Is Islam the Synagogue of Satan?

nah. Nothing.

-v

[edit on 8-10-2009 by v01i0]

Originally posted by babloyi

Once again, your desire to be right is shown outweighing your interest in the pursuit of knowledge. Here is the full passage (of the story I assume you are talking about). I'm sure nenothtu can benefit from it too:

She had asked what portion of the sheep the apostle of Allah most
enjoyed and, having been told that it was the leg, she put much poison into it, although she also poisoned the whole sheep. When she placed it before the apostle he took a bite, but did not swallow; Bishr likewise took a piece, but he did swallow. Then the apostle of Allah spat his out, saying, 'This bone informs me that it is poisoned.' He summoned the woman, who confessed what she had done, and asked, 'What made thee do this?' She replied, 'It is no secret to thee, what my people feel towards thee. I said to myself, "If he be only a king, we shall be delivered of him; but if he be a prophet, he will know of the poison and guard himself."' The apostle released her, but Bishr died of the piece he had eaten.
During his last sickness, years later, the apostle said, 'I feel the vein of my heart bursting from the food I ate at Khaybar'; from these words, Muslims conclude that the apostle died a martyr of battle, as well as being favoured by Allah with the dignity of prophetic office.

Apologies for the long quote, but I thought it was necessary.

I can provide you with several other versions of this incident if you'd like. The salient points, present even in your account, are:

1) Mohammed claimed to be a prophet.

2) The woman poisoned him deliberately, to test that and see if he really was a prophet.

3) A true prophet would have been warned by God BEFORE he ate poison - that's the nature of the test, to see if God really IS looking out for, and communicating with, the "prophet"

4) Mohammed ate the poison anyhow, and thus failed the test.

His "god" threw him under the bus.

reply to post by nenothtu

Thank you for your.... patronisingly explanatory post, but I already knew of the Satanic verses, as well as the account in Tabari. You do realise that Tabari is not part of any Islamic scripture, and just some random Persian dude, who narrated everything told to him without fact-checking. So while some of his stuff may be interesting to read, unless it is corroborated with other VERIFIED sources, it may well be nonsense. The story also occurs in Ishaq (which once again, as a Sirat, and not official Hadith, wasn't really fact-checked by the compiler), and checking from the chain of narrators, it has become clear that it was invented so as to explain away the embarrassment of all the (non-muslims) prostrating to God when they heard Muhammad's declaration (they claimed they were prostrating because he gave up on his pushing for monotheism).

Anyhow, it isn't even necessary to go into such details. You've provided the verse with the alleged insertion yourself. Read it through with the insertion, and the insertion makes no sense in context!

Since you've taken up dooper's cause, and seem to agree with him on this point, I ask you to verify where you got the idea that "many monotheistic followers began to abandon him". It certainly isn't in the Tabari account you quoted.


reply to post by nenothtu

Originally posted by nenothtu
3) A true prophet would have been warned by God BEFORE he ate poison - that's the nature of the test, to see if God really IS looking out for, and communicating with, the "prophet"

4) Mohammed ate the poison anyhow, and thus failed the test.

In your hurry to waive away and negate my point, I don't think you read the account I quoted. The point is he DIDN'T eat the stuff, instead spat it out. I think it is very obvious that the woman saw that her "test" was passed.

reply to post by babloyi


Long ago, I concluded that you must work for CAIR.

Not a problem. You had a question about what monotheistic followers were leaving? You'll note that Muhammed was trying to sell the Meccans, and so the compromise.

You're the scholar. Who were his earliest followers?

In Surah 21:36, it reads, "When the unbelievers see you, they make fun of you, ridiculing you. They say, 'Is this the one who mentions your gods?' They would deny all mention of Ar-Rahman!" The Meccans are the ones being talked about here.

Now this is a problem for Muhammed. Allah was one of the Meccan gods, and Ar-Rahman was not. But at the time, Ar-Rahman was Muhammed's god.

You want to speak of nuances, and yet miss the most glaring, basic points.

Five generations at least, before Muhammed was born, Allah the moon-god was one of the many pagan gods worshipped in the raggedy, four-walled roofless structure called the Ka'aba. It was full of stones that represented the different gods, and Allah was among those stones. His was a dark, reddish brown, broken into seven pieces, some eleven by fifteen inches.

But this pagan Allah was exemplified by protection for the weak, good deeds, and charity.

The Allah of Muhammed was transformed into a god of paranoia, deceit, violence, vengeance, - a mirror of Muhammed.

For the pagan Meccans, Allah was the moon-god, one of 360 other gods.

The symbol of the pagan moon-god was that of a crescent moon.

The pagan, pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped the pagan moon-god by praying toward Meccas several times a day.

Pagan pre-Islamic Arabs made the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Pagan pre-Islamic Arabs ran around the temple of the moon-god called the Ka'aba; kissing the black stone, believed to be a meteorite.

killing an animal in sacrifice to the moon-god Allah.

throwing stones at the devil;

fasting for a month which begins and ends with the crescent moon, in honor of the pagan moon-god Allah.

Now what part of Allah being a pagan moon god is difficult to understand, and which part of worship of the pagan moon-god is different from the practices of today?

Now it was Meccans themselves that knew him, saw him every day, watched him grow, and called him a "specious pretender," a "fool," "a farfetched forger," "a lunatic," "a plagerizing poet," a "deceiving sorcerer," a "liar," and "magician."

Who had the forethought to ask, "What sort of prophet is this, with no angel sent to him?"

They even challenged him speaking, "Let him bring a miracle to us as the earlier prophets did."

None were forthcoming.

He couldn't.

Because he was not of JAWYEH.

reply to post by dooper

Originally posted by dooper
Long ago, I concluded that you must work for CAIR.

Hahahahaha...sorry to disappoint, but I don't. Even if I did, am I supposed to take that as an insult? Long ago, I formed a theory that you are retired from the army, and they must have explained things in a way very denigrating towards muslims, because you seem pretty well entrenched in your ideas, with no hope for or even care for what the other side has to say. It is a huge leap for me to make that assumption, and it probably isn't true, but that is the feeling I get.

Originally posted by dooper
You had a question about what monotheistic followers were leaving? You'll note that Muhammed was trying to sell the Meccans, and so the compromise.

You're the scholar. Who were his earliest followers?

I'm not a scholar by any means. Islam is certainly not my "profession". But anyhow, you want me to do your homework for you? The only reason I actually asked the question of you was so that you would (hopefully) check it up and realise that NONE OF HIS FOLLOWERS LEFT, NOT IN THE LEAST BECAUSE THE ALLEGED INCIDENT DIDN'T HAPPEN. And I love how you add "monotheistic" in front of them to differentiate them from the other "bad" followers. You do realise that Islam is a monotheistic religion, right? No amount of PAGAN PAGAN PAGAN MOON-GOD EVIL SATAN PAGAN PAGAN rhetoric from your side will change that.

To answer your question, his earliest followers were Abu Bakr, his wife Khadija, his nephew Ali, etc. There is no record of any of them ever even considering leaving Islam (or any record of anyone else at that occasion).

Originally posted by dooper
In Surah 21:36, it reads, "When the unbelievers see you, they make fun of you, ridiculing you. They say, 'Is this the one who mentions your gods?' They would deny all mention of Ar-Rahman!" The Meccans are the ones being talked about here.

Now this is a problem for Muhammed. Allah was one of the Meccan gods, and Ar-Rahman was not. But at the time, Ar-Rahman was Muhammed's god.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I'm not sure about the coherence of that sentence anyhow, but it makes no sense whichever way you look at it. Here is the verse you quoted:

Surah 21 Verse 36, Shakir Translation:
And when those who disbelieve see you, they do not take you but for one to be scoffed at: Is this he who speaks of your gods? And they are deniers at the mention of the Beneficent Allah.

Why would you seek to confuse a translation by translating one thing, but not another? I'm sorry, but there was no idol called "Ar-Rahman". Ar-Rahman simply means "Most Merciful" or "Most Beneficient", and is one of the title's of God. Almost every surah in the Quran begins "In the name of God, Most Merciful, Most Beneficient" (Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim).

And just in case you insist on your weird theory, here is a hadith that completely proves you wrong. It is a bit long (and I doubt you will do it, because I doubt you care, and), but you can proceed to the 5th paragraph, where it starts "When Suhail bin Amr came..." and read that paragraph only. It shows Muhammad using the same phrase in reference to Allah, and the other guy says "As for 'Beneficent,' (Ar-Rahman) by Allah, I do not know what it mean, so write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously".

Originally posted by dooper
You want to speak of nuances, and yet miss the most glaring, basic points.

..........

Now what part of Allah being a pagan moon god is difficult to understand, and which part of worship of the pagan moon-god is different from the practices of today?

The reason I ignore your "basic points", is because in all honesty, I've answered them hundreds of times before, and you simply don't care. I know that no matter what I say, you're going to start off your next post with 50 tonnes of "PAGAN PAGAN MOON-GOD PAGAN EVIL SATAN PAGAN PAGAN". I've pointed out several times you've made grievous errors in your posts, but you ignore them completely and move on to your next post of "PAGAN PAGAN MOON-GOD PAGAN EVIL SATAN PAGAN".

It is almost as if you are insecure about something. Perhaps (despite your best efforts) you've hit the truth, and fear it too much to look at it straight on? Because if one is in the right, if one is correct, it doesn't take slander and inaccuracies to prove ones point, as you are constantly using.


Here is another example of an inaccuracy of yours:

Originally posted by dooper
Now it was Meccans themselves that knew him, saw him every day, watched him grow, and called him a "specious pretender," a "fool," "a farfetched forger," "a lunatic," "a plagerizing poet," a "deceiving sorcerer," a "liar," and "magician."

If you had actually researched it, you'd know that before Muhammad scared them with his talk of the One True Monotheistic God, he was known as "Al-Amin" meaning "Truthful, trustworthy", and his assistance was used in arbitrating conflicts. And look here, one second you claim they called him a "deceiving sorceror" and "magician", and the next you say he didn't perform any miracles. I'm sorry, you're contradicting yourself. He did perform miracles.


Whew...that may have gotten a little intense. Please excuse any sharpness that may have slipped through, none intended! And on a lighter note:

Originally posted by dooper
Because he was not of JAWYEH.

Yes, it is true, Muhammad was not of "JAWYEH", whatever that may be .

Originally posted by babloyi

4) Mohammed ate the poison anyhow, and thus failed the test.

In your hurry to waive away and negate my point, I don't think you read the account I quoted. The point is he DIDN'T eat the stuff, instead spat it out. I think it is very obvious that the woman saw that her "test" was passed.

Yes, I read the account you posted. Are you sure you did?

From your own posted account:

Originally posted by babloyi
...
During his last sickness, years later, the apostle said, 'I feel the vein of my heart bursting from the food I ate at Khaybar' ; from these words, Muslims conclude that the apostle died a martyr of battle, as well as being favoured by Allah with the dignity of prophetic office.

Sorry 'bout my "hurry to waive away and negate" your point.

Indeed, haste DOES make waste.

I've been researching for a while now, and have yet to uncover any Mohammedan miracles you speak of. Do you have any pointers?

[edit on 2009/10/8 by nenothtu]

reply to post by nenothtu

Seriously, you haven't? How about the one I just quoted (and then you just quoted in the very post you ask this same question)? Muhammad spat out a poisoned bone because it spoke to him and said it was poisoned? I'm pretty sure that counts as "passing the test" that the woman set him. That he died several years later, after his mission was completed is irrelevant. Muhammad was a human, he had to die at some point.

As for other miracles, how about here, here, here and here. Of course, Muhammad's greatest miracle is said to be the Quran itself. Still, it is difficult to imagine you looked very hard.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi


I suppose this will be my last post on the subject, which will allow you to take the field. We've gotten a bit off topic with all this, since the discussion is no longer whether or not Islam equates to the biblical Synagogue of Satan.

1) I would consider a "miracle" that kills the miracle worker to be a bit of a failure. Evidently you do not. So be it.

2) As I'm sure you're aware, Mohammed himself said he brought no miracles but the Qur'an. As for the Qur'an itself, it says at 6:124 that it was the only miracle. At 2:118-119 it says that Mohammed's mission was a miracle. Neither would appear to be miraculous, and could of course be recreated, and HAVE been recreated, by modern-day charlatans. Elsewhere in the Qur'an, it comments on a specific LACK of miracles wrought by Mohammed. Specific examples would be:

6:37
13:7
17:59
17:90-93

So then, in the event of a discrepancy, who are we to believe? Mohammed and his Qur'an, or the ahadith, collected later and subject to afterthoughts and hindsight?

These specific discrepancies, among many others, are the reasons I began questioning, and eventually left, Islam. A religion brought forth by a true God should at a very minimum be internally consistent. If it claims kinship with other religions, it should at the very least incorporate and build on them.

Islam meets neither criterion.

Now, we could go on like this for days, with me bringing my evidence, and your pronouncements such as "that was written by a Persian and doesn't count" and you bringing your evidence, and my pronouncements that it "contradicts OTHER parts of Islam, and so doesn't count".

I'm unwilling to keep that tug of war going. It's not productive of anything, and I'm not here to draw you away from Mohammedanism.

And there ain't no way you'll ever draw me back to it.

So we are at an impasse. I suggest we simply agree to disagree.

I DO thank you for the link to the ahadith online. I never knew that was available. I've downloaded the entirety of it and converted it to pdf format for personal offline use. I'm sure I'll find it useful. Thanks again.

reply to post by babloyi

Nope.

"But when the unbelievers see you they make fun of you (and say) "Is this the one who talks badly against your gods (deridingly?)" Yet in Ar-Rahman they disbelieve." Ahmed Ali translation

"And when those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allah) see you (Oh Muhammed SAW) they take you not except for mockery, (saying) 'Is this the one who (talks) badly about your gods? While they disbelieve at the mention of the Most Beneficit (Allah) [Tafsir. Al Qurtubi] Noble Qur'an translation

"And when those who disbelieve behold thee, they but choose thee out for mockery (saying): Is this he who makethe mention of your gods? And they would deny all mention of the Beneficent." Pickthall Qur'an translation

"And when those that disbelieve see you, they do not take you but for one to be scoffed at: Is this he who speaks of your gods? And they are deniers at the mention of the Beneficent Allah." Qur'an translation by Shakir

"When the Unbelievers see thee, they treat thee not except with ridicule. "Is this (they say) the one who talks of your gods?" and they blaspheme at the mention of (Allah) Most Gracious! Qur'an translation by Yusef Ali

The Meccans, who worshipped Allah, had no knowledge of this Ar-Rahman. The only Ar-Rahman they knew of was the Ar-Rahman of Al-Yamama, which many believe was Yemen.

Spread by the sword, many succeeding generations were raised in Islam, and with the death sentence for leaving Islam, it's little wonder that it's been perpetuated.

reply to post by nenothtu

But the examples you gave certainly don't say that Muhammad didn't perform any miracles. Did you go through them? Some of them explain that for some people, no miracle would suffice, and some of them are talking about signs of God or verses (which I suppose use the same word as that for miracle).

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now, we could go on like this for days, with me bringing my evidence, and your pronouncements such as "that was written by a Persian and doesn't count" and you bringing your evidence, and my pronouncements that it "contradicts OTHER parts of Islam, and so doesn't count".

I'm unwilling to keep that tug of war going. It's not productive of anything, and I'm not here to draw you away from Mohammedanism.

And there ain't no way you'll ever draw me back to it.

My "pronouncement" was a little more complicated than that. I was merely explaining how the compiler was removed temporally and geographically from the events, and the only link was a (weak) chain of narrators, which the compiler clearly stated that he did not bother to check.

I'm not drawing you towards anything, and I myself am certainly not drawn towards anything called "Mohammedanism". My purpose here was simply to clear misconceptions.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I DO thank you for the link to the ahadith online. I never knew that was available. I've downloaded the entirety of it and converted it to pdf format for personal offline use. I'm sure I'll find it useful. Thanks again.

Your welcome, I guess. Unfortunately, I don't think they have a complete ahadith collection, but what they have has come in use for me.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi

I agree.

If you can't read or trust the word of Muhammed himself, or Allah through the Qur'an, then you can have this thread.

Everything is right there for the open-minded.

It's all yours.

Originally posted by sail_in_the_wind
take semitic language courses first and try to translate to english then and see what it comes out of it.

Best thing I heard so far.

Who in here speaks Aramaic and Ancient Greek if so feel free to translate the Bible and tell us what some words mean cause some of the stuff that is written in Aramaic and Greek doesn't have a translation in English.

reply to post by dooper

Originally posted by dooper
Everything is right there for the open-minded.

I find the fact that you're saying this hilariously ironic .
What do you mean "I can have this thread"? What am I to do with it? Were we in some epic contest for ownership of this thread? I was not aware.

Also, I seriously don't get what your previous post is about. I don't get the purpose of quoting multiple translations of the same verse. They all show the same thing: namely, there was nothing about this made up god. Were you agreeing with me? Or just pulling connections out of thin air now?

Al Yamama is a place that is in modern day Saudi Arabia. "Ar-Rahman of Al-Yamama" was the name that a false prophet (also known as Musaylima) chose for himself, meaning (surprise surprise ) "The mercy of Yamamah". He certainly didn't style himself as a god, and more importantly, he had no connection to Islam. So what are you on about?

To claim that Ar-Rahman is the name of some pagan god is absurd. You do realise that the word stems from the R-H-M triconsonantal root, and is used in Hebrew as well, throughout the Bible, as an attribute of God? Are you now claiming that there is some new god in the Bible with the same name?

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Laurauk
"Truth", on the other hand, is an entirely subjective concept. One either has faith in that truth, or one doesn't, but the nature of the beast ( faith ) defies "proof".

Truth is not subjective. The world is in moral decline because everyone wants to reject truth in exchange for their subjective lusts and desires. However, regardless of whatever anyone want to accept or reject, Jesus Christ is either our Savior or He isn't. We will know the truth when He returns.

"John 14
Jesus, the Way to the Father
“Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me. 2 There is more than enough room in my Father’s home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? 3 When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.”
5 “No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We have no idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. 7 If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is."

Originally posted by cenpuppie
My question to you is, how do i know what you say is right and what they (Islam) say is wrong?

This entire thread explains why Islam is wrong. If you want to know if the Bible is right then I suggest that you read it and make up your own mind.

Originally posted by babloyi
Ishaq 166 and Tabari VI:110 denotes the baloney excuse Muhammed tried to use, explaining that Lucifer or Satan had put words in his mouth.

This would certainly indicate that the spirit of Islam is the same spirit giving power to Satanists, Luciferians, etc.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by dooper
Also, Muhammad did perform miracles[edit on 7-10-2009 by babloyi]

I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not Muhammad performed miracles. Satanists and witches cast spells. The Bible explains that the Pharaoh of Egypt had magicians that changed a staff into a snake. Satan and his demons, or djinn as they are known in Islam, are capable of performing signs and wonders. Just because someone does something fancy doesn't mean that they are following the God of Israel.

"2 Thessalonians 2
5 Don’t you remember that I told you about all this when I was with you? 6 And you know what is holding him back, for he can be revealed only when his time comes. 7 For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way. 8 Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, but the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming.
9 This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles. 10 He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. 11 So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies. 12 Then they will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth."

Originally posted by dooper
So allah is a curse on the enemies of Israel.

Gee.

Is that ever the truth!

"Genesis 12
2 I will make you [Israel] into a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and you will be a blessing to others. 3 I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt."

I am interested in watching what happens to Palestine and Iran. Incidentally, this site claims that 9 out of the last 10 disasters recorded by FEMA happened when the U.S. government treated Israel "with contempt" by trying to divide it.
Source

Just because the term "Synagogue" is not Islamic doesn't mean that it does not apply to Islam. Mosques did not necessarily exist when the Bible was written since Islam didn't develop until a long time afterwards. Synagogue may have simply been a term to describe a house of worship or a group of worshippers.

Some people claim that most all religions, including Islam, Satanism, and witchcraft, are derived from cabalistic teachings. These esoteric teachings have been interpreted and reinterpreted into many different religions, in which case, all of the religions based on the Jewish cabalistic teachings comprise the Synagogue of Satan.

Christianity was built on Jesus Christ.

"Ephesians 2
19 So now you Gentiles are no longer strangers and foreigners. You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. 20 Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. 21 We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord. 22 Through him you Gentiles are also being made part of this dwelling where God lives by his Spirit."

[edit on 10-10-2009 by checkers]

reply to post by babloyi

Yes, I know that, and you just made my point.

In Egypt and other countries, Ar-Rahman was a name referred to the Jewish and Christian God, which Muhammed was forced to abandon to push Allah, which the Meccans would accept.

Muhammed was all over the map on who his god was.

One compromise after another, one deal after another, reversals, and just anything to get himself posted as a prophet of this moon-god.

Well, he succeeded.

Christianity over the course of history has claimed many who don't believe in it as satanists so personally i don't give a f- what the bible says about other religions. A religion who force fully converts is a false religion.

Though I do believe that we humans have spirituality, but seriously Christianity is just a god dam- rip off of all the other religions before it.

Some people may also make the mistake of associating the Catholic Church with Christianity, however, Catholicism is also based on cabalistic teachings. Anyone interested can just search for the Pope on ATS to see all of the esoteric agendas that he is involved in.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT necessarily follow the Bible. The Catholic Church follows and worships Mary which symbolizes a goddess or pagan queen. The Catholic Church outright rejects the words of Jesus Christ.

"Matthew 23
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ."

Furthermore, the Catholic Church may very well be the Great Prostitute described in Revelations 17.
True Christians follow Jesus Christ, not Mary or the Pope, or this or that evangelical teacher. If you ever hear a person that says something about Jesus Christ that is contrary to the Bible then that person is not following the Father of Jesus Christ. Islam and Catholicism, to name a few, all present very different pictures of Christ than are found in the Bible.

"2 Corinthians 11:3-4
3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

The Catholic Church preaches a gospel other than the Bible. Have you ever noticed how the Pope carries around an dead Jesus on his staff? The Pope follows the spirit of the AntiChrist. I have visited several Catholic and Protestant churches that all display images of Jesus dead on the cross.
However, salvation is based on a risen and alive Jesus Christ. One that is contrary to the one being displayed in Catholic Churches.

"Galatians 1:6-9
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- [7] which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! [9] As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Originally posted by checkers

Originally posted by nenothtu

"Truth", on the other hand, is an entirely subjective concept. One either has faith in that truth, or one doesn't, but the nature of the beast ( faith ) defies "proof".

Truth is not subjective.

Yes, it is. You can't quantify it, you can't take it out of a box and polish it, you can't look at it or PROVE it. It is subjective, and defies "proof". Since it can't be "proven", it must be taken on "faith". That's the nature of it, and the nature of faith. Proof obviates the need for faith, and once something is proven, faith is no more. Don't be so eager to throw away faith in this day and age. The time is not yet.

I Corinthians 13:8-13

However, regardless of whatever anyone want to accept or reject, Jesus Christ is either our Savior or He isn't. We will know the truth when He returns.

Exactly. Same passage as above, same discussion on the subjectivity of truth vs, faith. Now, we have faith. THEN we will have proof.

Incidentally, faith is not "believing" something, faith is KNOWING something, without proof. This is what God tests the strength of.