Faith Freedom International :: View topic - Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> [Archived] Comments on the Articles Posted in the Main Site

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Bam

Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 137

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:06 pm Post subject:

Ali Sina wrote:

Show me one Muslim who could say Jihad is evil and I will accept that moderate Muslims exist.

Most Christians will not agree that Yahweh's instigated genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Canaanites was wrong (Deut 20:16-17); nor do they admit Yahweh was cruel and evil when he massacred 70,000 innocent people because king David committed the "heinous" crime of conducting a census (2 Sam 24:15, 1 Chron 21:14).
Even the Bible acknowledges Yahweh was evil when he perpetrated the massacre - And the lord repented of the evil (2 Sam 24:16, 1 Chron 21:15).
Yet these Christians who see nothing wrong with these atrocities of Yahweh and Moses are considered "moderate". They insist the gentile Canaanites deserved extermination because they were unrighteous "heathens".

"Moderate" Muslims have a different definition of Jihad, which they believe means personal striving.
Of course those of us who are familiar with Islamic history and scriptures (Quran, Hadith & Sirat) know this intepretation of Jihad as "personal striving" is false. But if these Muslims geniunely believe Jihad doesn't mean violence, then they qualify as moderates.
Not unlike Christians who consider Jesus the Prince of peace, even though Jesus clearly stated he wasn't interested in peace but in violence (sword), chaos and anarchy:

Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set man against his father, and daughter against mother...(Mathew 10:34-36).

"Moderate" Christians proffer all kinds of unconvincing asinine interpretations for this verse - except the clearly obvious one. Just like moderate Muslims who insist Jihad means "striving" not violence - in spite of all the obvious contrary evidence in Islamic scriptures.

It is noteworthy that there have been several arrests and executions of Islamic terrorists in Muslim countries (Pakistan, Yemen and even Saudi Arabia). If there are no moderate Muslims, who made these arrests and killed several of the terrorists (in shoot outs) in these Islamic countries?
Who provides the West (including Israel) with the intelligence which they use to prosecute the war against terror?
If there are no moderate Muslims, how does Turkey remain secular well over half a century after the demise of Kemal Ataturk?

The truth of the matter is that even "moderate" Muslims have also become targets of Islamic terror and thus appreciate the need to eradicate it - which is why the West cooperates with Muslim governments in the war against terror.
Admittedly, religious moderation is relative as "moderate" Muslims do not neccessarily share all the secular ideals of moderate Christians, Buddhists or Hindus - hence the skepticism about Islamic moderation.

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:36 am Post subject:

Bam wrote:

Not unlike Christians who consider Jesus the Prince of peace, even though [b]Jesus clearly stated he wasn't interested in peace but in violence (sword), chaos and anarchy:]/b]

Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set man against his father, and daughter against mother...(Mathew 10:34-36).

I think you have mis-interpreted what Jesus said and have a biased attitude toward Jesus.

"clearly stated he wasn't interested in peace but in violence, chaos and anarchy"...............................nonesense!

My take on what he said is, his mission was not for the purpose of bringing peace, this doesn't mean he was not interested in peace, nor does it mean he preferred violence.

The "sword' is a metaphor for "the word of god", the truth, nothing to do with violence or anarchy.

See my signature to get an idea of what the "sword" that Jesus spoke of means.

"to set man against his father, and daughter against mother" means to get people to see their individuality and not cling to traditions, rituals and established acceptance of their fore-fathers' beliefs.

He was teaching that the "I am" in each person is the true individual, the "truth", it is the "way", and to be in this true state of individuality is the way to have an unhindered (no third-party) relationship with what they perceive as the "father".

He was teaching that each person has their own personal relationship with the "father", without influence of any third=party, including the ones that one may have been conditioned to trust and believe.

By looking at how muslims blindly believe what they have been lead to believe by their parents, passed down through generations is an example of the corruption of the "true way" of the individual.

His purpose was to "cut" through the crap.

rainbow

Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 2339
Location: GOD IS TINY!

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:55 am Post subject:

Cyberite, I don't think a 'wall' would really help in the long run - it seems the only way is through education and exposure of the ideology. It may take until the next generation for it to collapse. This coming generation will be more educated, we hope, and will start questioning the ideology of their parents (I'm an optimist). After speaking to my ex the other day, I can see how utterly ingrained Islam is in his generation. He is in absolute denial that Muhammad did anything other than spread peace and love. He says the english translations are all false. I asked him if he would still consider being a muslim if he DID find out that Muhammad was no better than a terrorist, and he cut me off and said; "I was born a muslim, I will live as a muslim and I will die as a muslim!" End of story. And Piggy, I have lost count how many times Bam has repeated this same line and been countered every time! You deserve a medal. Rainbow

syamal

Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 486

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:15 am Post subject:

Quote:

And Piggy,
I have lost count how many times Bam has repeated this same line and been countered every time!
You deserve a medal.

Jesus phobia ?

Bam

Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 137

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:02 am Post subject:

piggy wrote:

The "sword' is a metaphor for "the word of god", the truth, nothing to do with violence or anarchy...He (Jesus) was teaching that the "I am" in each person is the true individual, the "truth"...

Spot the difference.

rainbow wrote:

He is in absolute denial that Muhammad did anything other than spread peace and love.

Just as you Christians are in absolute denial and insist that Jesus is the "Prince of peace" even when he advocated violence in Mathew 10:34.

rainbow wrote:

I have lost count how many times Bam has repeated this same line and been countered every time!

I have also lost count of how many times we have attacked Islam on this forum - but Muslims haven't changed - Mohammed phobia? Apologies to Syamal.
No double standards. What is good for goose (Islam) is good for gander (Christianity).
None of you bible apologists have successfully "countered" the obviously violent verse!

piggy wrote:

My take on what he said is,...

So its your take - your opinion, not what the bible states. This is simple English:

I (Jesus) have not come for peace.

but a sword - sword is an instrument designed solely to kill, not for justice. Please remember the context - I have not come for peace.

I have come to set man against father, daughter against mother...and a man's enemies will be members of his own family (Mathew 10:35-36).

To any clearly thinking person this is obviously chaos, disorder and anarchy.
And how about Luke 19:27? There is an obvious consistent pattern of violent utterances from Jesus, first Mathew then Luke.
Stop putting spin on the bible!! Its not much better than the Quran.

scaredguy

Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 1239

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:43 pm Post subject:

Moderate - this word will as usual confuse us. 1) Moderate muslim here can be a fanatic muslim elsewhere. 2) What moderate muslims speak when they are among themselves? Or when a non-muslim is nearby? 3) Islam - means submission - means mental slavery - means no possibility of innovation (bidat) or new thinking (ijtehad) - means subservient fanaticism wherein every muslims competes with every muslim to show of his unflinching faith. 4) Moderate muslims know in their hearts that they are liars, self-deceivers, hypocrites - one notices it on their behaviour, body-language, words chosen etc. Or they are ignorant people living in an ignorant environment (till the talibans and the like come and remove this ignorance about islam). 5) Moderates muslims thimk it is the duty of the non-muslims to fight and defeat the fanatic muslims. If non-muslims win then the moderate muslims will partake of this win, but if the fanatic muslims win then they will equally well profit from this win. Very opportunistic.

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:37 pm Post subject:

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

The "sword' is a metaphor for "the word of god", the truth, nothing to do with violence or anarchy...He (Jesus) was teaching that the "I am" in each person is the true individual, the "truth"...

Spot the difference.

rainbow wrote:

He is in absolute denial that Muhammad did anything other than spread peace and love.

Just as you Christians are in absolute denial and insist that Jesus is the "Prince of peace" even when he advocated violence in Mathew 10:34.

rainbow wrote:

I have lost count how many times Bam has repeated this same line and been countered every time!

piggy wrote:

My take on what he said is,...

So if jesus came with a real sword, where are the reports of him and/or his immediate companions carrying swords or using them?

The words "I have not come for peace".......don't mean that he did not believe or want peace...........these words simply say that peace was not his mission.......the peace comes naturally, when one has found peace within one's self.....he came to show the way........he did not come for peace because he already was at peace.

BTW, I am not a christian.

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:03 pm Post subject:

Bam wrote:

Just as you Christians are in absolute denial and insist that Jesus is the "Prince of peace" even when he advocated violence in Mathew 10:34

What utter opinionated nonesense!

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Now read carefully and show where it "clearly' shows that Jesus is advocating violence.

He is reported in one, possibly more occasions, to have asked his followers from getting physically violent.

There are no reports of harmful violence anywhere on the part of Jesus.

The "sword" has already been explained to you.

You obviously have a dutiful bias against Jesus and are bigotted in your stance.

The evidence of the violence of Mohammed and advocating violence is rife and proliferates Quran and ahadith, plain to see, without any digging required, on the other hand you are digging and finding only fool's-gold attempting to support your nonesensical, feeble argument which is fallacious at best.

About the "goose" and the "gander"........even if it were to be true (which is absolutely absurd) that Jesus advocated violence.......you do know that two wrongs don't make it right.......don't you?

How does the notion that Jesus advocated violence, make Mohammed and his islam any better or non-violent?

Fazil

Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 78

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:07 pm Post subject:

[/quote]Moderate Muslims do not exist.

Quote:

We need to agree on what ‘Moderate Muslims” means. Are they:
i) Muslims who interpret Islam in a “moderate” way and behave accordingly, thus rejecting the beheading, chopping of hands, stoning of women, etc; or
ii) Muslims who practice a “moderate” form of Islam.

You may argue that they are either apostates or gradually abandoning Islam. But we do know that there are more “moderate Muslims” in countries with sizeable non-Muslim minorities or among Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. Perhaps they are compelled to adopt a more “tolerant” form of Islam in those countries, which are mostly non-Arab countries. But even these “moderate” Muslim populations (e.g. in Pakistan or Indonesia) have recently been radicalised through Saudi influence (money and Wahabi teachings). Many Muslim countries have been compelled to adopt more civilised codes of behaviour (raising the age of marriage, stop stoning or chopping of hands, etc.) under international public opinion and some form of democracy exists mostly in non-Arab Muslim countries. The youth in Iran are more and more questioning the Islamic theocracy.

So things are moving, and we have to keep the momentum going. The Internet freedom of expression is going to be the catalyst that will help people question Islam and its Prophet, just as the printing press did for Catholicism. Just imagine what Catholicism was in AD 1400? So, all the terrorism we are witnessing is more directed towards intimidating Muslims not to quit Islam, since non-Muslims are not really scared by such barbarism although it makes them sick.

_________________
Falsehood shall be destroyed; truth in the end shall prevail. - Adi Granth

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

Ali Sina wrote:

Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

The nuclear bomb is very modern. Should we have ones ?

Humanist

Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: moderate islamists

peterdgreat wrote:

I hope the meainings of this articles sinks in to the bush administration.
trying to turn Iraq into a free democratic state is foolhardy. .......................................................... In my opinion we did what we came for, we captured Saddam and rid Iraq of his party, now let the iraqis do whatever they want to do, let us leave ASAP. a single additional life of our troops are not worth it.

Thanks for the insight peterdgreat. Sounds like you are in Iraq. God speed to you good man.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject: Re: Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

mehdi_t wrote:

Ali Sina wrote:

Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

The nuclear bomb is very modern. Should we have ones ?

Believe me, that will be your worst nightmare.
_________________
‌

Jamuka

Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 683

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:43 pm Post subject:

Quote:

This I believe, is a fallacy. There are moderate "Muslims", those that know Islam and are in denial about it, those that do not know it but stick to it out of tradition/culture amongst other categories. Let's not be blind to them.

I think we first need to define exactly what is a moderate Muslim. Is a so called 'moderate Muslim' is one that believes in Allah/Muhammad but does not believe in following the Quran to the tee? If that is the case, he/she is no more a Muslim. Whichever way you look it you will soon come to the realisation that the term 'MODERATE MUSLIM' is an oxymoron for strictly speaking, there is no such thing.

I think this is why you do not see any Muslims condemning beheadings and many other atrocities committed in the name of this cult. To condemn it would mean apostasy. So instead of following it to the tee, relax yourself with the rules but at the same time do not condemn those that are following the teachings of the Quran to the tee.

So one can summarise that a Muslim 'moderate' or not, is a danger to civilization for he/she tacitly supports barbarism,, rape, murder, pillage and plunder in thename of this Bedouin cult.
_________________
Why can't we all just get along?....Rodney King

Bam

Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 137

Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:38 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

So if jesus came with a real sword, where are the reports of him and/or his immediate companions carrying swords or using them?

He never had the opportunity as the Romans executed himafter his abortive bid for power. In effect Jesus never went beyond the stage of Mohammed's Meccan (peaceful) Islam.
But it is obvious from his violent utterances (Mathew 10:34, Luke 19:27) that had he achieved his goal of toppling the Romans, he wouldn't have been different from Mohammed or Moses.
Notice how Jesus flogged people in temple even when he exercised no sovereign authority or power - And making a whip of cords, he drove them all...out of the temple (John 2:15).
If he could resort to such brazen violence when he exercised no sovereign power, it doesn't take much imagination to know what he would have done had he succeeded in toppling the Romans and acquiring power.

Jesus said: Those my enemies, who do not want me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them before me (Luke 19:27).

Furthermore Jesus fully endorsed the brutal barbaric Mosaic laws and insisted that not even a dot should be changed (Mathew 5:17-19).
In order words if Jesus had the successfully overthrown the Romans and established his own kingdom, he would have behaved exactly like Moses who perpetrated genocide against the Canaanites; executed a man for fetching firewood on sabbath and stoned to death disobedient children - a la Mosaic law.

Jesus said: I have come not to abolish the law of the prophets...For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 5:17-19).

piggy wrote:

these words (Mathew 10:34) simply say that peace was not his (Jesus) mission

Isn't it strange that a religious leader for the salvation of humanity is not interested in peace? Why do you Christians call him "Prince of peace"?

piggy wrote:

sword' is a metaphor for "the word of god", the truth

You sound like moderate Muslims who insist Jihad means "striving".
In a previous post you said "sword" meant justice, now you say it means truth. Which is correct?
In any case I am not aware of any language or culture where sword is synonymous with truth.
And why would "truth" cause social havoc with children rebelling against their parents?
This surely contradicts with one of Yahweh's commandments - Honour your father and mother (Exodus 20:12).
Please note that this commandment is part of the Mosaic law which Jesus insisted on upholding without changing even a dot (Mathew 5:17-1

piggy wrote:

How does the notion that Jesus advocated violence, make Mohammed and his islam any better or non-violent?

I never said Islam was better.

piggy wrote:

I am not a christian

Then why do you bend over backwards to whitewash and distort Jesus' violent utterances?

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:09 am Post subject:

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

So if jesus came with a real sword, where are the reports of him and/or his immediate companions carrying swords or using them?

He never had the opportunity as the Romans executed himafter his abortive bid for power. In effect Jesus never went beyond the stage of Mohammed's Meccan (peaceful) Islam.

Jesus never had a sword nor did he or any of his immediate followers use one.

Where is your evidence of his "bid for power"?

Jesus did not call for a book to be written, did not call for a religion to be established, did not have or use a sword, did not form an army, did not call for harming anyone, did not call for ritual prayer, did not call for the building of temples or mosques, did not call for overthrow of Romans, did not cal, for an empire to be built.

You are making up your own stories as well as digging up fool's gold.

Bam wrote:

But it is obvious from his violent utterances (Mathew 10:34, Luke 19:27) that had he achieved his goal of toppling the Romans, he wouldn't have been different from Mohammed or Moses.

You have not established that he had violent utterences, so nothing is "obvious" as you would have people believe based on your own bigotted fairy-tales.

Bam wrote:

Notice how Jesus flogged people in temple even when he exercised no sovereign authority or power - And making a whip of cords, he drove them all...out of the temple (John 2:15).
If he could resort to such brazen violence when he exercised no sovereign power, it doesn't take much imagination to know what he would have done had he succeeded in toppling the Romans and acquiring power.

John 2:14 - 2:15

14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.

15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

I don't see any mention of flogging, you are making up more fairy-tales.

The scattering of the coins and the tables could have been turned over by accident, when he was shooing the animals and people out, still no mention of "flogging" nor any harm to life or limb, nor any sword or any of his followers joining in.

What has sovereign power got to do with this event anyway?

It doesn't take much for YOU TO IMAGINATION that's for sure, and you have not established any call or attempt to topple the Romans and acquire power........more imaginative fairy-tales on your part.

Bam wrote:

Jesus said: Those my enemies, who do not want me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them before me (Luke 19:27).

Jesus DID NOT SAY THIS.

Read it again and you might, just might notice that it was a master talking to his servants in a parable (a story) that Jesus related to his followers.

Here are the relavent verses from Luke 19 that clearly show this.

Luke 19:11 - 19:27

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.

13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[1] 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth.

21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow?

23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.

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

Bam wrote:

Furthermore Jesus fully endorsed the brutal barbaric Mosaic laws and insisted that not even a dot should be changed (Mathew 5:17-19).
In order words if Jesus had the successfully overthrown the Romans and established his own kingdom, he would have behaved exactly like Moses who perpetrated genocide against the Canaanites; executed a man for fetching firewood on sabbath and stoned to death disobedient children - a la Mosaic law.

"in other words".....yeah right!

"IF" this, and "HAD HE" that, "WOULD HAVE" this, and "FULLY ENDORSED" that.....you are speculating and making up your own fairy-tales.

Matthew 5:17 - 5:20

[To get the picture in Matthew 5, Jesus was talking to his inner-circle, as we can see from the first two verses of Matthew 5.]

1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him,

2 and he began to teach them saying:.................[now to the verses you cite 5:17 - 5:19 with 5:20 to complete the picture]

The Fulfillment of the Law

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

My comments:

Basically saying don't assume what he has come to achieve.

The laws (Ten Commandments) are right, good laws, good commandments, as opposed to the people who interpreted them to suit their agenda and built a cruel penal system from them.

None of the Commandments call for cruelty or punishment.

Remember the verse about Jesus stepping-in when some people were going to stone a woman to death?.....get the picture Bam?

Remember, he added another commandment, "Love one another....." which he said was greater than those of Moses.

Hardly a call for violence.

These laws are to stand as a guidance for the duration of man's existence.

When "everything is accomplished" I take to mean that all men will wake-up to themselves and the law will no longer need to be preached, man will live by these laws naturally, the cruel dictators who exploited these basic laws will have been exposed and lose their power over the people.

Any one who breaks any one or more of these laws, or promotes breaking any one or more of these laws will not have a good reputation.

Those who observe and understand these laws correctly, and don't use them to gain power over others or bend and twist them to suit their own agenda "will enter the kingdom of heaven"...the kingdom of heaven, being a state of consciousness and being.

Those who do mis-use these laws "will be called least in kingdom of heaven".......this doesn't even mean they won't get there, it simply means they will have difficulty getting there by comparison to those who embrace the true spirit of the law.

Luke 17:20 - 17:21

The Coming of the Kingdom of God

20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,

21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Bam wrote:

Jesus said: I have come not to abolish the law of the prophets...For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mathew 5:17-19).

Already explained this above.

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

these words (Mathew 10:34) simply say that peace was not his (Jesus) mission

Isn't it strange that a religious leader for the salvation of humanity is not interested in peace? Why do you Christians call him "Prince of peace"?

Did Jesus claim to be a religious leader?......more fairy-tales?

Did Jesus say he "is not interested in peace"? ...........NO, it is YOU who is saying this...basically he simply said that it was not his primary mission, I have already explained this, but you persist in repeating yourself, as if saying it over makes it true.

As to why "christians" call Jesus by other titles, well they do like to put him on a pedestal, he was even reported to have walked on water, rose from the dead, etc.....which I personally don't believe happened, but this still doesn't make any of his guidances, teachings and examples any lesser.

Bam, you are biased and stubbornly take a bigotted stance on this in the face of rational and valid explanations, probably because you have a problem with some "christians" and you are taking out your vegeance on Jesus, trying to defame him, desperately grasping at and seizing upon anything you can dig-up, so far your interpretations and speculations are nonesensical, pathetic and pale in the face of the vast and overwhelming evidence that Jesus was highly enlightened and one of the most kind, loving humanitarians ever recorded in early literature.

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

sword' is a metaphor for "the word of god", the truth

You sound like moderate Muslims who insist Jihad means "striving".
In a previous post you said "sword" meant justice, now you say it means truth. Which is correct?

I don't care what you think I sound like, this is me talking and stating things as I see them.

Although it has little bearing on the issues we are discussing here, but for the record, kindly show me the "previous post" where I said "the sword means justice".

This is what I said in my "previous post", in which I quoted YOU talking of justice, in relation to the "sword"

Quote:

bam wrote:

In any case I am not aware of any language or culture where sword is synonymous with truth.
And why would "truth" cause social havoc with children rebelling against their parents?

So what if you are not aware of any language or culture where sword is synonymous with truth, what's that got to do with the issue?

Where did "social havoc" come from?.....what's it got to do with the issue?

Bam wrote:

This surely contradicts with one of Yahweh's commandments - Honour your father and mother (Exodus 20:12).
Please note that this commandment is part of the Mosaic law which Jesus insisted on upholding without changing even a dot (Mathew 5:17-1

Becoming an individual and following one's own path, free from the traditional beliefs of the parents and any mumbo-jumbo that they may have been led to believe, does not mean that one dishonours one's parents.

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

How does the notion that Jesus advocated violence, make Mohammed and his islam any better or non-violent?

I never said Islam was better.

I never said you did.

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

I am not a christian

Then why do you bend over backwards to whitewash and distort Jesus' violent utterances?

I am not bending anything...YOU ARE!

I am not "white-washing" anything either, you have made some absurd claims and they are based on YOUR speculative, opinionated, biased and bigotted stand-point.

You STILL haven't provided any evidence even remotely resembling substance that supports you absurd claims.

"Violent utterences"....baloney!

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> [Archived] Comments on the Articles Posted in the Main Site	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 2 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum