Posted by: pr0mythiusJul 30 2006, 06:51 AM


i've always considered that the fighting muslims have been a part of had nothing to do with religion. but just the christians and thier crusades and such seem to feed off the term holy war ... like its some self-righteous action.

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 07:04 AM


War is ordained by God in all the Abrahamic religions in one shape or form. But terming it Holy War is mainstream bandwagon propaganda.

With regards to Islam, jihad can be seen in terms of fighting (Qital in `Arabic). Jihad comes from juhd, meaning struggle. The traditionalists and mufassirin (Quranic commentators) have translated the term Jihad to mean fight. Jihad may have other meanings. Jihad can be a struggle to overcome against one's desires (nafs). Jihad has to be seen in context in the Qur'an as well as in hadith (Muhammad's sayings, actions, etc.) literature to render its proper meaning. If you study classical Islam and the Shari'ah, there are detailed explanations of Jihad by scholars (when it can be done, by whom, obligatory or not, offensive or defensive, not compulsory until the advent of the Mahdi, etc.).

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 07:07 AM



god wants war?
what god do you recognize ... are we talking about the same entity?

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 07:11 AM


Well religion, in this case the 3 Abrahamic ones, are thought to be revelations from God by their particular followers.

Posted by: pr0mythius Posted: Jul 30 2006, 07:15 AM


yea ... by the followers ... we're supposed to put our stock in the interpretation of these people? until i see probable cause to think otherwise ... organised religion is just a tool to control the masses.

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 07:18 AM



That is the ancient materialistic/marxist approach. That has no effect on the "believers".

If wars are justified by the rhetoric of God, then one would not be in a loss if followed, specifically if a catastrophe falls upon him and his family? Should he not defend his family and possessions?

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 07:18 AM

OK, I've fallen behind. I haven't read the last few posts yet but I'll post this before I get even more behind while I read them...



Let's not. - what I'm trying to say to usediscernment isn't whether he's right or wrong about the Muslim God being HIS God or not, it's that telling someone else that what they believe is wrong is counterproductive. I have to respect undiscernment and allow HIM to believe whatever he wants. If we're lucky, some people will learn that Islam is not so different from Judaeo-Christian religions - but you'll never teach anyone anything by arguing about it, you just make people defend their positions more strongly. Let it go. No one wins these battles, unless they chose not to fight them.

If anyone can explain it to me, how'd all the jews wind up in Egypt? I figured out that Jacob and his other sons went to Egypt during a drought, but they didn't stay, right? They had to "populate" the tribes, right? These were the only jews on the planet, this little family, right? Moses was from the tribe of Levi (separated from the story of Joseph in Egypt by about 3 or 400 years? ), how'd he wind up born in Egypt? Why are all these jews flocking to Egypt to be slaves? Did the Pharos come and capture them? And when Moses leads them all back, all the stories give the impression that the promised land is empty of jews. Is this true? Where'd they all go? I know they weren't scattered by the Assyrian invasion, that doesn't happen for another 800 years or so, after Solomon and all of that... How strong is the Jewish argument that they were given this land by God if they kept packing up and leaving? Or did they not leave, were Moses' jews with their 10 commandments just a small part of the jewish population after that?? Forgive me for being daft and asking stupid questions, - but I bet most people don't know the answers to them. I could look it up, but I'm sure there are plenty of posters that could explain it easily...

Onegai

(Onegai is Japanese - it means 'please', kind of. More like, "I humbly beg you to be good to me" but it doesn't come off wierd like that. More like sayin, "cool?")

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 07:30 AM




Everyone has the right to believe what they wish, including usediscernment and anyone else.

I agree to the point in terms of coming together that we should not say "you are wrong" and "I am right". But my thought and intent was to give rebuttals to the ridiculous judgements usediscernment has regarding Islam. That can have a negative effect. If it stays as it is, then it may be believable and accepted as true.

There are different approaches to everything.

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 07:38 AM



Well Joseph, Jacob's son, was shipped to Egypt by his brothers as a slave. Islam and the Old Testament both agree to the jealousy that resonated amongst Joseph's brothers.

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 07:49 AM


Yeah, I think so too. Ridiculous, but, unfortunately there is a long-held belief with some (backed up by passages in the Bible) that God has said (actually PEOPLE said that God said, or what people thought that they'd like for God to have said to justify what they did or were going to do...) to peoples, (I'm paraphrasing) believe in me and only me and for anyone who doesn't, it's ok to kill them. I'm no old-testement scholar, but I am sure there are passages that justify the Israelite's displacing the Canaanites by their primacy there being ordained by God. ...There was a great slaughter of the indigenous peoples of Canaan by the Israelites that displaced them I'm almost sure - I wish I knew when and under what circumstances, hopefully that'll also become clearer.

As for Jihad, I am aware also that the word simply means 'stuggle'. But if the people you are struggling against are waging a holy war against you (I'm talking about the Crusades for example), doesn't your Jihad become in essence, your part in that holy war? Semantics probably -



Briefly then - address his factual errors and be done with it. You get my point that you can never convince anyone of anything by arguing with them about it, right? That's human nature. With that in mind have at it.

Posted by: water_bender Jul 30 2006, 08:08 AM

The Israelites had moved from the land of Canaan into Egypt when Joseph was prime minister of Egypt. After the death of Joseph and a change in rulership, the Egyptians were now suspicious of the Israelites, particularly because they had begun to greatly increase in number. Therefore they enslaved the Israelites and used them as labor in building projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 08:16 AM

now see ... the israelites couldnt decide where they wanted to live. back then they seemed nomadic ... they then left egypt and just wondered the wilderness for years ... looking for the promised land ... in other words ... they were looking for a place to set up shop that had some land that was worth a damn

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 08:32 AM



Obviously. But what's important, to me, is what people believe and why they do the things they do - which is a different matter entirely. While the first crusaders were under siege and starving at Antioch, Peter the Hermit had a dream, they dug and found the sword (spear?) that pierced Christ on the Cross, rallied behind it and came storming out of the city and chased away the Turks that had them surrounded. A bulls#it story if I ever heard one. But the fact remains that the sieged crusaders did in fact escape Antioch and carry on to Jeruselem. Maybe Peter the Hermit planted the spear, doesn't matter. People believed the story enough to write it down, and it's the only explanation for that link of how we got from there to here. (Kind of like 9/11 lol.)



Here's what I don't understand. Check out this map...




Notice Joseph isn't listed. It was his sons, Ephraim and Manesseh, that were given parcels. Jacob and his family went to Egypt during a drought, found Joseph who forgave his brothers. I'm assuming Jacob's family returned to Canaan, they had to to populate the region, to make these tribes into "tribes", and not just names on paper.



Thanks. But if the Israelites went to Egypt during Joseph's lifetime, what's with this map? Who stayed behind to populate the tribes? In Joseph's lifetime "the Israelites" couldn't have been more than a couple dozen people. No? I gotta do some reading ... back in a few.

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 08:38 AM

Sanders,



I agree. My point was with regards to him believing in any religion he wishes. Freedom of Religion to all!!!! At the same time, was Jesus not tolerant? Of course, no doubt in terms of what the religious records have told us. I am not here to convince him that Islam, Judaism, or other religions are right or wrong, but that he shouldn't chastize religions.

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 08:50 AM


this might be far fetched to some ... but to many ... especially those most important in the matters of why people believe what they do. the spear that pierced jesus' side would be of great magickal value.

Posted by: Sinewy Jul 30 2006, 08:52 AM

pr0mythius,




I gave you a hypothetical scenario. How would you answer it?




Well what you stated in the previous post was analogous to what Marx implied. He stated that religion is the opium of the people.




Sure. That is your wish, and I respect that.




Well, that is subjective too. The Christian or theist would argue with evidence for, whilst the skeptic uses a Darwinist/Anthropology/Archaeology approach to discredit the theist.





One of my favorite quotes in life is from Imam `Ali. He was the cousin of the Prophet of Islam, the 4th Caliph ur Rashidin (4 Rightly Guided Caliphs) of the Sunnis, first Shi`a Imam.

I can't find the `Arabic version, though the Persian version is known to me. To translate into English is somewhat awkward. In response to an atheist/skeptic he gave the response that if his religion (Islam) was wrong, it was okay and he doesn't lose because it made him a good person in terms of thought and mannerisms, but if his religion came to be true, he still wins.

Posted by: Daniels Jul 30 2006, 08:56 AM



No pr0mythius mah man.

The idea is that it is the fanatics that do the killing. The religious people just refuse to be forced at knifepoint to deny their faith.

Take for instance the early Christians. They were a persecuted community in the early years but their love for God was stronger than their love for this fleeting life.

Same with the Baha'is in Persia in the 1800s. 20,000 were butchered by the authorities and wild mobs who saw them as a threat to the established order. The Baha'is didn't fight back, but neither did they recant their belief in their Beloved.

These ten ladies, all members of the Baha'i Faith, were murdered by the authorities in Iran in 1983. The youngest was just 16.

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 09:17 AM

ok ... from that cenario ... i'm seeing that ... a religion is peaceful until it gains too much power. christianity was peaceful at first ... persecuted .. all about love .... then they became the ruling religion and persecuted people for not following what they believed.

yes faith in religion determines the course of many ... and i see that as a sad thing. i dont even like the word believe ... i've said that many times before .. and its because its too concrete ... saying you believe something is saying you're absolutely right about the given topic. and yet there are many others that have opposite views ... yet believe just as strongly ... so who is right? its pointless to me ... and while yes i agree its the fanatics that do the violence ... i think we can both agree that that mentality is used to the advantage of the elite. everyone takes that as truth .. so they grind that theory into our heads when creating false flag ops.

the israelis and muslims are not fighting over religion ... they're fighting over land ... religion is just a cover for the violence. and its sickening.

too many points to make ... blah ... i do see truth in what you're saying ... but its layered with many other truths.

BAH its too complicated ... lets all just party and get knickered!

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 10:49 AM


I intend to go out and get knickered myself in a little bit. But before I do, I figured it out. The families of Jacob's sons all moved to Egypt during the drought, just as WaterBender said. Including the son's wive's and families there were 70 of them. The land wasn't metted out to the 12 tribes until AFTER they returned from Egypt.

Everyone knows the story of Moses, the jews carrying around the ark of the covenant in the desert for 40 years, no need to go into that (?). Finally the Israelites, (numbering 3 million??) entered Canaan - they weren't unaopposed. This is the book of Joshua - containing:


Joshua 3:10 - 'Joshua said, "Hereby you shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite out from before you.'

And then they had a war. ("In Canaan there were "seven nations greater and mightier" than Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1, NKJV) that had to be dispossessed and destroyed")

From a 'Crash course in Jewish History',


Then it looks like a number of stories of the Israelites being punished for screwing up and rewarded for loyalty, the story of (chronilogically speaking) Samson and Delilah, the prophet Samuel and his chosing Saul to be king - leading to this from the same 'Crash Course' that sort of blew me away...


Say what !??

Again, say WHAT??


Obviously this is just some guy writing words. But it shows how old the current conflict really extends (Saul reigned from 879 to 877 BC).

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 10:58 AM

so ... this whole struggle between families ... was god's sunday afternoon movie? i mean ... from god's perspective ... it had to be something of the sort according to this. god created all of it ... but then considered one side more worthy than the other so he allowed them to slaughter the opposition ... not only allowed ... but wished it so.

while i find this hard to swallow.

i'd say this shows the one theory right ... the jewish side of history shows god as a wrathful and mean god ... then the christians cam along .. added to the jewish story to counterpoint it ... make him seem no so grrrrrrrrrrrrrr like. in order to present a side more likeable .. that would persuade more people to convert.

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 11:13 AM

prOmythias, you are not off the mark as I see it. The old-testement is more the story of a firm but unforgiving God. Not just in these remarks about clearing non-believers out of the way, but in the punishments he mets out to the jews when they stray from the path. The 40 years in the desert is one instance, Moses wasn't allowed to proceed with his people into Israel because he got angry for a moment.

I'm not saying Christians or even Muslims are not any less capable of violence in the name of Religion - just that the old testament God wasn't always a nice guy. I see clear parallels between Neocon/Staussian thinking and this philosophy, this type of God.

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 30 2006, 11:33 AM

i see the israelis using the cover of that storyline to half way justify to thier people what they're doing. cuz they're not fighting hezbollah ... if they are .. they're the sorry aiming artilery in history.

its thier destiny as promised by god to bare the land from the mediteranean to the euphrates. a big boost in propoganda when justifying the occupation of lebanon. but thats another story all together.

also the stories of moses and david and joshua and abraham ... were mainly passed down by word of mouth .. then scribed after generations of story telling. so conservativly ... how much truth do you think survived that game of password? 50% maybe?

Posted by: Sanders Jul 30 2006, 11:55 AM



If that.

http://hierographics.org/DoubtingTheStoryofTheExodus.html

Posted by: usediscernment Jul 30 2006, 01:51 PM

I truly hope this will clarify who i am, and who i follow.

Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2 Corinthians 11:1-4


And [Jesus] saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Mark 8:29

"Brother, I'm not interested in any of your divisive doctrinal talk. All I care about is knowing that a person loves Jesus. If someone tells me that, no matter what church he goes to, he's my brother in Christ!" It didn't seem like the right time or place to get into an argument with this individual. Nevertheless, I felt compelled at least to get a question in before the conversation ended. "When you talk with someone who tells you he loves Jesus, do you ever ask that person, 'Jesus who?'"

After quick thought the elderly gentleman let me know that he would never ask such a question. "It wouldn't be loving."

Whenever I visit friends in Pennsylvania, there is a man whom I make it a point to see. He is a joy to be with, one of the friendliest men I know. Though a committed Muslim, he regards himself as an ecumenist. He's proud of the fact that he shares some of the beliefs of both Jews and Christians. Occasionally he attends a Presbyterian church with my friends and truly enjoys the experience and their fellowship. Once in a restaurant he was expressing to me and our Christian friends his love for Jesus. He ended his proclamation with these words: "If I could tear away my flesh so that all of you could see deep into my heart, you would know how much I love Jesus." The emotions that filled his every word were stunning; it's uncommon to hear such a devout declaration, even in Christian circles.

Getting back to my boysenberry pie, I felt good about my friend's expression of love when a nagging thought hit me: Jesus who? A brief mental skirmish took place over whether or not to ask such a question. My words, however, came out before my mind had settled the issue. "Tell me about the Jesus you love." My Muslim friend didn't hesitate: "He's the same one you love." Before I got "doctrinal" with my friend, I thought I should try to show him why it was important to make sure we were talking about the same Jesus.

I used his neighbor, who is a great friend to both of us, as an example. He and I really love the guy. After agreeing on our mutual feelings, I began to give a description of our common friend's physical attributes: "He's 5'6"; he's completely bald; he weighs 320 pounds; he wears a ring in his left nostril." Actually, I didn't get quite that far before objections were made. "Wait a minute... he's easily over 6'4", I wish I had all his hair, and he's the thinnest man I know!" My friend added that it was obvious that we weren't talking about the same person. "Does it matter?" I asked. He gave me an incredulous look. "Of course it does! I don't have a neighbor fitting your description. You may know someone else like that, but it's not my good friend and neighbor." I pointed out that if I truly believed the description I'd just given, then we couldn't possibly be friends with the same person. He agreed.

What followed was my description of the Jesus I knew. "He was crucified and died on the cross for my sins. Did the Jesus you know do that?"

"No, Allah took him to heaven before the crucifixion. Judas died on the cross."

"The Jesus I know is God himself, who became a man. Is that your Jesus?"

He shook his head. "No, Allah alone is God. Jesus was a great prophet, but just a man." The discussion went on to many other characteristics the Bible ascribes to Jesus. In almost every case, my Muslim friend had a different perspective. Though he remained convinced that he held the correct view, the fact that our contradictory convictions couldn't be reconciled seemed to dampen his zeal for proclaiming his love for Jesus.

Some may see my questioning as unloving—as proof of the divisiveness of arguing over doctrines. I see it as trying to clear the way for my friend to have a genuine relationship with the only true Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ—not someone he or other men have wittingly or unwittingly imagined or devised.

Quite simply, doctrines are teachings. They are either true or false. A true doctrine cannot be divisive in a harmful way; that characteristic applies only to false teachings. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom 16:17; also Rom 2:8-9). Jesus, who is the Truth, can only be known in truth and by those who seek the truth (Jn 14:6; 18:37; 2 Thes 2:13; Dt 4:29). Christ himself caused division (Mt 10:35; Jn 7:35; 9:16;10:19), division between truth and error (Lk 12:51).

"Jesus who?" is a pivotal question for every believer in Christ. We should first of all ask it of ourselves, testing our own beliefs about Jesus (2 Cor 13:5; 1 Thes 5:21). Misunderstandings about Him inevitably become obstructions in our relationship with Him. The question also may be vital in our fellowshipping with those who claim to be Christians. On a brief airline flight recently, a friend of mine was concerned enough to ask the person next to him some crucial questions about his relationship with Jesus. Although the young man professed to have been a Christian for four years or so and participated in a Christian fellowship for professional athletes, he didn't really know Jesus nor did he understand the gospel of salvation. My friend led him to the Lord before the plane landed.

All too often, phrases similar to "we stand together with anyone who names the name of Christ" are emotionally charged coverings for ecumenical agendas. The fear of destroying unity plagues those who take seriously such unbiblical propaganda, even to the point of discouraging any vestige of interest in contending for the faith. Astonishingly, "Christian unity" now includes co-laboring for the moral good of society with cults "that name the name of Jesus."

The cults' teachings about Jesus include every unscriptural idea imaginable. The "Jesus Christ" of Latter-Day Saints, for example, couldn't be further removed from the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus invented by Joseph Smith and after whom he named his church is the first spirit child of Elohim, just as all humans, angels, and demons are spirit children of Elohim. This Mormon Jesus became flesh through physical intercourse between Elohim (God the Father who has a physical body) and the Virgin Mary. Their Jesus is the half-brother of Lucifer. He came to earth to become a god. His sacrificial death gives immortality to every creature (including animals) at the Resurrection. However, whether an individual creature spends eternity in hell or in one of three heavens is totally up to his or her (or its) performance.

The Jesus Christ of the mind-science cults (Christian Science, Religious Science, Unity School of Christianity, etc.) is no different from any other human being. "Christ" is a spiritual idea of God and not a person. Jesus neither suffered nor died for mankind's sins because sin doesn't exist. Rather, he helped humanity to cease from believing that sin and death have any reality. That is "salvation" in so-called Christian Science.

Jehovah's Witnesses also love Jesus, but not the Jesus of the Bible. Before their Jesus was born on earth he was Michael the Archangel. He is a god, but not Jehovah God. When their Jesus became a man he ceased to be a god. There was no physical resurrection of the JW Jesus; Jehovah raised his spirit body, hid his physical remains, and now, once again, Jesus exists as an angel called Michael. The Bible promises that when a believer in our Lord and Savior dies, he or she immediately goes to be with Jesus (2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:21-23). With their Jesus, however, only 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses have that privilege—but not at death, for they are annihilated when they die. That is, they spend an indefinite period in an inactive and unconscious state, in effect, ceasing to exist. My fellowship of love with the biblical Jesus, however, is unbroken and everlasting.

Roman Catholics love Jesus. I did for twenty-some years of my life, but he was very different from the Jesus I now know and love. Sometimes he was still a babe in arms or a young boy, overshadowed and protected by his mother. When I wanted his help I made sure I prayed to his mother first. The Jesus to whom I pray now hasn't been a baby for almost 2,000 years. The Jesus I loved as a Catholic resided bodily in a small, boxlike tabernacle on our church altar in the form of a white wafer, while simultaneously inhabiting millions of pieces of bread worldwide. My Jesus is the (physically) resurrected Son of God; He doesn't indwell inanimate objects.

The Roman Catholic Jesus I knew was the Christ of the crucifix, his body continually hanging on the cross, fittingly symbolic of the perpetual sacrifice of the mass and his unfinished work of salvation. Nearly two millennia ago, the biblical Jesus fully paid the debt for my sins. He has no need of the seven sacraments, the liturgy, the priesthood, the papacy, His mother's intercession, indulgences, prayers to and for the dead, purgatory, etc., to help save anyone. Roman Catholics who say they love Jesus, though they may call themselves charismatic Catholics, evangelical Catholics, or born-again Catholics, actually love a Jesus who is not the biblical Jesus. He's "another Jesus."

Even some who claim to be evangelicals promote a different Jesus. The so-called faith-and-prosperity teachers promote a Jesus who was materially prosperous. According to evangelist John Avanzini, whose expensive wardrobe reflects his teachings, Jesus wore designer clothes (a reference to his seamless robe) similar to what kings and wealthy merchants wore. In a convoluted argument, success preacher Robert Tilton claims that being poor is a sin, and since Jesus was sinless, it follows that he must have been extremely rich. Positive-confession teacher Fred Price explains that he drives a Rolls Royce simply because he's following the way of Jesus. Oral Roberts says that because Jesus and the disciples had a treasurer (Judas), they must have had plenty of money.

In addition to preaching a Christ who was materially wealthy, many of the faith teachers, such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, proclaim a Jesus who descended into hell and had to be tortured by Satan in order to complete the atonement for the sins of mankind. That's not the Jesus I know and love.

Tony Campolo's Jesus indwells everyone. Television preacher Robert Schuller presents a Jesus who died on the cross to secure our self-esteem. In support of this Jesus, Christian psychologists and numerous evangelical preachers tell us that His death on the cross proves our infinite value to God and is the basis for our self-worth. Not only are a variety of ego-enhancing Jesuses being promoted today, but we're also being told by a psychologized "church" that the truth about Jesus may not be as important for our psychological well-being as our own perception of Him. That's the basis for the current teaching by psychospiritual integrationist Neil Anderson and others who promote unbiblical inner-healing techniques. We have to forgive Jesus for situations in the past where we feel He disappointed or wounded us emotionally. Jesus who?

Fellowship with Jesus is the heart of Christianity. It's not something merely imagined but is a reality. He literally indwells all who place their faith in Him as Lord and Savior (Col 1:27; Jn 14:20; 15:4). The relationship we have with Him is both subjective and objective. Our genuine personal experiences with Jesus are always in harmony with His objective Word (Is 8:20). His Spirit ministers His Word to us and that knowledge is the foundation for our fellowship with Him (Jn 8:31; Phil 3:8). Our love for Him is demonstrated by and increases through our obedience to what He commands; our trust in Him is strengthened through the knowledge of what He reveals about Himself (Jn 14:15; Phil 1:9). Jesus said, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37). To whatever degree we believers entertain false beliefs about Jesus and His teachings, we undermine our vital relationship with Him.

Nothing can be better on this earth than the joy of fellowship with Jesus and with those who know and are known by Him. On the other hand, nothing could be more tragic than the offering of one's affections to another Jesus, the invention of men and demons. Our Lord prophesied that many would fall prey to that great delusion just prior to His return (Mt 24:23-26). There will be many who, because of the alleged signs and wonders they perform in His name, will convince themselves that they know Jesus and are serving Him. To them He will speak these sobering words: "...I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Mt 7:23). Rather than being divisive, asking the question "Jesus who?" may be the most loving service one can perform these days. The answer has eternal consequences.

Posted by: Hound Jul 30 2006, 08:21 PM

Well, this is a discussionboard about the 9/11 hoax.

So, why not talk about the biggest one, the MEGA HOAX: which of course is

CHRISTIANITY. The whole hokus-pokus BS is built on the lie that Jaheeezus, was an historical person. In other words that he existed.

There is no historical proof of Jesus existence whatsoever. It is all made up.

Posted by: GreatMuslim10 Jul 31 2006, 12:22 AM


They are not 2 different gods. We have different concepts of God, but we don't believe in different ones. As for Jesus, usediscernment, you could've just said "God" on your posts instead of "Allah", but I feel sometimes that you do it on purpose just to keep believing yourself that "Allah" is a different god than "God", even though your Arab Christian friends say "Allah." Anyways, like what Sanders said, I'm going to drop it and continue to write down Islamic beliefs. As for Joseph, yes he was sold into slavery into Egypt, but I don't really understand the 12 tribes of Israel either. Who's next to talk about?

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 03:39 AM

I have questions (not to degrade anyone or their beliefs): how can Allah and God be the same being if they do not share the same attributes?

How can Allah be God, if God is a trinity and Allah is one being?

How can Allah be God, if God was to send a part of himself to die for the sins of mankind and Allah has done no such thing?

How can Allah be God, if Allah desires the destruction of the Jews and God does not?

I don't understand. I didn't take usediscernment's post to be offensive, but rather, pointing out that if Allah is God and vice versa, then Christians, Jews, and Muslims should agree that Allah/God has the same characteristics regarding love, sin, hatred, vindictiveness, murder, the trinity, one being, salvation, etc. But we all don't agree on that issue. So if we are not in agreement on that, how is it that they are one in the same?

I am just inquiring to further our understanding on the beliefs of each of these religions, I am not trying to insult anyone, and I believe this is crucial to understanding exactly what the conflict is.

Posted by: Daniels Jul 31 2006, 03:54 AM



DayAfterTomorrow, we have to look beyond the dogma of religion to see it more clearly.

Take all the red quotes from the New Testament and look at them. Ignore the rest.

The Bible is true, but it was written by people. People are fallible, God is not.

The red quotes of Jesus tell a story. The rest of it, as well as the interpretations put on it by humans, tend to mislead. The Bible is true, but how do we correctly interpret 666, a man with feet of brass and a sword for a tongue, etc?

Why else would there be thousands of Christian sects in the world? They're interpreting scripture. In the Book of Daniel we are told that no one would be able to interpret that Book. Yet everyone has tried, and claimed that their particular interpretation is the correct one.

The Muslims have their problems too. The Koran, I believe, is the exact Word of God because it was dictated to an amanuensis.

However, the Muslims have many thousands of Traditions attributed to Mahammad, only some of which are genuine. The rest being misleading and corrupting.

Trying to form a consensus on religious belief is fraught with difficulty.

Posted by: usediscernment Jul 31 2006, 04:10 AM


Thanks for speaking up, i have not been trying to slam anyone here ever since i started to reply to this thread.
All i am doing is defending my faith!!!

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 04:12 AM

I understand what you're saying, but the Bible and the Qu'ran have such adamently opposing positions on the character of God and Allah that I don't know how you can attribute that to human mistakes. These aren't just subtle differences, for instance, going from destroying Jews in the Qu'ran to loving them in the Bible is a HUGE leap.

The beliefs are not that closely related. Like Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of mankind in the Bible vs. no mention of such thing in the Qu'ran. The spiritual and physical death of Jesus is a huge deal to Christians and Jews, and yet, not at all existant in Islam.



Who dictated the Qu'ran to an amanuensis? That is important. After all, an amanuensis is also a human, and therefore prone to mistake.

If you take the pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible, or otherwise referred to as the Torah) into consideration, they are considered to be written by Moses (who, after all, is only human) but are also considered to have been dictated by God to Moses.

Posted by: usediscernment Jul 31 2006, 04:35 AM


Yes, the bible clearly mentions (over 94 times) that the God of the bible has given us his word to mankind. i will only post (2)

Paul writting to timothy
2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Jesus praying to the father
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Now how is it possible for the God of the bible to hold mankind responsible
to his word if it was written from man??

Posted by: Sanders Jul 31 2006, 04:41 AM



Could be. Either way, Christianity created a new vessel for Abraham's one god to replace the pagan gods of Europe.

BTW if you hold that 9/11 was a pretext for a religious war, this stuff is all related...

GM10,
Jacob had 12 sons, his son Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and sent to Egypt. Joseph, by interpreting the Pharoh's dream, predicted a long drought and advised the Pharoh to stock up on grain. The drought came just as Joseph said and the Pharoh made him Prime Minister of Egypt (there is actually some evidence this person existed, his Egyptian name was Imhotep).

During the 7 year drought Egypt was the only place that had stores of grain, and the Pharoh allowed Joseph to invite his family. They came with their wives and children, and stayed. The descendants of Joseph and his brothers made up the 12 tribes. After Moses led the Israelites (all descendents of the 12 brothers) back to Canaan and they expelled the Canaanites, Israel was split up into 12 parcels, one each was given to each of the 12 tribes. That's basically the idea. (Actually the descendants of Joseph's 2 sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, each recieved a parcel. The Levites (descendents of Levi) became the priests and were not given land, but rather a tithe from the other tribes.)

The next thing to happen in Israel is Kings David and Solomon and the building of the Temple. Then Assyria invades. But I'm curious what's going on in Arabia all this time - tell us about the Ka'ab rites? Also, does the Quran say anything about the wars in Canaan?


I can't comment on the identity of God stuff, other than to say the obvious - that the source of Judaism's, Christianity's and Islam's belief in one God is the same (Abraham). Don't let me interrupt - carry on.

Posted by: usediscernment Jul 31 2006, 04:54 AM


Just as time goes on many years after 911 there will be many who could say that 911 was a hoax, just like there are some who say that there wasnt a holicaust.
Now check this out...

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Spirit had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Acts 1:1-3 (KJV)

People will have to make a concious decision to either believe or not to believe.
Either way it does not make the happening not true!!!

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 04:57 AM



I am attempting to learn Hebrew, which is a long and excruciating process, but I remember reading a while back that the Hebrew word for "wife" in the Bible as used for Sarai/Sarah is different than the Hebrew word for "wife" as it relates to Hagar. This could occur because the Hebrew language is MUCH MUCH more specific than the English language, so there are sometimes like 7 words in Hebrew that mean different variations of one word in English. My understanding is that the word "wife" used for Sarai/Sarah means actual spouse, like we think of wife today. Whereas, the word "wife" as used for Hagar means more of the act of sexual intercourse or 'pretend' wife. This is not to be confused with sexual intercourse in relation to prostitution.

So if this is true (and I am still trying to find where I read this at), that would mean Ishmael was not Abraham's first legitimate child. It would further reinforce the fact that, in the Bible, God referred to Isaac as the one through whom the nation of Israel would be created. Also, there was huge significance to Abram's name being changed to Abraham, and additionally Sarai was changed to Sarah. Hagar's name was never changed. Was there this name changing fiasco in the Qu'ran?

Posted by: bingo Jul 31 2006, 04:59 AM


No, that is false. According to Christians, the source of belief is Jesus Christ, and this goes for both Christians, and the ancient Jews. Even before the incarnation, the Son of God was imparting faith. Abraham was the recipient, not the originator, of it.

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 31 2006, 05:14 AM


ok ... lets say there is a supreme being, a "God"(which i believe) ... this is how allah can be God just as Jesus/God of christianity can also be.

call God jehovah .. allah .. or Fred Dickinson ... it doesnt matter. you can have a million different beliefs on the details of what God wants for his creation and such. but when it comes to worshiping and following ... you're all following the same God. even if you entertain the idea of more than one God ... your thoughts/prayers/energy .. are all going to the same entity. see what i'm saying? a christian prays to god ... a muslim prays to god .. a mormon .. a jew .. whoever .. they're praying to the same God. doesnt matter what you call him/her.

ok that was f'd up ... i work at a hotel .. and i'm at work right now ... and i just checked in one "Frederick Dickinson" how spooky is that?


i thought the jews didnt believe jesus was the son of God? that they're still waiting for the messiah?

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 05:25 AM



Well I think there is a huge problem if one belief system is telling you to kill Jews and the other is telling you that Jews are God's chosen people. That kind of matters to the Jews....



In the words of the EXTREMELY knowledgeable Paris Hilton, "That's Hott."



It is my understanding, though I may be wrong, that Jews believe Jesus is the son of God, but that he has not come yet and has not yet been crucified. That kind of goes along with the fact that they only look at the old testament, and most specifically the first five books. So, you kind of miss out on the whole Jesus part when you don't read the new testament.

Posted by: bingo Jul 31 2006, 05:30 AM


The Jews believe in a Son of God, but most of them rejected him when he came. But he appeared before 500 believing Jews after the resurrection, the very small remnant that was referred to in the Old Testament.

Posted by: pr0mythius> Jul 31 2006, 05:36 AM


well i was just meaning that ... here you have two groups of people ... both with a "holy book." both said to be inspired by God. so unless God is just instigating a fight to give him/her something to watch ... then i'm gonna stand by the fact that they're both wrong.

as if i'm supposed to choose sides or something. i'm not about to believe something just because one story sounds better than the other. they both have a lot of good things that they promote .. as well as bad things .. but its considered blasphemy to just pick and choose. like you believe it all or none at all.

any group of people that deal in absolutes shouldnt be trusted.
Bush: "you're either with us .. or with the terrorists"
Bible: "you're either of me or of Satan"

screw all of that!

Posted by: DayAfterTomorrow Jul 31 2006, 06:07 AM



The Bible came before the Qu'ran, chronologically, if that matters at all. They are NOT the same God, actually, and if you look at the characteristics of each, that is quite evident; nothing against you or anything, they just have two very different natures.

Actually, the Bible does not promote bad things, whereas the Qu'ran specifically targets the Jews as a race to kill. That is also a huge difference. I have many athiest and agnostic friends, and they tell me the problem with Christianity/Judaism is that the majority of the Christians and Jews that exemplify those religions are huge hypocrites, extremely pushy about their beliefs, and often can't substantiate what they claim. The inherent flaw with Christianity and Judaism, if not with all religions in general, is people. People are imperfect. The difference between the Bible and the Qu'ran as far as this discussion has gone, is that the Bible accepts the fact that humans are imperfect, as we are designed to be, and institutes a plan of action to rectify this imperfection, which is salvation. But, if you notice, the only way the Bible says you can achieve salvation is through God alone, God whom is perfect. The Qu'ran does not have a plan of action to solve for imperfection, and to my knowledge, you don't know what Allah has in store for you.

The problem with Christians is they do not read their Bibles, and if they do, they do not do so correctly. God did not write in English, so why do Christian pastors read their Bibles from the English translations? The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, so it only makes sense that a pastor should be able to teach the Bible from those languages. Otherwise, you have the problem of inaccurate translations, like my "wife" example above, and many many more. Christian's claim to "know and love" their God, but when it comes right down to it, most do not even know what the Bible says about God. I could go on and on about this, so I'll stop. The point is, the average Christian is not an adequate representative of the religion.

I am a Christian, but I do not attend church physically because you don't learn anything about God. You learn about salvation on Sunday mornings and sin on Wednesday nights, and to me, that is complete BS. The Bible contains infinately more aspects than salvation and sin alone.

I have a great respect for Islamic people as a whole, as my best friend for 15 years is Islamic, so I don't want to create the impression that I hate them, I just disagree.

Posted by: Daniels Jul 31 2006, 06:13 AM


"O My brother!
When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto
the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart,
which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the
obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments
of satanic fancy."

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 31 2006, 06:32 AM


so are you saying that the God of Christianity .. and the God or Allah of Islam ... are 2 different entities? so there are 2 Gods? thats what you're saying? if not .. then one must exsist and the other doesnt ... you cant have it both ways.

but if there are 2 Gods like that .. with opposing views on the universe and how things should be done .. then why dont they just duke it out and let us know who won? or better yet ... we can set it up for a PPV event!

and you said the bible doesnt promote bad things? how bout sadom and ghamorah .. or however you spell it. the plagues ... the city of jericho. the bible is peppered with stories of men who had the approval of God to slaughter others. this is not bad things?

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 31 2006, 06:38 AM


before i dove into "the knowledge of ancient days" i did what i guess you could say was a heart cleansing. for about 3 years ... i spent the majority of time answering one question. "who am i?" like socrates said ... "know thy self" .. i agree that this is the most imporant thing a person can do. i'm not completely there .. probably never will be. but i've come to understand much about myself. reasons for reactions to past events .. reasons for others actions to past events.(sometimes it comes clear in ones self when seeing such in another)

BUT ... i dont think Satan exsists. and even if he/she did ... it would be because of a physical manifestation because of the massive belief in the entity.

Posted by: Daniels Jul 31 2006, 07:09 AM



Good point pr0mythius

Baha'is believe that Satan as referred to in the Scriptures means the self or the ego.

The 'self' is personified as 'Satan' to make it easier to identify.

That is the human condition. We have a choice -- to do good, or to do bad.

In the spiritual world we don't have that choice. Or, to be more exact, we do have the choice but faced with the overwhelming glory and loveliness of the Unknowable Essence we would never even think of doing anything ungodly.

Every moment of every day of our earthly lives we are faced with that choice.

The more choices to do good, the more saintly we become. The more choices to do bad, or to look after number 1 at the expense of others, the more satanic we become.

"Follow not the promptings of your own desires, nor the whisperings of the Evil One in your souls."

In the above quote, "your own desires" and "the Evil One" mean the same thing.

Those who believe that Satan is a separate creature, to my mind, believe in two gods, God and an anti-god.

Baha'is believe that God, the Unknowable Essence, is omnipotent. Being omnipotent means that there cannot exist anything but that it exists at His pleasure. Meaning that 'Satan', as a separate entity, cannot exist.



BTW Good work on your self exploration. I commend you for it.

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 31 2006, 07:19 AM

i agree with that ... i've said for years that the "evil" is within us. and i have thought since i was about 13-14 that the concept of satan or the devil was just a way to blame everything you've done bad on something besides urself. no responsibility for ones action. SATAN MADE ME DO IT! blah

but not following the promptings of your own desires. hmmmmm what exactly does this involve. because if God created everything .. he created those desires that we have. for instance. christians seem to have this logic that sex is BAD ... long ago christian spouses would only have sex as a way for breeding. and while doing so would wear a full body robe with openings in the obvious areas.

THAT .. is rediculous of course. but it does seem to be a standing of many .. my father is a southern baptist preacher .. and the only times we even TALKED about sex was when i was 12 and we had "the talk" .. then when i had to tell him i wasnt a virgin anymore. he asked if i could go back would i do it again .. and i said absolutely .. he just looked all shocked. -shakes head-

my point is ... desires are not wrong .. some .. perhaps .. but for the most part i think its wrong to deny urself the things which give you pleasure. doing so doesnt glorify anyone or anything.

Posted by: Daniels Jul 31 2006, 07:47 AM



[laugh] I like the bit about telling your dad you weren't a virgin.

Baha'is are taught that desires are good. For example, the desire to excel, or the desire to spread Truth. Sexual desire within a marriage is good because it strengthens the bonds between husband and wife.

Those who do the full body suit thing are simply taking the idea of self-denial to an extreme.

Baha'is are encouraged to be moderate in all things.

So sexual self-control, abstinence, is praisworthy, but sexual expression with one's spouse for the sake of enjoyment is okay too. Mutilating our genitals (as some Islamic people do) or engaging in sexual promiscuity (as some Western people do) are both extremes and forbidden to Baha'is (though some of us Western Baha'is are a work-in-progress on the latter point )

Desire, moderately controlled is good. Desire without control is not.

[edit: Typos]

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 31 2006, 07:55 AM

yea i dont see the validity in the "no sex before marriage" thing. sure .. if you wanna do that .. its all good .. more power to ya. but i dont see how its all that important. i've never been married ... probably never will for several reasons .. but thats another issue.

but yea i've had sex .. and one thing i'm proud of tho .. is that i lost my virginity to someone i truely loved. thats why i told my dad i had no shame about it ... and there was no way in hell he could convince me otherwise. i was 18 the first time i had sex. most reactions i get when i tell people that is "wow .. i lost mine at 15" or 14 or 16 or whatever.

i dont think people should be rackless with thier sexual desires ... but i also dont think sex needs approval by a religion. when you get down to it .. we're just mammals. sure we're considered half-way intellegent and all that .. but still we're just animals.

oh yea .. and masturbation. why the hell do religions have this thing agaisnt masturbation ... catholics at least .. christians too .. dunno about muslims or some others .. but yea. they dont want someone else to pleasure you .. they dont want you to pleasure urself. WHAT THE HELL!

Posted by: Hound Jul 31 2006, 10:25 AM


Yes indeed, but was replacing the Pagan gods= Our European gods, our European culture, with the Abrahamic= totally alien semitic god, that got nothing to do with European culture.

A good thing?

It was the biggest disaster in the European history. When they got in power they burnt and slaughtered everything Pagan=European. The pagan culture (so much higher than the xtian) was completly destoyed. They burnt every library.

Europe descended inte the dark ages it lasted to the renaissance.


9/11 was certainly a pretext for war, not a religious war. But they are using the tremendous power of religion. They are deliberatly spreading hatred among xtians towards Muslims.


Aren't you too wise to view the bible as book of historiography? It is a book of myths. Take the myth that the Jews were slaves in Egypt. There is no evidence for this. It is pure fantasie, or rather a myth. With no basis in the historical reality.

Posted by: Daniels Jul 31 2006, 10:36 AM



Hi Hound,

I have it on good authority that history didn't start to be chronoligically set down until Pliny the Elder set to work on it.

Apparently, prior to that history was passed down by word of mouth.

Yes, the Bible has its fair share of mythological references such as the story of Adam and Eve. But the fact that it is allegorical doesn't diminish its value. Same as the Aboriginal dreamtime stories, US Indian lore, etc. They speak to us on the level of mysticism, the language of the heart, significant to the soul.

And yeah, a lot of evil was done in the name of Christ in the Dark Ages -- but I think Christ is ashamed of those people.

Posted by: pr0mythius Jul 31 2006, 10:50 AM


well ... acctually christianity does have a bit to do with paganism. you could classify me as a pagan i suppose .. most of thier teaching seem to make more sense than more organized religions. but anywayz ... christianity did take a lot of thier holidays from paganism. for instance:

christmas .. jesus birthday id celebrated on december 25th when most scholars say from the story that jesus was more than likely born in august. but the christian church made december 25th the holiday to celebrate his birth to overshadow the Yule holiday. and early christians actually used to celebrate jesus's birthday on january 6th. by the way .. yule holiday celebrates the rebirth of the God. coincidence? HA!

easter .. christians celebrate this holiday to remember the crucifixion of christ .. so where did all the bunnies and eggs come from? pagans celebrate Ostara around the same time .. the spring equinox .. the return of spring .. and also with this came the birthing of farm animals.

Samhain/Halloween .. celebrated by pagans to remember thier loved ones that have passed on .. it symbolized the death of the God and the Goddess mourning him til the coming of Yule and his rebirth. Christians then created All-Saint day to counter this holiday.

interesting eh?

baptism is another one
the last supper

the imagery of the crucifixion, two theievs on each side of jesus .. in paganism Mithras had two torchbearers, one on each side .. one torch pointed up .. other down .. symbolizing ascent to heaven and hell.

and the ways people in the old testament would attone for thier sins matched that of pagan ritual.

ok i guess i'll stop now .. should be enough to convince i hope.