Really? Not if you take God from the OT. And even in the NT, God has prepare far-worse-than-death for infidels, right?5. "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the infadels everywhere they are found." VERY contradictory to what Yahweh would have said
Evolution or Creation?
The God of Israel isn't trinitarian. Nowhere in the Bible you will find an indubitable assertion that God is a Trinity. And not all jews during all history of judaism were messianic. And even then, most of those who were, were thinking more about a political leader. And there is a very large group of muslims who are actually messianic.
It was to my understanding from World History that Muslims did recognize Jesus Christ, but not as a god. I was taught that in Islam, Jesus is looked at as another prophet (?) not sure if that's the word I'm looking for. But sort of how Christians view Moses and Noah, I think.Allah:
4. If Christ is God to Christians, but not to Muslims, they are different Gods. (Jews believe in Christ as well, they just believe He hasn't come yet).
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
God appears also as El, Elohim in the Hebrew Scriptures. "Allah" in Arabic is the same (a cognate) as the Hebrew "El", who created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1, and who was the God of Abraham.Allah:
1. Not in the Bible. The Bible calls Him "Yhwh" or "yahweh"
They do have a different understanding of the nature of God than most Christians do. It is true that they have no concept of a Godhead of multiple personages. It is actually far more in line with that of God as believed by Jews, and as found in our extant canonical Old Testament.2. Allah is not a tinitarian God: only one god. No Son, no Holy spirit
I think a Muslim would disagree.3. Allah is not fully knowable like The Judeo-Christian God; he has never revealed himself to Man like Yahweh has.
Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet they believe in the work of what is understood by many Christians to be the premortal Christ: Yahweh. Does that mean they don't believe in the Yahweh of the Old Testment, or just that their understanding is different than that of Christians?4. If Christ is God to Christians, but not to Muslims, they are different Gods. (Jews believe in Christ as well, they just believe He hasn't come yet).
I'm becoming less and less convinced that you've read the Bible.5. "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the infadels everywhere they are found." VERY contradictory to what Yahweh would have said
Say what you like, you're still mistaken.Say what you like, they are different gods
Different understandings of characteristics does not equal idolatry.
According to that, I think a great deal of Christians believe in a different God than you. Plenty have told me that I do.
The phrase "you don't believe in the God of the Bible" is really code for "you don't interpret the Bible the same way I do."
- Crazy Tom: C Toon
- Soldier
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm
Yeah? ask a Muslim. They believe that Allah is not entirely knowable, and that aside from Muhammad, Allah has not revealed himself to man3. Allah is not fully knowable like The Judeo-Christian God; he has never revealed himself to Man like Yahweh has.
I think a Muslim would disagree.
It means they believe in a trinitarian God, they just don't belive Christ was one of those three.Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet they believe in the work of what is understood by many Christians to be the premortal Christ: Yahweh. Does that mean they don't believe in the Yahweh of the Old Testment, or just that their understanding is different than that of Christians?
I'm going to try not to be insulted by that little bit of completely unfounded accusation.I'm becoming less and less convinced that you've read the Bible.
Where does the Old testament ever say to kill all non-believers everywhere they are found? hmm? I really am curious. The Crusaders were wrong; they twisted scripture to support their own lust for violence. They were not justified.
If they were truly Christian, they would agree on this God, the God of the Bible. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian, yes, believe in a different god. I challenge you to find a passage in the Bible which denies the Trinity of God.[/i]According to that, I think a great deal of Christians believe in a different God than you.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.
- Rei
- Commander
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
- First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
- Location: Between the lines
Do you know the ineffable Word? Because if so, do enlighten me.3. Allah is not fully knowable like The Judeo-Christian God; he has never revealed himself to Man like Yahweh has.
God is NOT fully knowable. God can know us fully, but we cannot know God fully. There's just too much of him for any created mind to fully comprehend.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
- Rei
- Commander
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
- Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
- First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
- Location: Between the lines
Also,
Edit to add:
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. "
I do believe in a Triune God, however, I do not know of a single passage or collection of passages that defines God as the technical notion of the Trinity. Yes, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned as a set, and yes, Jesus is called the only begotten son of God, but neither of these demands that one understand Christ to be begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God. That specific understanding is not articulated in Scripture, and came to be clarified as the council of Nicea.If they were truly Christian, they would agree on this God, the God of the Bible. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian, yes, believe in a different god. I challenge you to find a passage in the Bible which denies the Trinity of God.
Edit to add:
From the Bible:5. "and when the forbidden months have passed, slay the infadels everywhere they are found." VERY contradictory to what Yahweh would have said
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. "
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
~Blaise Pascal
私は。。。誰?
Dernhelm
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
WHAT? No. Really. Modern Jews don't believe in a Trinitarian God. At all. They don't believe the Messiah/Christ figure to come is a divine figure. At all. While there is good evidence that the understanding of God's nature was in flux and repeatedly re-edited to result in the current OT texts (especially the Genesis - 2 Kings deuteronomistic history), the consistent view of modern followers of the Jewish faith based on the recieved text of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as Tradition as contained in Midrashic and Talmudic texts, is that there is One God who is made up of One person, and the idea of a Tripartate God is blasphemous.It means they believe in a trinitarian God, they just don't belive Christ was one of those three.Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet they believe in the work of what is understood by many Christians to be the premortal Christ: Yahweh. Does that mean they don't believe in the Yahweh of the Old Testment, or just that their understanding is different than that of Christians?
Keep in mind that you're constantly telling us to re-read passages of scripture that you seem to think if we read would immediately cause us to fall into your view of thinking as the Only One. This supposes we've never read it.I'm becoming less and less convinced that you've read the Bible.I'm going to try not to be insulted by that little bit of completely unfounded accusation.
First, I want to make sure that you're not unintentionally bearing false witness against the Muslims. For that reason, before I even begin to respond, Please give me the Qur'an reference where your cited quote appears. I did a search for your exact quote, and only 7 links came up. All anti-Islam. And none of them had a reference. Please cite it, so I can look it up in its context. Do this before you respond to ANYTHING else, and I won't believe you are truly interested in expressing truth.Where does the Old testament ever say to kill all non-believers everywhere they are found? hmm? I really am curious.
Threadjack aside, You're asking to prove a negative. You're beginning with a logical fallacy. I'd say the burden of proof was on you.If they were truly Christian, they would agree on this God, the God of the Bible. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian, yes, believe in a different god. I challenge you to find a passage in the Bible which denies the Trinity of God.
I do believe in God, the Eternal Father, and His Divine Son, Jesus Christ (who I believe is the God of Israel, YHWH, that we see in the Hebrew Scriptures), and in the Holy Ghost. Three distinct individuals. And that one key aspect of Christ's ministry was to reveal the Father, who is one with him in all things in Unity, although separate physically/substantially (in fact, the physical/substantial separation would be the only real way in which they were separate).
As I've said before, I don't deny that there are many differences. Even important ones. But I do believe that all of those named faiths are striving to understand and worship the nature of Our Same Creator. I think it's telling that through the years there's been so much confusion over their very nature. I think this in and of itself is evidence that the Bible, as we have it, alone, is not sufficient for clearing up and resolving all doctrinal issues. Additional sources - additional knowledge from God - is necessary to discern. It's a key reason why I believe in the necessity of Living Revelation.
Even the most professedly Sola Scriptura groups rely on later-than-biblical-era tradition to define their doctrine. There are so many different ones who all try to 'prove' their doctrine from the Bible. If the Bible itself was sufficient to end all questions, don't you think there'd be far less churches?
I have a strong conviction that Humility is an absolutely necessary factor in trying to understand - and coming to know - our Lord. Heaven knows I'm still working at it.
Last edited by Taalcon on Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Exactly. I would challenge you to find a passage in the Bible that denies the Duality of God. Or the Quaternity. Or the unicity of God, with the Son and the Spirit being underlings of divine nature (actually, you'd find a bit of support for this one, despite the fragments are highly arguable).If they were truly Christian, they would agree on this God, the God of the Bible. Plenty of people who call themselves Christian, yes, believe in a different god. I challenge you to find a passage in the Bible which denies the Trinity of God.
Threadjack aside, You're asking to prove a negative. You're beginning with a logical fallacy.
The thing is, Christians read the bible and read:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."
soon after they read:
"...the Spirit of God was hovering over the water..."
Then in the new testament they read Jesus saying:
"...I and the father am one"
...And what they do is they take God the father/creator, The Spirit, and the 'Son' Jesus being One with the Father and BAM! You have three people. But you have 3 people who are unified, One Triune in nature (NOT in Human identity) God for Christians, Christians who were in fact firstly Jews who believed in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah.
Now why did Jesus say "I am ONE with the Father"..?
Well perhaps because he was JEWISH and he would have prayed as all Jews would have prayed:
"Shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad..."
"Hear oh Israel, The Lord Our God, The Lord is ONE..."
...So perhaps he was yet again giving HIS OWN people a clue that had been staring them in the face since Deuteronomy.
But maybe not, who knows. Not me, I don't know. But that's what I believe.
Further to them being unified, an example of this is Jesus' baptism...
What you have is:
Jesus, the Son, being Obedient to Father and being baptised.
Then the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus.
God speaking his approval of Jesus "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased"
But I have only the Bible as non-evidence... Shucks.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."
soon after they read:
"...the Spirit of God was hovering over the water..."
Then in the new testament they read Jesus saying:
"...I and the father am one"
...And what they do is they take God the father/creator, The Spirit, and the 'Son' Jesus being One with the Father and BAM! You have three people. But you have 3 people who are unified, One Triune in nature (NOT in Human identity) God for Christians, Christians who were in fact firstly Jews who believed in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah.
Now why did Jesus say "I am ONE with the Father"..?
Well perhaps because he was JEWISH and he would have prayed as all Jews would have prayed:
"Shema Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad..."
"Hear oh Israel, The Lord Our God, The Lord is ONE..."
...So perhaps he was yet again giving HIS OWN people a clue that had been staring them in the face since Deuteronomy.
But maybe not, who knows. Not me, I don't know. But that's what I believe.
Further to them being unified, an example of this is Jesus' baptism...
What you have is:
Jesus, the Son, being Obedient to Father and being baptised.
Then the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus.
God speaking his approval of Jesus "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased"
But I have only the Bible as non-evidence... Shucks.
On the other hand, this highly suggest Jesus is not an equal to the Father. And how is the Spirit different from God himself?Further to them being unified, an example of this is Jesus' baptism...
What you have is:
Jesus, the Son, being Obedient to Father and being baptised.
Then the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus.
God speaking his approval of Jesus "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased"
When they say "he was filled with the Spirit" how is it different than saying that Jesus or God inhabitted them?
And please you know full well Bible isn't evidence when talking about natural science. On the other hand, it is and should be used for matters of doctrine and morals.
I'm not saying he is.On the other hand, this highly suggest Jesus is not an equal to the Father. And how is the Spirit different from God himself?
Thats the kicker, its not, because they are ONE and the same.When they say "he was filled with the Spirit" how is it different than saying that Jesus or God inhabitted them?
Oh good.And please you know full well Bible isn't evidence when talking about natural science. On the other hand, it is and should be used for matters of doctrine and morals.
I know you are not, what i am saying is that it makes me think more of a hierarchy than of a trinity.I'm not saying he is.On the other hand, this highly suggest Jesus is not an equal to the Father. And how is the Spirit different from God himself?
So, if they are the same thing, why make it a "third persona" of God? i mean, i can see how Jesus is a different person, in many places he seems to have independent thought... but the Spirit? It's just another name to refer the Father, not another persona.Thats the kicker, its not, because they are ONE and the same.When they say "he was filled with the Spirit" how is it different than saying that Jesus or God inhabitted them?
Thanks, at least we stablished some common ground.Oh good.And please you know full well Bible isn't evidence when talking about natural science. On the other hand, it is and should be used for matters of doctrine and morals.
-
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 1017
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:44 pm
- Title: Battle School Engineer
- Location: MD
- Contact:
Morals?
From the Bible?
You mean like committing genocide, only to keep the young virgin girls for sex?
You mean having sex with one's maid because one's wife is infertile?
Having sex with one's daughters? (Genesis 19, verses 30-38, re. Lot and his daughters)
Well, maybe the Old Testament isn't the best book for morals. How about the New Testament?
Maybe not--since in the Book of Peter, Lot is considered to be a righteous man.
So, I think I'll pick up my lantern and keep looking.
From the Bible?
You mean like committing genocide, only to keep the young virgin girls for sex?
You mean having sex with one's maid because one's wife is infertile?
Having sex with one's daughters? (Genesis 19, verses 30-38, re. Lot and his daughters)
Well, maybe the Old Testament isn't the best book for morals. How about the New Testament?
Maybe not--since in the Book of Peter, Lot is considered to be a righteous man.
So, I think I'll pick up my lantern and keep looking.
--Boothby
"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
- Satya
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
- Title: Pvt. Brony
- First Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Re-read the Lot story, Booth. Lot's daughters plot to get him blind drunk and have sex with him while he's passed out. Not an excuse, but it's because they've just witnessed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (a rather apocalyptic event), and are under the impression that the whole of humanity has been destroyed and they are the last two women and Lot is the last man on earth. (They probably believe this because they are Sumerian ((like Lot and Abraham)) and the original Flood epic is a Sumerian story; such a possibility is well within their cultural beliefs.)
- Crazy Tom: C Toon
- Soldier
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm
Booth, just because the Bible has immmorality IN it, doesn't mean immmorality is condoned. Immorality is condemned, and righteousness is upheld. All of this traces back to "everyone sins." (which I realize some Mormons don't believe).
Keep walking with that lantern Booth, and tell me if you find anything.
Keep walking with that lantern Booth, and tell me if you find anything.
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.
- Crazy Tom: C Toon
- Soldier
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:24 pm
Right, I know, I know. I learned that the Mormons believe that it is possible for anybody to "become God" in the sense that Christ did. You think that Christ was (so far) the only human to attain divinity. Am I correct?
Under the spreading chesnut tree
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.
I sold you and you sold me:
There they lie, and here lie we
Under the spreading chesnut tree.
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
There's quite a few things wrong with what you said. We don't believe we 'become God'. We believe that we become like our Heavenly Father, in all essential ways - not replace, and not become enveloped or absorbed into Him.Right, I know, I know. I learned that the Mormons believe that it is possible for anybody to "become God" in the sense that Christ did. You think that Christ was (so far) the only human to attain divinity. Am I correct?
Also, There are very key difference between us and Christ - He was a member of the Godhead before his birth. He was perfect in and of himself. He never sinned. He was the example and template to follow. He didn't need an Atonement.
We, however, all sin, and need Christ's atonement to lift us to a place we could never, ever reach on our own merits. Christ is greater than us all in infinite ways: but his love for us and obedience to Our Father led to his unselfish Atoning act, which not only provides for the erasure of sins, but also provides the means to elevate and sanctify us, to become as He, and His Father are.
This is what I believe.
Also: Did you ever find that Qur'an reference to the text you cited? I'm still waiting for your answer on that...
- Satya
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
- Title: Pvt. Brony
- First Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Natural selection does not add genetic information to a species gene pool-it can only remove it by selective elimination of genetic traits hindering the survival and reproductive rate of individual organisms. Mutation is then the only possible source for this new ('original') genetic information, which must then be replicated in sufficient volume as to either replace the source species or carve out its own gene pool.
...This means that a single organism must be born with a genetic mutation that is not only helpful to survival or reproduction (something which is apparently so rare as to never have been recorded in modern science or discovered in process, only *assumed* from fossil record), but *must* pass this genetic trait down to its progeny - and the trait must be strong enough as to dominate the non-mutated gene-structure of the mating organism (as the simultaneous mutation of the same gene in two organism of the same species at the same time in the same place is a laughable impossibility.) The descendant organism(s) must then also breed this trait down (a feat in itself once you reach higher-levels of organism, where birth and reproductive rates progressively slow, down to one or two a mating season). This tiny gene pool of mutated organism (less than half a dozen, let's suppose) must continue to survive and breed amongst a population without the mutation, without that mutation being washed out amidst a much larger pool of genes.
This gene pool (which is still not a separate species, as a single common genetic difference does not differentiate two organisms sufficiently) must mutate yet again, again with a beneficial mutation for its survival/reproduction, and continue to drift apart from the original/host organism's species and continue to survive amidst larger and more established populations of organism. Again, this is not natural selection - natural selection/"survival of the fittest" merely and simply begins to precipitously remove individuals less suited to environmental and conditional pressures for survival. I.e., an organism without sufficient camouflage will survive/reproduce less successfully than an individual organism with coloring more suited to the environment. But this only REMOVES the genetic information of the former organism whilst promoting that of the latter; therefore, natural selection is a 'negatively reinforced' evolutionary process - it narrows a species' gene pool as opposed to broadening it. If environment conditions/pressures were to change, the species would actually have *less* genetic information to draw on in an adaptive response.
I will not render judgment on these things, as we know that we are far from having a perfect understanding of biology, genetic science and the theories surrounding these things, but all people - theists, atheists, agnostics alike - need to have a basic understanding of what is being talked about when these topics arise. Even a cursory perusal of the facts will leave you far better equipped to discuss what you think and believe with others.
Adieu.
...This means that a single organism must be born with a genetic mutation that is not only helpful to survival or reproduction (something which is apparently so rare as to never have been recorded in modern science or discovered in process, only *assumed* from fossil record), but *must* pass this genetic trait down to its progeny - and the trait must be strong enough as to dominate the non-mutated gene-structure of the mating organism (as the simultaneous mutation of the same gene in two organism of the same species at the same time in the same place is a laughable impossibility.) The descendant organism(s) must then also breed this trait down (a feat in itself once you reach higher-levels of organism, where birth and reproductive rates progressively slow, down to one or two a mating season). This tiny gene pool of mutated organism (less than half a dozen, let's suppose) must continue to survive and breed amongst a population without the mutation, without that mutation being washed out amidst a much larger pool of genes.
This gene pool (which is still not a separate species, as a single common genetic difference does not differentiate two organisms sufficiently) must mutate yet again, again with a beneficial mutation for its survival/reproduction, and continue to drift apart from the original/host organism's species and continue to survive amidst larger and more established populations of organism. Again, this is not natural selection - natural selection/"survival of the fittest" merely and simply begins to precipitously remove individuals less suited to environmental and conditional pressures for survival. I.e., an organism without sufficient camouflage will survive/reproduce less successfully than an individual organism with coloring more suited to the environment. But this only REMOVES the genetic information of the former organism whilst promoting that of the latter; therefore, natural selection is a 'negatively reinforced' evolutionary process - it narrows a species' gene pool as opposed to broadening it. If environment conditions/pressures were to change, the species would actually have *less* genetic information to draw on in an adaptive response.
I will not render judgment on these things, as we know that we are far from having a perfect understanding of biology, genetic science and the theories surrounding these things, but all people - theists, atheists, agnostics alike - need to have a basic understanding of what is being talked about when these topics arise. Even a cursory perusal of the facts will leave you far better equipped to discuss what you think and believe with others.
Adieu.
Discord ID: AJ#0001
This is not true. We have observed not only mutations, but also mutations that lead to a process of speciation, in lab. It doesn't have to be all that helpful: it's enough with being neutral, and it will be passed down to the next generation (as long as the carrier is good/lucky enough to mate). It will become part of the gene pool, waiting for its chance to be the "good" gene for that DNA site.This means that a single organism must be born with a genetic mutation that is not only helpful to survival or reproduction (something which is apparently so rare as to never have been recorded in modern science or discovered in process, only *assumed* from fossil record)
Natural selection rarely works so fast that genes do now have enough time to get well mixed, unless we talk about isolated pockets of population. Living beings tends to have lots of sex, which shuffles their DNAs. Positive mutations certainly will end up quickly dominating the population, but only at the expense of the gene that occupies the same place. This isn't a loss of information, it's a change of the information.But this only REMOVES the genetic information of the former organism whilst promoting that of the latter; therefore, natural selection is a 'negatively reinforced' evolutionary process - it narrows a species' gene pool as opposed to broadening it. If environment conditions/pressures were to change, the species would actually have *less* genetic information to draw on in an adaptive response.
Of course, there are circumstances where species lose a lot of their genepool: while the environment is stable, a species will accumulate a lot of neutral mutations, that will be evenly distributed among the population. Bring in a change in the environment and the individuals that didn't happen to have a formerly neutral mutation that is now good will die. And the genes that only they had will be lost. If by chance, no individuals, or too little to conform a viable population, have the neutral-turned-good mutation, the species will get extinct, and all their information will be lost. If this happens to too many species so many ecosystems become non-viable, you have a mass extinction.
- elfprince13
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:27 pm
- Title: The Bombadil
- Location: 127.0.0.1
- Contact:
My Qur'an got stowed for the summer with the rest of my belongings, but I think I can help on this one anyway. Note that some versions of the Qur'an have slightly different verse numbering schemes, so I've bolded the relevant passage. The English is a little hard to parse, since translations of the Qur'an out of Arabic are notoriously terrible, but the basic gist is "kill pagans, unless you have an alliance with them, then wait until the terms of the alliance expire and kill them then, because they are pagan and will use the terms of the agreement against you"Also: Did you ever find that Qur'an reference to the text you cited? I'm still waiting for your answer on that...
9:1 A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
9:2 Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.
9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
9:7 How can there be a league, before Allah and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
9:8 How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.
9:9 The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.
9:10 In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.
9:11 But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.
9:12 But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
What astonishes me most about this topic is the astounding level of ignorance about even basic topics in linguistics, theology, and the natural sciences. For any Christian reading this thread (and I may have mentioned it before), pick up a copy of The Language of God by Francis Collins (a Christian, and head of the Human Genome Project).
"But the conversation of the mind was truer than any language, and they knew each other better than they ever could have by use of mere sight and touch."
- Taalcon
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
- Title: Prodigal Son
- Location: Cumming, GA
- Contact:
Seeing the context of the citation (violated treaties and warfare with a specific historical group at a certain specific fixed time), my earlier comment to Crazy Tom: C Toon remains:
And also, I'm less and less convinced he's interested in understanding individuals who have different beliefs than him, and that he is more interested in using strawmen arguments based on isolated ideas taken out of context to make others look worse than he is.I'm becoming less and less convinced that you've read the Bible.
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 1 guest