knew they couldn't ever be upheld even with mankind as a group. Seems like God was playing cruel games"
Answer: I don’t really have a satisfactory answer (satisfactory, that is, to me in order to actually write it down for you). However, as God gave us free will to make our own decisions, I don’t think that I can accept your premise that He has” powers of knowing everything about all His creation”, which sort of nullifies the question in my eyes. Once you ascribe such knowledge to God, you then say that God has deliberately condemned a chunk of humanity to spending eternity without the knowledge of His love! Another premise that would be utterly intolerable for me to accept. (Sorry, I know that you won’t accept that, but it’s the best I can do in the circumstances.)
"So someone who is a good person, a charitable person that loves his fellow man and gives in charity and prays etc would be considered a good Christian and a priest that molests kids would not be? What if that good person, that kind charitable person is Muslim, do you still consider them to be good Christians?"
Answer: Obviously not! Don’t be silly, would you like to be referred to as a “good Christian” for doing some work of charity? There are loads of very nice people who belong to a myriad religions. The Christian, realising that his/her efforts at good works are not as good as they could be, relies on the Holy Spirit of God for any goodness he/she has, and also gives thanks to God when the goodness which they have displayed produces benefit for another. The only reason that the Holy Spirit indwells them is because they have accepted God’s self sacrifice on the cross to be His act of redeeming them to Himself.
I’m not kidding myself that these answers will satisfy you, but at least you won’t be able to accuse me of not answering!!!!!
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
quote:You do not follow Jesus, you follow PAUL.
Fact: The core teachings of Christianity predated Paul’s conversion and his later writings.
The key teachings of the Gospel (Jesus is the sinless Son of God; He died for our sins and rose again; we receive Him as Savior through repentance and faith) pre-date Paul. Paul taught these things, expounded on these things, and was used by God to write much of the New Testament. But the core of the Gospel was being widely spread BEFORE even Paul was a believer.
If Paul’s teachings contradicted those of the other disciples, the disciples that spent 3 years under Jesus’ tutelage, then surely they would have called him out. In fact, just the opposite occurred. The apostle Peter, who was one of Jesus’ closest companions and a recognized leader of the early church, had this to say about Paul in 2 Pet. 3:15-16:
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
Take note of the fact that Paul is a “dear brother” and that his words are compared to “other Scriptures.” Peter is effectively endorsing Paul’s teachings, so the idea that Paul hijacked Christianity from the true followers of Jesus is refuted. We can be confident that the entire New Testament, including Paul’s writings, were inspired by one and the same God.
Posted by vwvwv (Member # 18213) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: "If we could never pay the price on our own then are you saying God created man and gave him laws to uphold and one was to worship no other Gods but Him but all the time knowing man could never do what he was created to do? Bit of a disrespect for God and His powers of knowing everything about all His creation there and not much point in giving those laws of He knew they couldn't ever be upheld even with mankind as a group. Seems like God was playing cruel games"
When parents have children they know that their kids will eventually act in sinful and even harmful ways. Yet, that doesn't stop them from having children. Why?
First of all, it is worth the risk of their rebellion to bring them into the world. Second, the nature of love is to give and by having children the parents can better express their love. Third, just because the children will sin and rebel doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Fourth, children have their own wills and can freely choose to rebel. Knowing this parents all over the world still have children.
The greatest act of love is to sacrifice one's own life for another (John 15:13). In a very real sense, God has performed the greatest act of love in sacrificing Himself (Remember, Jesus is God in flesh - John 1:1,14). Since God is love and love sacrifices, God has now manifested the greatest love by dying for us. In this, God is glorified. But, without sin in the world, there would be no way to demonstrate the greatest act of love -- which is self-sacrifice. So, perhaps God allowed sin in the world so that He could demonstrate the greatest act of love.
Furthermore, in this self-sacrifice God demonstrates the perfection of His holiness, the sinfulness of sin, the proof of God's righteousness, the victory over the evil one, and the guarantee of the saved with whom He can shed His love and glory forever. In this, God is glorified.
We could come up with a variety of possible reasons why God made people knowing they would sin and we probably can never fully answer this. But, knowing that they would sin is no reason that God shouldn't make them, especially if His plan includes the acts of sinners so that others would be redeemed.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv:
quote:Paul WAS against Jesus, he persecuted Christians and you accept him to chnge the bible and give new rules yet you have just been talking about Muslims persecuting Christians? Does that mean Muslims can now come and give you more new 'bible' like Paul did?
The Scripture per se, as a written work, as a book, is not “the Word of God”. If this were the case, then we would be transforming it into a 'Quran'.
Finally you recognize that Quran is the Word of God! Alhamdulillah!
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: "So ourluxor, explain it to me. Show me where I have twisted anything. Christians believe that as long as they believe Jesus had died for our sins they go to heaven, right? So basically they can do as they like in private and public and only in public or when it becomes public then those like you can say 'oh he or she isn't a real christian anyway'. Who are you to decided? Surely that decision rests with God alone?"
Answer: I don't have the time or the inclination to trawl through your old postings to find where you said words to the effect that the Christian could then go around murdering etc. and still claim that Jesus died for him. But you did, (and to a certain extent it is true) but that would still not make them the actions of a Christian! I’m exactly no-one to decide. Jesus said, “By their works shall ye know them”.
Yes I did say that so no need to bother ourselves trawling my old posts, but by the same token not everyone who wears the label of Muslim is a Muslim for the same reasons. You say the 'actions' of a christian, but they like the Muslim would still hold that label and only God will decide.
quote:"I was looking to the future seeing as things seem to change in Christianity as to what rules are followed according to whoever wants to say the rules are no longer there in regards to what vwvwv was saying. So in 500 years time who knows what will happen and it may become normal to walk about naked, so then that will be fine too according to the ever changing laws of God according to christians."
Answer: While I agree that Christianity is a dynamic religion which suits all people in all ages, (it has to be dynamic as it is alive and not dead like all the others) it doesn’t actually change. We have two (or it could be classed as one, possibly) “commandments”, which are “Love God and love your neighbour as yourself”
God gave 10 commandments so did Jesus change those or did Paul? Gods laws don't change but people do and people change what they see as what God wanted or said. The first commandment is thou shall have no other god be me. The rest also have not changed even though the church has 'adapted' and grown, which is a good thing, not knocking that at all, but in it's adapting to the change in the people it has relaxed too much of what God held as right so the people are the gods of the church as they make the rules and have abandoned Gods rules for their own.
At the opposite end of the scale we have Islam refusing to adapt even the length of the beard which was not what God even said anyway!!
quote:"If we could never pay the price on our own then are you saying God created man and gave him laws to uphold and one was to worship no other Gods but Him but all the time knowing man could never do what he was created to do? Bit of a disrespect for God and His powers of knowing everything about all His creation there and not much point in giving those laws of He knew they couldn't ever be upheld even with mankind as a group. Seems like God was playing cruel games"
Answer: I don’t really have a satisfactory answer (satisfactory, that is, to me in order to actually write it down for you). However, as God gave us free will to make our own decisions, I don’t think that I can accept your premise that He has” powers of knowing everything about all His creation”, which sort of nullifies the question in my eyes. Once you ascribe such knowledge to God, you then say that God has deliberately condemned a chunk of humanity to spending eternity without the knowledge of His love! Another premise that would be utterly intolerable for me to accept. (Sorry, I know that you won’t accept that, but it’s the best I can do in the circumstances.)
hmmm so God isn't All Knowing, Omnipresent etc? yes He gave us free will but also a set of 'rules' that He wanted us to follow, it is by our free will that we choose to follow or not. Nowhere did I say that there is a chunk of humanity condemned to spend eternity without His love. God created man to worship Him, says that in OT, do you reject all OT? Jesus didn't.
quote:"So someone who is a good person, a charitable person that loves his fellow man and gives in charity and prays etc would be considered a good Christian and a priest that molests kids would not be? What if that good person, that kind charitable person is Muslim, do you still consider them to be good Christians?"
Answer: Obviously not! Don’t be silly, would you like to be referred to as a “good Christian” for doing some work of charity? There are loads of very nice people who belong to a myriad religions. The Christian, realising that his/her efforts at good works are not as good as they could be, relies on the Holy Spirit of God for any goodness he/she has, and also gives thanks to God when the goodness which they have displayed produces benefit for another. The only reason that the Holy Spirit indwells them is because they have accepted God’s self sacrifice on the cross to be His act of redeeming them to Himself.
Silly? I wouldn't mind if I was referred to as a good Christian or a good Muslim for doing the right thing. I know many with no religion or of other faiths that I still would consider a good Muslim. Depends what the criterior of it is and whose meanings you go by really. The Muslim also relies on God for the good and thanks Him continually for each blessing and for being able to help another for the sake of God.
quote:I’m not kidding myself that these answers will satisfy you, but at least you won’t be able to accuse me of not answering!!!!!
did you answer any?
kidding. Thank you for answering with very satisfactory answers! Really we are not that different. Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv:
quote:You do not follow Jesus, you follow PAUL.
Fact: The core teachings of Christianity predated Paul’s conversion and his later writings.
The key teachings of the Gospel (Jesus is the sinless Son of God; He died for our sins and rose again; we receive Him as Savior through repentance and faith) pre-date Paul. Paul taught these things, expounded on these things, and was used by God to write much of the New Testament. But the core of the Gospel was being widely spread BEFORE even Paul was a believer.
If Paul’s teachings contradicted those of the other disciples, the disciples that spent 3 years under Jesus’ tutelage, then surely they would have called him out. In fact, just the opposite occurred. The apostle Peter, who was one of Jesus’ closest companions and a recognized leader of the early church, had this to say about Paul in 2 Pet. 3:15-16:
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
Take note of the fact that Paul is a “dear brother” and that his words are compared to “other Scriptures.” Peter is effectively endorsing Paul’s teachings, so the idea that Paul hijacked Christianity from the true followers of Jesus is refuted. We can be confident that the entire New Testament, including Paul’s writings, were inspired by one and the same God.
quote::Originally posted by Ayisha: "If we could never pay the price on our own then are you saying God created man and gave him laws to uphold and one was to worship no other Gods but Him but all the time knowing man could never do what he was created to do? Bit of a disrespect for God and His powers of knowing everything about all His creation there and not much point in giving those laws of He knew they couldn't ever be upheld even with mankind as a group. Seems like God was playing cruel games"
When parents have children they know that their kids will eventually act in sinful and even harmful ways. Yet, that doesn't stop them from having children. Why?
First of all, it is worth the risk of their rebellion to bring them into the world. Second, the nature of love is to give and by having children the parents can better express their love. Third, just because the children will sin and rebel doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. Fourth, children have their own wills and can freely choose to rebel. Knowing this parents all over the world still have children.
The greatest act of love is to sacrifice one's own life for another (John 15:13). In a very real sense, God has performed the greatest act of love in sacrificing Himself (Remember, Jesus is God in flesh - John 1:1,14). Since God is love and love sacrifices, God has now manifested the greatest love by dying for us. In this, God is glorified. But, without sin in the world, there would be no way to demonstrate the greatest act of love -- which is self-sacrifice. So, perhaps God allowed sin in the world so that He could demonstrate the greatest act of love.
Furthermore, in this self-sacrifice God demonstrates the perfection of His holiness, the sinfulness of sin, the proof of God's righteousness, the victory over the evil one, and the guarantee of the saved with whom He can shed His love and glory forever. In this, God is glorified.
We could come up with a variety of possible reasons why God made people knowing they would sin and we probably can never fully answer this. But, knowing that they would sin is no reason that God shouldn't make them, especially if His plan includes the acts of sinners so that others would be redeemed.
don't you EVER use your own brain or have a thought of your own? Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Which of the numerous sects of Christianity do not believe Jesus died for the sins of the world or that he was the son of God or God in the flesh?
By free for all I mean it doesn't matter what you do, say, eat or whatever as long as you believe in Jesus you are guaranteed a place in heaven, isn't that right?
Wrong, as I said Christianity does NOT teach all you have to do is believe in Jesus, Christ says many in the Last Day will say Lord, Lord.
Christianity teaches you must love God, Love his Son, Love his word with your heart soul and mind and change your sinful ways.
You will live knowing your sins, repenting, and trully turning you life for God.
Its not about food its about love of God.
t's apparently 72 virgins, not 34 [Roll Eyes] and what a bloody stupid hadith that one is!
No one will ever tell me this or that is real Islam as I will not follow blindly and will search for truth for myself as God instructs me to. Sunni say theirs is real islam, salafi says theirs is, wahabbi say theirs is, I am none of these.
No one is following blindly, if anything considering Muhammed's murderous actions and his false prophecym thievery and plagerizing of the Torah and Gospels I would consider Muslims to be following the words of Muhammed blindly.
added by Paul again. Jesus was a Jew and Jews do not eat pork.
Once again as I said Jesus instructed Paul to Teach the Gentiles and go them. The Gentiles did not live under the Levitical laws and WERE NOT REQUIRED to Follow them, they were encouraged but nor Required. The Levitical Laws were for the O.T Jews.
Second, You say that We Follow Paul well guess what Paul went to the Gentiles, if not for Paul Muhammed would have never been able to Plagerize the N.T. Even Muhammed claim Paul is true when he says the True Christianity Prevailed.
Your unfounded attack on Paul simply stems from the Fact that he Debunked Islam 500 yrs before Muhammed was born when he said ISHMAEL was the Son of the BOND WOMAN not the Free.
Islam is also about love of God and not what you eat actually. ^^^^^ Notice Folks the back peddeling and Hipocrisy of Islam. They will Critisize you for "Eating what you want" but then say Islam is about Love not Eating certain foods. LOL, Typical Muslim.
If its about Love then Love God, how is Eating Pork going to get you into hell if you trully love God, Turn from your ways, Clean up you life, give to the poor, and Love for God.
I personally don't eat pork, not because of a Law I don't understand and that was not given to me by God.
However I refrain from Idolotry and eating of Blood. Christians who Eat Red Meat are Liars and are sinning, Christians who preach against the Baptism, may God help their soul are liars.
jesus was a Jew and grew up under those laws and upheld those laws.
Let me say this for the 3rd time, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, Jesus did not go to the Gentiles, Paul Did. Jesus instructed the 12 NOT to Go to the Gentiles but he instructed PAUL TO GO TO THE GENTILES.
Jesus realize the Levitical Laws were a burden, This is why he critisized the Pharasees and Scribes when he and the 12 broke the Sabbath. He was saying the love of God is more than the Laws, the Greatest Commandment is to Love God with all your heart, mind and Soul and to love your fellow man. Those are the Commandments Christ upheld.
Quran doesn't say all muslims will get there either, nor does it say piety is bowing to east or west, in fact it says this is NOT piety. Nor does it say paradise is full of naked virgins.
I follow Quran, not what I have been brainwashed to follow from hadith and told I cannot question. I don't blame you for thinking all muslims are the same though but we are not ^^^^ You realize how hypocritical it is for you to Brush all Christians with one Brush but pretend you are a True Muslim and all Muslims are different.-Typical
some actually search and study the Quran to find what God really said and need no other hadith but the one from God, and by that believe it or not, I also mean the Law of Moses and the Gospels which Quran confirms.
You don't need a Koran to search the Gospels for love, as the Gospels, N.T and Koran contradict each other.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
For one there has been just as much persecution on Muslims in many lands as there has of christians. Here in Egypt we all pretty much get on even though you will probably pull up a few cases it is not rife, it is not the norm.
agreed.
The difference is you are saying that Christians coming ot Muslim lands and demanding rights they have in their own lands when that is not right, they come to muslim countries and they should abide by the laws of those countries and not bring their own with them in the very same way muslims should not go to Europe and demand sharia law for ALL but should also have the rights that everyone else living there should have.
Christians don't have a problem with assymilated Muslims its the Muslims who come here demanding rights, having kids like crazy, expecting Christians to accept Mosques being built on every corner when not one Church exists in Saudia Arabia.
Christianity has become part of the Western Identity, but Muslims don't care, all they want to do is fly the flag of Sharia over the West.
If I am in UK or USA or France I expect the same rights as anyone else living there and to abide by the laws of that land the same as everyone else does, and here in Egypt I have to live by the laws here and not expect the same laws to apply as they do in UK. The health and safety inspector for one would close the country! I can moan about it but it's not my right to demand it.Do Christians have the same Right in Muslim Dominated Lands, don't you see how Hypocritical that is, You are an English woman so you grow up in a progressive modern society, but people coming from lands that historically discriminate against non Muslims but come to the West and expect to be treated like queens and kings. Clean up your own backyards.
So what about the Americans oppressing Muslims in their own lands? that comes under the term 'liberation' I suppose?
Oppression BY Muslims is so against the Quran it's on another planet but again hadith have given meanings other than that which God intended and said. Another arguement again. I strongly disagree with oppression of anyone and Muslims are actually required to fight against it for anyone.
Majority of Americans are against the War, we want out, Hell Majority of Americans DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO with Muslim Lands or Giving yall Democracy. Who Cares, Live how you want.
I hope Obama does pull the Troops out of Afghanistan.
Yet I don't see Muslims like you decrying the disrespect for Western Values by Muslim Immigrants to christian lands or decrying the flock and breed program of Muslims to the West...
so there we have it. Paul WAS against Jesus, he persecuted Christians and you accept him to chnge the bible and give new rules yet you have just been talking about Muslims persecuting Christians?
The Key here is forgivness, I have no problem with Muslims who repent to Jesus and change their life and I would accept the with open arms. No matter how you try your smear campaign against Paul wont work. If Paul Really wanted to lie why the hell would he admit he persecuted Christians once..
Does that mean Muslims can now come and give you more new 'bible' like Paul did?
If a Muslim has the prophesy and is direct contact with Jesus like Paul, the God is with him and he will prevail over his persecution. Yet, unlike Paul Muslims deny Christ is the Son of God so I won't even bother entertaining a "Muslim" Trying to give me prophecy or "Gospels".
The laws that were a burden to the early church were the laws jesus followed and LEFT IN PLACE Left for the Jews NOT THE GENTILES for the 4th Time, the Gentiles did not grow up under the Levitical laws. Once again Christ DID NOT GO TO THE GENTILES he went to the Jews, and instructed the 12 to NOT GO TO THE GENTILES. Paul was the disciple to the Gentiles.
Second Jesus and the 12 broke the Sabbath, and guess what when the Scribes and Pharasees confronted him he said That it is Law for a child who disobeys his parents to be put to death but the scribes did not follow it.
Christ will deal with the Law when he returns and the Kingdom of Heaven is established.
Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
quote: quote: Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
However I refrain from Idolotry and eating of Blood. Christians who Eat Red Meat are Liars and are sinning,
huh??? Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: Paul (SAUL) made Christianity what it is now and it would be a good thing for ALL of us to drag out those lost books and lay all this out on the floor, each piece of the whole jigsaw of OT, NT, Quran and all those banished writings and piece together what we have left of TRUTH from the creator then maybe we would all be able to see and understand better - not each others faith, but what the GOD actually said and wanted from mankind.
Isn't it wonderful how Jesus changed the heart of a man that persecuted his people into one of his greatest followers!
Instead of telling the Christians to rise up and kill those that are against them; Jesus appeared to Saul with a blinding light and asked him why he is persecuting him. Then told him to go into the city and he will tell him what to do. Our God is an awesome God!
Paul's true love for the Christ he never physically met is a shining example for all believers today.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
I met a guy called Alan once, claimed the same thing. Nice guy. Dunno what happened to him.
Posted by Questionmarks (Member # 12336) on :
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv:
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: Ow, this forum isn't about religion it is about religious intolerance!
Intolerance is when you take action to stop someone from exercising their rights or expression. Don't confuse criticism with intolerance.
Not tolerant, especially: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs. b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.
Posted by *Dalia* (Member # 13012) on :
quote:Originally posted by 'Shahrazat: To my non-hijabi Muslim sister who feels that hijab is a sign of oppression for the Muslim female, please do read the above and then read the Quran. Believe me, if Allah SWT meant for hijab to be a sign of male authority, the Quran would be as unambiguous about it as Paul is in the Bible.
Isn't this difference the kind of thing that attracted you to Islam in the first place?
No. And I don't really understand why a woman who dedicates a lot of time to convincing Muslim women that they should veil would write in length about veiling in Christianity. Doesn't make sense to me at all.
Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks:
quote:Originally posted by vwvwv:
quote:Originally posted by Questionmarks: Ow, this forum isn't about religion it is about religious intolerance!
Intolerance is when you take action to stop someone from exercising their rights or expression. Don't confuse criticism with intolerance.
Not tolerant, especially: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs. b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.
I feel that Western countries strive to be tolerant. Our laws reflect this. There are individuals who are not tolerant but the laws are an effort to protect against this. In some countries even the law of the government itself is intolerant and oppressive against certain groups of people.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by D_Oro:
quote: quote: Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
However I refrain from Idolotry and eating of Blood. Christians who Eat Red Meat are Liars and are sinning,
huh???
Try reading you bible..
According to Acts(I don't feel like posting the scripture right now). Christians even gentile Christians are supposed to refrain from eating Blood, you have to cook all the blood out of the meat, and refrain from Idolotry.
Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
Sorry Jari, but we ARE NOT under the Law, we live by the Grace of God. I am neither a liar nor an idolator, but I am still in the flesh and therefore admit to still being a sinner, and I do like a slice of black pudding now and then.
"Love God and love your neighbour as yourself."
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: Sorry Jari, but we ARE NOT under the Law, we live by the Grace of God. I am neither a liar nor an idolator, but I am still in the flesh and therefore admit to still being a sinner, and I do like a slice of black pudding now and then.
"Love God and love your neighbour as yourself."
What are you talking about I never said we were under the law I said Christians have to refrain from Eating blood, Idolotry, and must be baptized...??
What are you talking about..??
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
You a jevohahs witness jari?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: You a jevohahs witness jari?
??..What leads you to these conclusions??
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
If anything Im more like you(from what you told me on how you approach Islam), I don't follow mainstream Christianity or a main stream sect. I don't go to Church(For my own personal reasons), but I beleve in Jesus and study the New Testament and seek God for myself without the confines of an organized religion.
From what I heard the J.W claim Jesus is not Divine but simply a Man, which I don't believe, I believe in the God Head, I.E there is One God existing in 3 seperate spirits. The Father who sits on the Throne of Judgement, the Son who sits on the Right hand of the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
The Father answers the Prayers, The Son is lord of Creation, the Holy spirit dwells in man's hearts. They work together like Blood, Water, and The Spirit works to create life.
A J.W would consider me to be a heretic.
Posted by Ayisha (Member # 4713) on :
wow my spelling is seriously getting worse!
It was the blood thing that made me ask, that's all. Thanks for answering.
I think the JW's believe him to be son but not God though. I used to have some visit every other saturday before I moved here, had some long chats Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
"Christians have to refrain from Eating blood, Idolotry, and must be baptized"
Jesus said "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you, so love ye one another"
Christianity is ALL about love, the love of God for us, our love of Him, and our love for each other. This is the essence of the New Covenant, that God Almighty sacrificed His physical human self to enable us to face Him, as we are, and find there acceptance and fulfillment. Anything else is an added extra which is of no consequence whatsoever. Having rules and regulations is harking back to the Old Covenant, which was wholly fulfilled by God in Jesus, once and for all, and which now has no further power over us! What is the point of His suffering and death if we are still bound by the utter nonsense of petty rules? That's what I'm talking about!
What are YOU talking about?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: wow my spelling is seriously getting worse!
It was the blood thing that made me ask, that's all. Thanks for answering.
I think the JW's believe him to be son but not God though. I used to have some visit every other saturday before I moved here, had some long chats
Its cool, and Christians according to Paul are supposed to refrain from Blood, Idolotry, and be Baptized. Not just. J.W
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: "Christians have to refrain from Eating blood, Idolotry, and must be baptized"
Jesus said "A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you, so love ye one another"
Christianity is ALL about love, the love of God for us, our love of Him, and our love for each other. This is the essence of the New Covenant, that God Almighty sacrificed His physical human self to enable us to face Him, as we are, and find there acceptance and fulfillment. Anything else is an added extra which is of no consequence whatsoever. Having rules and regulations is harking back to the Old Covenant, which was wholly fulfilled by God in Jesus, once and for all, and which now has no further power over us! What is the point of His suffering and death if we are still bound by the utter nonsense of petty rules? That's what I'm talking about!
What are YOU talking about?
Acts 15
19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
this is one of the few Levitical Laws given to the Gentiles..
“And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
"I never said we were under the law"
"this is one of the few Levitical Laws given to the Gentiles.."
Will you make your mind up?
This is daftness taken to extremes!
Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
quote:quote: quote: Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
However I refrain from Idolotry and eating of Blood. Christians who Eat Red Meat are Liars and are sinning,
That's quite a strong judgement you make Jari. I am thankful that God is the judge, he judges righteous judgement.
quote: Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
As far as the scripture that you quoted, Paul was speaking to a certain group of Jews who were pissed because the gentiles were not under the law, so a letter was written saying that they should avoid these things. He did not say that they are liars and are sinning. Here is another translation that I feel clarifies it:
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: Sorry Jari, but we ARE NOT under the Law, we live by the Grace of God. I am neither a liar nor an idolator, but I am still in the flesh and therefore admit to still being a sinner, and I do like a slice of black pudding now and then.
"Love God and love your neighbour as yourself."
I agree with you ourluxor.
quote: Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Tts 3:9 ¶ But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by ourluxor: "I never said we were under the law"
"this is one of the few Levitical Laws given to the Gentiles.."
Will you make your mind up?
This is daftness taken to extremes!
Th Scripture is quite clear. ANd you need to realize when I quoted leviticus I was using Precepts(Isa 28:1) for clarification, which is how you are supposed to read the scriptures.
Sorry Your Siminary Preacher forgot to instruct you on that.
Second Im not going to argue with you Paul wrote specifically what the Gentile Converts were to do and not to do. You can choose to listen to Christ or you can choose to not listen to him.
No where did I say we were under the law, Under the Law you had dietary, sexual, and moral laws to abide under, you worshipped at certain times..etc.
Eating blood is forbidden, Idolotry is forbidden, Sexual Immorality is Forbidden, and You must be Baptized. -Quite simple.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
That's quite a strong judgement you make Jari. I am thankful that God is the judge, he judges righteous judgement.
Where did I proclaim to be a Judge?? Are you feeling guilty. Repent to God, don't waste my time here...
As far as the scripture that you quoted, Paul was speaking to a certain group of Jews who were pissed because the gentiles were not under the law, so a letter was written saying that they should avoid these things. He did not say that they are liars and are sinning. Here is another translation that I feel clarifies it:
I still don't see where in this Rant you put up a reasonable defence for yourself. You said Paul was saying the Gentile Converts should "Avoid" Eating Blood and Idolotry, the do as instructed and AVOID Eating Blood and Idoltry, doing contrary and calling your self a follower of Christ is lying.
and I quoted Leviticus for Clarification(Precepts which is how you are supposed to read the scriptures)...It says clearly the God will Turn his face from those that Eat blood...and Paul wrote to the Gentiles to Avoid Eating Blood and Idoltry and Sexual Immorality.
See this is the problem with Christians that people like Ayisha look at and are glad they are Muslim or Non Christian, you people want an excuse. Follow the book that is given to you.
Using you logic an Idoloter can be a Christian..Sexual Pediphiles can be Christians...Are We Supposed to "Avoid at our choosing" Sexual Immorality or is it forbidden...
Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
Thanks for sharing your views Jari. Good luck in your walk. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Good Luck in your walk too, may God Spirit be with both of us always brother.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
The Bible is the word of God given to mankind.
Through the Holy Bible we see the Truth about the OT Prophets and the Isrealites.
God showed himself plenty of times to the Hebrews yet they always went away from his Love and followed the ways of the canaanites. God warned them countless times to turn away from evil and return to follow Him he sent prophets who were persecuted for speaking Gods words and they never heeded the warnings, Hence we see God punish them by allowing the enemies of the Hebrews to take them into bondage.
All the OT stories(Truths) are there to show us examples how NOT to behave in our walk with God.
The NT is based on the Truth of Jesus, Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecys of the OT. Jesus made sure to tell his followers that nothing that enters in to a person is bascially sin but what comes OUT of the person. Now we KNOW the NT speaks about blood and strangled things to stay far from them, we also Have Peter who saw a vision, and that Vision from God told him to "Rise Peter; Kill and Eat" That Vision also said for him to know "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" So we know food, Meats etc are not sin in of themselves.
To finish Up for now, We must really realize that Meats are NOT sin, BUT eating Blood is still wrong whether written in the OT or the NT it does not look kindly to eating or drinking blood. One main reason is because Blood is the Life Force of the animal. Read This:
Leviticus 17:14 14For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
The Great thing about God is God NEVER sugarcoats his message to the Hebrews, He makes it plain and simple for them to understand.
True Christians must understand that the BIBLE is our weapon against lust of the Flesh, Pride of Life etc. Those who follow the Holy Bible must not sugarcoat the teachings to please man. Bible states that those who love the "World" are enmity towards God. Trying to soften the truth of the Bible shows people that they are trying to please man and not God.
Peace
Posted by ourluxor (Member # 15101) on :
"I was using Precepts(Isa 28:1) for clarification, which is how you are supposed to read the scriptures."
Who told you that Jari?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Isa 28:9
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people
Now My question what is the signiigance of
Eli Eli lama sabachthani ^^^^ Was this at all signifigant...Was Jesus just talking out of his head..Can you explain to me why Jesus said that??
Posted by D_Oro (Member # 17954) on :
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
It could be that this is when Jesus felt separation from God because of the sins of the world that he took on.
After this he said "Into my hands I commend my spirit.
Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
The centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Jesus was not only crucified this day but he became the laughing stalk, being mocked and ridiculed. Even the sign nailed above his head was meant as a mockery "King of the Jews". And, while all this was going on he asked God to forgive those people who had nailed him there, who were mocking and laughing at him.
My gosh, human nature would of been to destroy these people, to hate them, but Jesus ask for them to be forgiven. Now that is truly worthy of awe.
Posted by freshsoda (Member # 13226) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
Eli Eli lama sabachthani ^^^^ Was this at all signifigant...Was Jesus just talking out of his head..Can you explain to me why Jesus said that??
Eli, eli, lamach sabathani is the first line of Psalm 22 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which is a prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion. He said it so Rabbis would figure out that he was the Messiah.
In Psalm 22,the rejection of the Messiah by the people (v.6), the insults they hurled at Him on the cross (vv.7-8 - compare with Matt.27:38-43), the pain of the crucifixion (vv.14-15), the piercing of His hands and feet (v.16), the dividing up of His clothing by lot (v.18) are just some of the more obvious parallels this Psalm prophesies.
Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises.
4 In you our ancestors put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the LORD,” they say, “let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax;it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)