Muhammad - Prophet or Profiteer of God?

page: 26
4
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Odium
 


Alright, but the land of current day Israel was given to the Jews in 1917 (during WWI) in what is known as the Balfour Declaration. Although it was only to be a homeland, not a sovereign Jewish nation, and the Jews were to live together with the Palestinians. This deal was broken by the British due to civil unrest but a few decades later the land was again given to the Jews after WWII but this time it was acknowledged as a sovereign Jewish state.

So, the land of Israel became a Jewish sovereign state recognized by the UN through peace treaties, land purchases, and war. If we deny the Jewish right to the land in spite of this historical knowledge, then we as Americans need to start packing our bags and heading back to Europe, Africa, and Asia because the land technically belongs to the native Americans due to the fact the U.S. also came to be through the means of peace treaties, land purchases, and war.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Odium
 


continued from break:so as was saying lot and abraham part company and lot has chosen all the valley of the Jordan for him and his offspring------------for whatever reason lot decided to make his way to sodom and live there-----genesis 14:12 where he got caught up in an invasion and was taken captive---------when abraham found out he went and rescued lot verse 14---------again Yahvah promises the land to abraham and his kids---from the nile to the euphrates-genesis 15:18.in genesis 16:12 G-Ds angel tells hagar that her son ishmael/arabs is to live to the east of abrahams other sons who abraham also sends away genesis 25:6.in genesis 17;19-21 isaac is promised as abrahams son to whom G-D will continue on with the promises made to abraham.------------------in the meantime lot is back in sodom again after his rescue--------but this time G-D has had enough of the depravity in it and gets lot out of there before destroying it------------his wife dies------and his daughters decide to have kids by their father----------1 is named moab and the other ammon-----------they grow into a nation/s moab makes the south of jordan its country and ammon makes the north of jordan its country with capital at rabbath amman.the majority of palestinians are the offspring of these 2 brothers that refuse stop coveting abrahams land/handed to isaac and from isaac to jacob and from jacob to the 13 tribes of israel of which judah/benjamin/and levi comprise the jews to the worlds present understanding while the other 10 tribes are scattered-------including some of the jews as well around this world--------we are everywhere.the jordanian palestinians get their start in life about 2060 bce----------long before the league of nations was even thought of



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Although in dispute by a few decades, even critics of the Bible can agree that most of the NT (and some believe all of it) was completed during the first century. So how can you say the concept of the trinity was created during man made councils in the 4th century and never taught during the onset of Chrsitianity?
]


I found this information on the development of the trinity interesting:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:


“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.



The New Encyclopædia Britannica says:


“Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.



In The Encyclopedia Americana we read:


“Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.



And here it pretty much sums up the real origin of this false doctrine.

According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel,


“The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.



John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says:


“The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.


So I think it is pretty well esablished even by Catholic sources that the Doctrine of the trinity was formulated and established hundreds of years after Christ, and adoptd from Pagan ideas.

Islam flat out rejects the notion of a three headed God. I think that is one thing they got right.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Sparky63]


[edit on 12-12-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
one passage with the English translation of "abroad", it has every significance, I mean, it is an odd passage if you take it with your meaning, "go outside and fight", where else where they going to fight, the bedroom!

Who said anything about fighting? And like I said, (as is the meaning of abroad in these sort of contexts- look it up
) such as the example I keep quoting 'The witches are abroad'. It doesn't mean there are literally 'witches outside'.



Originally posted by blueorder
If you think the Koran is not open to interpretation for war AND peace, then good luck to you

You seem to have moved your line back from 'The Quran advocates killing infidels' to 'the Koran is open to interpretations for war AND peace'. I suppose this is something.



Originally posted by blueorder
erm, sorry what, have a quick precis of recent jihadist bombings in britain- all well educated doctor's types, not the stereotypical "naive, unedcuated youth etc" you refer to.

I dare say Bin Laden had a ruddy good education too!

None of those doctors, nor Bin Laden had any proper education with regards to Islam. The Doctor seems to have had personal reasons for his attack (to avenge a friend killed by a Shia death squad in the Iraq War) Most Islamic scholars agree that Bin Laden has no standing to issue religious opinions.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


I agree with you that the trinity was undoubtedly later established as dogma as the writings of early church fathers prove. What I was trying to imply is that many of thing things which became dogma still had roots in first century Biblical teachings.

With the development of creeds and councils in order to solidify and unite early Christian beliefs and to counter heresies, the early church fathers established several foundations. I was simply trying to point out that the concept of the Trinity was already being taught and in circulation before it was declared to be church dogma.

On a side note, I'm not Catholic and never will be and disagree with much of their man-made dogma (Mary was a perpetual virgin, indulgences, prayer to the saints, using Mary as an intercessor, recitation of vain prayers, rituals and rites, children go to hell if they die before the age of accountability, etc.).

But do I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Absolutely. I feel it is a Biblical truth and revelation while other dogma (I hate that word
) was basically made by man from a distortion of Scripture and isolated passages.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Tisk Tisk,

WWI, WWII, war, the outcome is plain and simple. The Palestinians lost the land just like the Americans Indians did like mentioned before. I only hope we can have this feeling about 911 in 80 years just like your arguments have.

Are you a Palestine? Seems to me your hatred says so. Very embarrassing I must say. You have Mecca okay, but its not about Mecca is it? O no its what is in Israel you want isn't it? The birth place of all with the total destruction of non Muslims. Need a Muslim passport to get in.

But hey it don't stop there. Back to the holy wars. Once you get it back look out world here we come!

I don't disagree with the uprising in Iraq or Iran defending itself but must we all run back to text humans made 400 to 4000 years ago? Please. Don't use the Koran or the Bible to get where you need to go. But then again there is no human person alive I would follow (at the current moment) that I 100 percent believe as a prophet and can guide us to unity.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I gave you a star. Your posts are very clear and consice. I think there is much we probably agree on.

It's a nice change of pace to have civil discussion about things we may disagee on. That is something that seems to be a rare commodity here.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Who said anything about fighting?


erm
""Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause"



And like I said, (as is the meaning of abroad in these sort of contexts- look it up
) such as the example I keep quoting 'The witches are abroad'. It doesn't mean there are literally 'witches outside'.


you have decided abroad means a little used and archacic definition of abroad, that is YOUR interpretation, I could pepper this page all day with quotes were "abroad" is other lands

Different interpretations you see



You seem to have moved your line back from 'The Quran advocates killing infidels' to 'the Koran is open to interpretations for war AND peace'. I suppose this is something.


no, that remains, but you seem incapable of acknowledging that the Koran can be interpreted for peace or used to justify war, that is your prerogative, but it is not born out in reality



None of those doctors, nor Bin Laden had any proper education with regards to Islam. The Doctor seems to have had personal reasons for his attack (to avenge a friend killed by a Shia death squad in the Iraq War) Most Islamic scholars agree that Bin Laden has no standing to issue religious opinions.
[edit on 12-12-2007 by babloyi]


there were many well educated bombers and would be bombers, and I have no doubt you do not know the koranic education they received- safe to say they received a DIFFERENT education to you

Which is kinda my point *groundhog day*, different interpretations, some of which justify violence



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   
why is it that wemon must wear the cover cloths thingy
becuase i heard that if u r a women in islam and u do not wear the clothing and u show a little skin u will be beaten up

is that true becuase i think that if a women has the choose to be able to wear what she wonts then she can wear what she wants and not must wear the clothing the men say she must



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark_Ace
why is it that wemon must wear the cover cloths thingy
becuase i heard that if u r a women in islam and u do not wear the clothing and u show a little skin u will be beaten up

is that true becuase i think that if a women has the choose to be able to wear what she wonts then she can wear what she wants and not must wear the clothing the men say she must




here are more of these "uneducated" muslims- threatening death on their own daughter ffs

www.timesonline.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


i didnt no it was so bad

"A British imam's daughter is living in fear of her life under police protection after she received death threats from her family for converting to Christianity. "



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
erm
""Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause"

Actually, the verse says 'go in the way of Allah' (translation of Jihad fi sablillah).



Originally posted by blueorder
you have decided abroad means a little used and archacic definition of abroad, that is YOUR interpretation, I could pepper this page all day with quotes were "abroad" is other lands

It is hardly archaic. While I'm sure it exists, I've never noticed the use of 'abroad' to mean 'another country' except when someone is speaking (or there is a written description of someone speaking). Besides, I showed you all the other translations, where it is translated to 'go to' or 'go', etc. Do you really think that that one translation is meaning to say 'go to other countries' while all other translations say 'go' or 'go to', especially when 'abroad' can mean more than you are willing to accept it means.



Originally posted by blueorder
no, that remains, but you seem incapable of acknowledging that the Koran can be interpreted for peace or used to justify war, that is your prerogative, but it is not born out in reality

Alright, I acknowledge that if a person takes your approach to reading the Quran, it can be interpreted for whatever they want it to.

I've got to say, this is a pretty weird and strange point for you to be arguing so strenuously for. For the sake of peace, let us assume for a moment that your analysis is correct, and 'abroad' in this case means another country or land. What then? How does the meaning of 'another country' change anything? Just because you have a vague suspicion as to why someone should be in another country if not to war? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

Let us make a little list from the Quran (I can provide quotes if you like, I just left them out because otherwise this post would have become as cumbersome as the last one):

Only conditions where fighting is possible is when there is tumult and oppression- Now you may ask, what does this mean? Quran explains that also:
-Being driven away from your home
-Prevented from worshipping God
-You are being fought against

Restrictions when fighting:
-Aggression is forbidden
-Blind retaliation is forbidden
-Can't fight those with which you have a treaty
-Not for personal gain
-Treachery not allowed
-You cannot attack non-combatants
-You cannot attack children
-You cannot burn down the religious buildings, or attack convents
-If someone asks for protection, you must not only not fight them, but must also escort them to a place of safety
-Prisoners of war must be housed and fed properly

*When to stop fighting:
-When the enemy stops fighting
-When the enemy offers peace
-When the enemy offers a treaty

You may say that many of those so called 'violent islamic jihadist' do not follow these clearly set down rules. And I'd reply to you what I've been saying since the beginning *groundhog day* : Then they are not following Islam. How is Islam to blame?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
""Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in Allah's Cause"

Actually, the verse says 'go in the way of Allah' (translation of Jihad fi sablillah).



more "interpretations"!

www.ahadees.com...

"'O believers! When you march forth for a crusade then make proper investigation and he who greets you, say not to him, 'you are not Muslim, "

now we have "marching forth" for a "crusade"


Not words of defence!

*and some muslims have the cheek to carry several hundred year old crusades victim cards around, a response to muslim agression in any case*




It is hardly archaic. While I'm sure it exists, I've never noticed the use of 'abroad' to mean 'another country' except when someone is speaking (or there is a written description of someone speaking).


I can assure you that anyone using "abroad" in an English speaking country does NOT mean go outside, that cannot be any clearer- it means go to another land, country etc



Besides, I showed you all the other translations, where it is translated to 'go to' or 'go', etc. Do you really think that that one translation is meaning to say 'go to other countries' while all other translations say 'go' or 'go to', especially when 'abroad' can mean more than you are willing to accept it means.


I have been in an English speaking country all my life, have studied to degree level, work in the financial industry and have NEVER (outside of archaic poems) seen or heard the word abroad to mean anything other than going to another country or nation



Alright, I acknowledge that if a person takes your approach to reading the Quran, it can be interpreted for whatever they want it to.


these people (involved in Islamic militant, terrosism, jihadism, islamism *insert preferred name) have never heard of me, I am commenting on world reality due to THEIR interpretation of the Koran




I've got to say, this is a pretty weird and strange point for you to be arguing so strenuously for. For the sake of peace, let us assume for a moment that your analysis is correct, and 'abroad' in this case means another country or land. What then? How does the meaning of 'another country' change anything? Just because you have a vague suspicion as to why someone should be in another country if not to war? Sorry, that doesn't make sense.


the verse makes little sense, you believe your interpretation due to a man's interpretation (which you believe to be the word of Allah- that is your right to believe it)




Let us make a little list from the Quran (I can provide quotes if you like, I just left them out because otherwise this post would have become as cumbersome as the last one):

Only conditions where fighting is possible is when there is tumult and oppression- Now you may ask, what does this mean? Quran explains that also:
-Being driven away from your home
-Prevented from worshipping God
-You are being fought against



I have already acknowledged that the Koran can be interpreted for peace (although even the above is not peace in the Jesus love thy enemeny style notion of the word)




Restrictions when fighting:
-Aggression is forbidden
-Blind retaliation is forbidden
-Can't fight those with which you have a treaty
-Not for personal gain
-Treachery not allowed
-You cannot attack non-combatants
-You cannot attack children
-You cannot burn down the religious buildings, or attack convents
-If someone asks for protection, you must not only not fight them, but must also escort them to a place of safety
-Prisoners of war must be housed and fed properly

*When to stop fighting:
-When the enemy stops fighting
-When the enemy offers peace
-When the enemy offers a treaty

You may say that many of those so called 'violent islamic jihadist' do not follow these clearly set down rules. And I'd reply to you what I've been saying since the beginning *groundhog day* : Then they are not following Islam. How is Islam to blame?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by babloyi]



they are not following your interpretation of Islam- they have different interpretations of a very contradictory and open to differing views, book!



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Sorry I didn’t get back soon to you.
You wrote: “So how can you say the concept of the trinity was created during man made councils in the 4th century and never taught during the onset of Christianity?”
Festal Epistle of St. Athanasius offered earliest known list of the New Testament canon in its current form. 367 AD.
The New Testament was officially sealed and ratified in 397 AD, from four biographies.
This is what I mean…my point is that they could have altered anything they wish to. And Arius was strongly against this idea of Jesus been divine because he must probably know at that time, that it was an invention or hard-pressed interpretation of the early scriptures.
Despite the gospels where written long before.

Kacou



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I can assure you that I am certainly not uneducated, and am perfectly aware of what 'abroad' means, in an English speaking country as well as anywhere else. My previous statement still stands.

I don't know about archaic poems, but as I said, the Yusuf Islam translation of the Quran is hardly new.

The verse makes very clear sense: "When you are out and about (or in another country
), don't go left and right accusing people of being non-believers and attacking them, yearning for worldly goods when God provides all"

You talk alot about interpretations. I'm not using interpretations. I am using the actual Quran, in the original arabic. Words are words, and the examples I gave are pretty obvious words, there is nothing about interpretations.

As far as comparing the list to the 'Jesus love thy enemy style of peace', when you yourself have admitted that you see nothing wrong with defending yourself, and nothing is wrong if other people defend themselves, and the fact that it would be a very rare (to the point of non-existent) person who had the power to defend themself against attack and didn't, as well as the fact that according to christians (or their interpretations, maybe
), Jesus will come back and slaughter somewhere in the vicinity of 200 million people, I don't see what the point is of bringing it up.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
I can assure you that I am certainly not uneducated, and am perfectly aware of what 'abroad' means, in an English speaking country as well as anywhere else. My previous statement still stands.

I don't know about archaic poems, but as I said, the Yusuf Islam
translation of the Quran is hardly new.


abroad, except for incredibly, and indescribably rare occasions means another country, or land





You talk alot about interpretations. I'm not using interpretations. I am using the actual Quran, in the original arabic. Words are words, and the examples I gave are pretty obvious words, there is nothing about interpretations.


apparently the words, verse and entire book are not "obvious" because they inspire some to war and violence while others are inspired in peaceful ways





As far as comparing the list to the 'Jesus love thy enemy style of peace', when you yourself have admitted that you see nothing wrong with defending yourself, and nothing is wrong if other people defend themselves, and the fact that it would be a very rare (to the point of non-existent) person who had the power to defend themself against attack and didn't,



If I lived my life according to the bible, you may have a point



as well as the fact that according to christians (or their interpretations, maybe
), Jesus will come back and slaughter somewhere in the vicinity of 200 million people, I don't see what the point is of bringing it up.



500 years ago Calvinists used their version of Christianity to institute the death penalty for adultery in Switzerland- thankfully Christianity has long since moved away from such violent legal interferences in our lives.

As for the differing interpretations of what Jesus does, even those who believe that don't use his words as an interpretation for slaughter themsevles, which is kinda the point



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
apparently the words, verse and entire book are not "obvious" because they inspire some to war and violence while others are inspired in peaceful ways



Originally posted by blueorder
As for the differing interpretations of what Jesus does, even those who believe that don't use his words as an interpretation for slaughter themsevles, which is kinda the point

But they do. And they did. For a long long time, many, many times. Our friend atmonster wants to slaughter all the people in jails. He justifies this with the Bible. Is the Bible to blame for this?

PS: I didn't get what you were talking about in the beginning of that last post. What was that in response to? Abroad except in....?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


...and where did the Israeli's come from?

The oldest known record of the word; Israel is on the Merneptah Stele and the context of it makes out as though Israel is a people and not a place. (Israel a people without a state.) It wasn't until 1000BCE that King David established Jerusalem as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah.

The land that this all happened on prior to the Jews moving to it from Egypt had a people. These people are now the Arabs. The vast majority of contemporary Jewish people in Israel can not trace their genetic heritage back to the Middle East and Africa but in fact only can to Europe.

The people in Israel now, aside with the odd exception, are not even Jewish.

It's pretty straight forward for anyone with half a brain:
The land that is now Israel was promised to the Arabs in the League of Nations Mandate A.
The contemporary Jewish population can't trace their genetic roots back to the time of Kind David to proove it belongs to them.
They stole the land and killed many of the people who it belongged to prior to them being there.

It doesn't belong to you.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Keebie
 


I have absolutely no Middle Eastern blood in me. I am Russian and Native American, with some Spanish mixed in there. Nor am I a follower of any Religion - I myself have just bothered to research this part of contemporary History and it is clear as the sun and the moon that Israel is a State that harms the World more-so-than Iraq ever did or does.

It is Israel who has produced Nuclear Weapons. It is Israel who has shot American troops to try and bring them into war with Egypt. It is Israel who uses missiles to bomb markets in the hope of killing one terrorist. It is Israel who places absolutely no value on human life of Non-Jews. It is Israel that has used its Intelligence Agencies to cause harm to many people in this World.

It is about time people stop hiding behind the age old tripe and look at the facts.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Reply to yahn goodney

Its very CLEAR and SIMPLE matey!

If Israel gives the land back to Palestinians than WE WILL see PEACE!

And if the land isn’t given back to Palestinians than WIL NEVER see PEACE!





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join