Meanwhile: Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

[World Citizen]

14 hours ago, concha said:

 

Because I'm not fucking wrong.

Hope that helps.

Yes you are wrong.  Hope that helps.

[Equality]

5 hours ago, concha said:

 

Remind us which testament is found in?

Thanks in advance.

 

Did anyone told you that according to NT, Jesus didn't abolish OT ?

[concha]

3 minutes ago, Equality said:

Did anyone told you that according to NT, Jesus didn't abolish OT ?

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm

Quote

 

The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc.

Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).

 

 

 

[Equality]

4 hours ago, concha said:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

 

 

You claimed "Islam was established and grew through violence virtually from day one,". This was proved to be wrong. You bypass the accounts of plots planned to kill Prophet Muhammad by Polytheists to post Jihad passages ?! Everyone knows quran has Jihad passages.

[Equality]

1 minute ago, concha said:

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm

 

 

According to NT, Jesus corrected your misunderstanding.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

[concha]

15 minutes ago, Equality said:

You claimed "Islam was established and grew through violence virtually from day one,". This was proved to be wrong. You bypass the accounts of plots planned to kill Prophet Muhammad by Polytheists to post Jihad passages ?! Everyone knows quran has Jihad passages.

The use of violence and plots to kill Jesus and Muhammed are one of the clear differentiators between the men and, through them, the religions.

Muhammed fell back on violence and conquest. He warred. He beheaded captives. He enslaved. He OK'd the sexual abuse of captured slaves.

Jesus willingly went to the cross to pay for humanity's sins.  He warred against no one. He killed no one. He enslaved no one. He violated no one.

Jesus' followers spread the religion peacefully through word of mouth and Christians were persecuted for centuries before becoming mainstream.

Muhammed's followers launched wars of conquest.

 

Islamic apologists love to scream "Crusades" yet gloss over the fact that the Crusades were defensive wars against an Islamic movement that had conquered 2/3 of the then Christian world before the first crusader set foot on the Holy Land.

 

 

[concha]

6 minutes ago, Equality said:

According to NT, Jesus corrected your misunderstanding.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Dealt with in the link I provided.

 

More help for you.

https://www.gci.org/bible/matthew517

 

[DevilDog]

This is a topic of supposed Christians claiming to know everything about Islam when they don't know their own faith.  Rather comical. 

I would feel the same about a Group of Muslims who have never read the bible but telling you what is wrong with it. Ridiculous.

If you were offered a 40 Dollars you wouldn't be able to quote 4 ayat's from the Koran.  And even more telling hell 4 biblical verses correctly.

Go grab some Snakes and speak in Tongues as the New Testament demands of you.  After all Jesus said you could in his name.  I will buy the Snakes and the poison so that all of you can prove you believe all you read in the Peaceful NT.

Mark 16:17–18

New Testament Christians.

 

17 And athese signs will accompany those who believe: bin my name they will cast out demons; cthey will speak in new tongues; 18 dthey will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; ethey will lay their hands fon the sick, and they will recover.”

 

[DevilDog]

Peace my 2 Cents.  Rather stay out of the topics. But like Horsefly some ignorance have to be confronted.

New Testament Jesus demanding to kill the non believers:

27And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me.’” 28After Jesus had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.…

In response, many Christians rely on a “fall back” argument: they claim that this “doesn’t count” since “it’s just the Old Testament!” and supposedly Jesus Christ rejected the violent legacy of the OT.  It is of course of paramount importance to the anti-Muslim Christians–as well as to culturally Christian atheist and your run-of-the-mill Islamophobes who need to prove the “uniquely” violent nature of Islam’s holy book–to neutralize the Old Testament.  After all, if the Old Testament “counts”, then it would be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) to attack the Quran for its alleged violence: the Old Testament is by far the more violent book.

There are numerous reasons the “But It’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense doesn’t do the trick:

1) There is no explicit  or categorical textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) “doesn’t count”.  For every verse cited to prove such a claim, there is another that can be cited for the opposite view.  In fact, it seems that the textual proof for the opposite view is greater, even overwhelming.  For example, Jesus says in the Gospels:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Jesus also said:

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

There are other verses that similarly seem to affirm the importance of keeping the Law.  On the other hand, the evidences used to counter this view are less explicit and less direct.

2)  Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be “just as inspired as the New Testament.” The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“All Scripture – This properly refers to the Old Testament…it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired.” More importantly, as Catholic.com says (emphasis is ours): “Scripture — all of Scripture — is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.”

[TheRealCAJ]

9 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

Peace my 2 Cents.  Rather stay out of the topics. But like Horsefly some ignorance have to be confronted.

In response, many Christians rely on a “fall back” argument: they claim that this “doesn’t count” since “it’s just the Old Testament!” and supposedly Jesus Christ rejected the violent legacy of the OT.  It is of course of paramount importance to the anti-Muslim Christians–as well as to culturally Christian atheist and your run-of-the-mill Islamophobes who need to prove the “uniquely” violent nature of Islam’s holy book–to neutralize the Old Testament.  After all, if the Old Testament “counts”, then it would be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) to attack the Quran for its alleged violence: the Old Testament is by far the more violent book.

There are numerous reasons the “But It’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense doesn’t do the trick:

1) There is no explicit  or categorical textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) “doesn’t count”.  For every verse cited to prove such a claim, there is another that can be cited for the opposite view.  In fact, it seems that the textual proof for the opposite view is greater, even overwhelming.  For example, Jesus says in the Gospels:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Jesus also said:

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

There are other verses that similarly seem to affirm the importance of keeping the Law.  On the other hand, the evidences used to counter this view are less explicit and less direct.

2)  Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be “just as inspired as the New Testament.” The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“All Scripture – This properly refers to the Old Testament…it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired.” More importantly, as Catholic.com says (emphasis is ours): “Scripture — all of Scripture — is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.”

What website did you copy this jibberish from?

 

[concha]

11 minutes ago, DevilDog said:

Peace my 2 Cents.  Rather stay out of the topics. But like Horsefly some ignorance have to be confronted.

In response, many Christians rely on a “fall back” argument: they claim that this “doesn’t count” since “it’s just the Old Testament!” and supposedly Jesus Christ rejected the violent legacy of the OT.  It is of course of paramount importance to the anti-Muslim Christians–as well as to culturally Christian atheist and your run-of-the-mill Islamophobes who need to prove the “uniquely” violent nature of Islam’s holy book–to neutralize the Old Testament.  After all, if the Old Testament “counts”, then it would be a case of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) to attack the Quran for its alleged violence: the Old Testament is by far the more violent book.

There are numerous reasons the “But It’s Just the Old Testament!” Defense doesn’t do the trick:

1) There is no explicit  or categorical textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) “doesn’t count”.  For every verse cited to prove such a claim, there is another that can be cited for the opposite view.  In fact, it seems that the textual proof for the opposite view is greater, even overwhelming.  For example, Jesus says in the Gospels:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Jesus also said:

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

There are other verses that similarly seem to affirm the importance of keeping the Law.  On the other hand, the evidences used to counter this view are less explicit and less direct.

2)  Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be “just as inspired as the New Testament.” The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

“All Scripture – This properly refers to the Old Testament…it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired.” More importantly, as Catholic.com says (emphasis is ours): “Scripture — all of Scripture — is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.”

Hebrews 8:6-13

6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. 8 But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. 10 “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. 11 “And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.” 13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.¹

[DevilDog]

4 minutes ago, concha said:

Hebrews 8:6-13

6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. 8 But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. 10 “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. 11 “And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.” 13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.¹

Where should I send your Snake, Poison and sick person for you too lay hands on and Cure? I will await the address.  That is in the NT.  I am sure you are much smarter than I am on Islam or Christianity. I will go back to reading the comical aspect of it all. Just had to address major ignorance. Now back to my regular schedule program making money in Insurance. I will assure you I am done.

Peace be with you. Jesus said that a lot just like another certain group of worshippers do.

[TheRealCAJ]

9 minutes ago, TheRealCAJ said:

What website did you copy this jibberish from?

 

http://spencerwatch.com/2011/05/22/the-“but-that’s-just-the-old-testament”-cop-out/

Nevermind. Easy enough.

The dumbass, typed fall back old and new and copied the first one that popped up.

What a complete moron.

[World Citizen]

36 minutes ago, concha said:

The use of violence and plots to kill Jesus and Muhammed are one of the clear differentiators between the men and, through them, the religions.

Muhammed fell back on violence and conquest. He warred. He beheaded captives. He enslaved. He OK'd the sexual abuse of captured slaves.

Jesus willingly went to the cross to pay for humanity's sins.  He warred against no one. He killed no one. He enslaved no one. He violated no one.

Jesus' followers spread the religion peacefully through word of mouth and Christians were persecuted for centuries before becoming mainstream.

Muhammed's followers launched wars of conquest.

 

Islamic apologists love to scream "Crusades" yet gloss over the fact that the Crusades were defensive wars against an Islamic movement that had conquered 2/3 of the then Christian world before the first crusader set foot on the Holy Land.

 

 

You are wrong again.  

[TheRealCAJ]

2 minutes ago, TheRealCAJ said:

http://spencerwatch.com/2011/05/22/the-“but-that’s-just-the-old-testament”-cop-out/

Nevermind. Easy enough.

The dumbass, typed fall back old and new and copied the first one that popped up.

What a complete moron.

That's dd's two cents though.

Right....

[concha]

6 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

You are wrong again.  

Thanks, Sparky.

Your scholarship and erudition on the subject matter are truly spectacular to behold. I yield.

[Wosinc]

11 hours ago, noonereal said:

isn't it fairer to say Christ's existence, historically is considered more probable than not? 

Cutting hairs but a little less definite. 

 

More probable than not?  Who are you channeling, Ted Wells?

Of course it's more probable than not.  So much more probable that it's definite.

One can debate Jesus' impact on history, and whether or not he was divine, but his existence is indisputable.

[HawgGoneIt]

 

[Belly Bob]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

I'm trying not to vomit. 

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

I'm trying not to vomit. 

 

 

Let me know when it gets to be too much and you are surely to chuck, and I will quickly take it down. 

[Belly Bob]

3 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

 

Let me know when it gets to be too much and you are surely to chuck, and I will quickly take it down. 

No, I'd rather sit here very quietly and then later tweet about it.

That's the kind of man I am. 

[concha]

I agree with what the soldier did and salute his actions.

 

That said, there exists a "high risk" element to the Islamic faith.  Those disposed to violence do not need to look hard in Islamic religious texts to find excuses and justifications to act out.

[HawgGoneIt]

I think the video is very interesting. The soldier has no idea of the Muslim guy's background right? I mean the guy is a planted actor, so the soldier couldn't previously know the Muslim man. He says that he was defending him because he was American( I guess technically the man is standing on American soil), but he doesn't know if the man is illegal, on a work visa, exchange program or whatever, so in reality, what he is defending is simple basic human rights. Amazing stuff. 

I wish there were a lot more guys around like that soldier. 

 

[noonereal]

9 hours ago, Wosinc said:

More probable than not?  Who are you channeling, Ted Wells?

Of course it's more probable than not.  So much more probable that it's definite.

One can debate Jesus' impact on history, and whether or not he was divine, but his existence is indisputable.

not sure how you figure this...

why you believe it I do understand

[World Citizen]

21 hours ago, concha said:

Thanks, Sparky.

Your scholarship and erudition on the subject matter are truly spectacular to behold. I yield.

I would discuss but you are not interested in learning antything.  You already know it all and your too disingenuous.  Nor was right as was Hawg.  Hawg was trying to give a complete picture, giving context to a complex issue but you don't care about any of it.  Why would I waste time giving you insights to a problem that you have no interest in gaining insights to.