< ="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<>
Natassia: Not, this
is the law, this is the punishment for it if you are rich, and this is the
punishment for it if you are poor.
Not,
this is the law only if you are female.
Once again, you are making up your own rules and trying to establish that
"justice" has some universal definition, when in reality, it is
defined by culture and society. Justice that does not allow for people to
atone within their means is not only unjust, it is unfair. God is both
just and fair. Stop making up your own rules.
Natassia: There is no logic behind that. Where's the
LOGIC?"A woman has a different law to follow."Why?"Because the
law applies differently to women."Circular reasoning.You can try to
justify it with:
1. Because women are deficient in religion.2.
Because women are deficient in intelligence.3. Because women are dependent on
men financially as well as for protection.
But these are all disproven by the woman who has
never had a period, who has one of the highest IQs in the world, is financially
dependent on no one because she earns a 7-figure salary, and protects
herself by being an expert Judo fighter and carrying a concealed handgun."
I have absolutely no idea what you are rambling about! Who's talking
about women? You are going off on tangents. Quite typical.
Natassia: God's Law is about MORALITY...not about
determining crime and punishment. Where in the Quran does it say that it is
against the law to speed on the highway? Yeah, God didn't think about that, did
he? Where in the Quran does it mention DNA testing to determine paternity? It
doesn't.
You are just getting silly. There is
such a thing as Islamic Jurisprudence.
Its called Fiqh. Is driving too
fast a bad thing in Islam? Yes. Is it literally written in the Quran? No, it doesn�t have to be. The Quran says that we should not do things
which can bring harm to ourselves and to others. That is why the scholars of Islam have
considered speeding to be a bad thing which should be avoided. To say that it literally should say �you
shouldn�t speed� is not only foolish, it is downright dumb.
In fact, Muhammad said that the child born in a
marriage is automatically the product of that marriage if there were no
witnesses to adultery. Nevermind that the milkman could have stolen a quickie
one morning.
Most Islamic scholars agree that DNA testing can be used as supportive
evidence. Therefore, there is nothing in
the Islamic texts which suggest that any worthwhile method which can ascertain
the truth in a criminal investigation, besides eyewitness testimony, is not
allowed.
Natassia: I have communicated with God. Is that so
outrageous? When I pray, I communicate with Him. When He comforts me, He
communicates with me. When He convicts me regarding a conflict in my life, He
communicates with me. I have an interactive relationship with my God. Isn't
that the way it should be?
You said that God put words in your head.
The question is how do you know that?
You are essentially claiming the same thing claimed by Moses, Jesus and
Muhammad and indeed all the prophets.
People asked for proofs from them.
I am asking for proof from you.
Has God literally talked to you?
Has He said to you �Natassia, say this and do that�? Christians always make vague claims like �I
have a personal relationship with God.�
But, these are just empty words based upon several assumptions. What does this �personal relationship�
entail?
Natassia: Why does God treat Jews differently?
Because He had a specific purpose for them. He chose the Israelites, but they
had to agree to the covenant. And they did. They gave a verbal agreement.
Haven't you read the Torah?
Well, of course they agreed. You try
saying no to God. The question is why
God chose one particular race above all others.
Concerning the Noahide Laws, were other far-away races made aware of
these laws? Were pagan nations in Europe made aware of these laws? Were people living the in undiscovered
regions of the world made aware of these laws?
If not, how were they supposed to follow them?
Natassia: So, what we have here is your agreement
that it is the Law which defines what God we are following. If
a god tells us that it is okay to commit adultery, then we can rule it out as a
false god, right? If we have a god telling you to commit murder, then we can
rule it out as a false god, right? So, now we have to define what is
"adultery" and what is "murder." Care to do that for me?
Adultery, as defined in Islam, is having sexual intercourse with someone who
is not one�s spouse or concubine (of course, concubines were only acquired in
war against enemy nations). This
definition is also present in the Bible.
Murder is killing someone for reasons other than for crimes committed, or
during a war etc.
Natassia: I think of it like this: If I want to
eventually bring forth a perfectly white dog out of a pack of currently white
dogs, am I going to want them to mix with the brown, tan, black, yellow, red,
etc. dogs? No. God has set certain laws in place: both physical and spiritual,
and I think He prefers to do things according to the rules. If He didn't, then
He'd never let a hurricane devastate a country to the point that innocent
babies and children were killed. God made Israel holy so that the Messiah
would also be holy.
Why not? What is so wrong with the
brown, tan, black, yellow, red etc. dogs?
Just because the Messiah was supposed to be from among the Israelites,
that means that God chooses only the Israelites, while forsaking the rest of
humanity? Why couldn�t it be both? Why not prepare the whole world for the
Messiah, instead of waiting for several thousand years and then deciding to
send him, even then only initially to the Jews, when most of the world had not
even heard of him?
Natassia: Regarding: false gods....I don't have any.
I haven't created any for myself. I worship ONE God and all that He is. I
worship His "right hand." I worship His Word. I worship His Spirit.
If you want to turn those into three gods, well then you are playing semantics
and that petty stuff doesn't mean much to me. All three "gods"
(as you call them) are defined by the same Laws.
I respect you opinion. My opinion is
that you do have false gods. They are
Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You worship
God�s �right hand�? What about His �left
hand�?
Natassia: By the way, do you know when the Book of
Jubilees was written?
Didn�t I say it was written in the 2nd Century BC?
Natassia: There's a reason Jews don't consider it
part of their canon of scripture. There's a reason Christians don't either.
Do you think it was rejected because it mentioned something about the Arabs
being linked to Ishmael? Are you that
na�ve? By the way, Jubilees is
in the official canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. You would have known that if you had done
some research. Another erroneous assumption
on your part is that since the book is not considered as �scripture�, then it
is completely unreliable. Scholars do
consider the book when looking for historical facts. It reveals important information about the
beliefs and times of the 2nd century BC. Specifically with regard to the issue at
hand, it shows that the Jews, as early as the 2nd century BC, considered
the Arabs to be genealogically linked to Ishmael. I can write a thesis on the issue, but I am
only presenting the basic information.
Natassia: So what Josephus did was quote a 2nd
century BC book to validate his beliefs about the Arabs which he likely
formulated based on their behavior and how it coincides with the description of
Ishmael in Genesis. Again, Josephus was not an anthropologist, and the book of
Jubilees was written thousands of years after Abraham.
Wow. Talk about a non-sequitur. You assume that the Book of Jubilees is wrong
and that since Josephus made a similar claim, you believe he copied the Book of
Jubilees and therefore assume that he is wrong.
What is your evidence? As I said,
Josephus is widely considered by scholars and historians to be a reliable
source of information from that time.
Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant.
The only reason you are questioning the historical evidence is because
of your a priori assumptions. You don�t
want there to be a link between the Arabs and Ishmael.
Natassia: Christianity does not incorporate
paganism. Now, if human beings have chosen to create their own religion around
Christ like Roman Catholicism and incorporate pagan traditions, then that is
another story. However, you cannot prove that Christianity ITSELF incorporates
paganism. Please, find where in the scriptures it tells Christians to do
anything remotely "pagan" (as in, man-made and wicked)?
Explain the similarities between the Eucharist and the Mithraic rituals, or
do you not believe in the Eucharist? Which
�Christianity� are you talking about?
Your own modern version or the version that has been accepted since the
Council of Nicea?
Natassia: God LITERALLY dwelled in the Temple. His glory was
contained in the Ark of the Covenant. His presence was separated from the
people by a heavy curtain. So, the verse about God dwelling within His house is
NOT a metaphor--not by Jewish or Christian interpretation. Only Muslims
interpret it that way.
A heavy curtain huh? God�s glory was
held back by a curtain? Ooookay! As I said, there was no temple yet in the
time of David. Furthermore, the Psalm
spoke of a pilgrimage through the valley
of Baca, on route to Jerusalem.
The pilgrimage was not in Jerusalem. Also, remember that initially the Muslims
prayed towards Jerusalem. Both places are considered holy.
Natassia: If God dwells in His house, and the Ka'aba
is His house, then God must dwell in the Ka'aba. If He doesn't, then your
entire premise of this passage being about Mecca is false.
God doesn�t have to anything, if He doesn�t want to. He does not dwell in a particular place. The Kaaba is a representation of the
celestial �House of God�, not literally the place of His residence.
Natassia: Look, either this passage is metaphorical
or it is not. If it is metaphorical, then you can't prove it is about Mecca at all simply on
the basis of a similarity in names. That's insane. How many people named
"Immanuel" could then look at Isaiah and claim that it is about them?
If it is literal, then you can't prove it is about Mecca
because Zion has never been in Arabia.
You are working backwords.
The Psalm speaks of the Israelites going through the valley on route to �Zion�.
Natassia: First, you claim that Mecca is the holy land, and the Ka'aba is the
metaphorical house of Allah. Then, you look into the Jewish scriptures and pick
out a passage that speaks of a valley named after "weeping" or
"balsam trees." Because the name in HEBREW is similar to an ARABIC
name, you've determined that it must be about Mecca. Anything else in the passage that
would refute such a claim is denounced as fabricated.
When did I say it was fabricated? You
are putting words in my mouth. I said
that some of the Psalms were not written by David, but other anonymous
individuals. Mecca is holy. So is Jerusalem. This is nothing new.
Natassia: Wow. That's like a scientist looking at a
dog and a cat and determining that because they both have four legs and fur,
then they must also have the same ancestor.
Another asinine analogy! And
actually, evolutionary scientists do believe that all organisms have a single
ancestor.
Natassia: "Why do I quote the Bible as the word
of God?" When have I done such a thing? You've asked me about Christian
theology. Christian theology is based on the Bible, therefore I quote the
Bible.
It seems strange to me that you are trying to �teach� me �Christian�
theology yet you don�t profess the same beliefs. Why am I talking to you then? I asked you those questions because I assumed
you were a Bible-believing Christian. I
mean, I started the thread with a question to �Christians�. So then, why did you interject? If you don�t believe in the Bible, then shut
up and let someone who does answer, if they want to.
Natassia: There is a lot of wisdom to be found
within those scriptures...and a basic "game plan" that makes a whole
lot of sense to me. They also confirm what God has been putting upon my heart.
So, whether they are the verbatim words of God (which I deny) or the
words of men inspired by their belief in God (which I affirm)...the end result
is the same.
Oh, here we go with the self-contradictions.
You don�t believe the Bible is God�s word but it confirms what God �has
been putting upon [your] heart�. If it
is simply the words of men, why should anyone believe it? And since God has apparently not sent down any
of His own words, why should any of us concern ourselves with faith and
religion? The words of men would be
contradictory. I mean, in the absence of
any real guidance from God, He will surely not hold us responsible. So, it means that all of us should be looking
forward to a happy afterlife, even those who don�t even believe in it. Like I said, your beliefs would be very
attractive to atheists.
Natassia: My belief in God is based upon my
personal, spiritual experiences in life. I know God exists because of what He
has done for me in my life. It was He who directed me to particular passages in
the Bible and instilled upon my heart the truth of them. Do I tell people that
they must believe the way that I do? No. I can only give my testimony and leave
the rest up to God. It was through God that I found Christ, and it was through
Christ that I found healing, rest, and salvation.
Exactly. It is based on your own
whims and desires. You offer no proof of
any divine guidance. You are just some
quack who claims to have received that guidance. How do you know it wasn�t Satan? Do you even believe that Satan exists?
Natassia: Regarding the Byzantine/Persian
"prophecy": Since when did "turn the tide" mean
victory? When DEFEAT occurs, it is after the tide has been turned and the enemy
is DEFEATED....not still fighting.
You are getting so silly, it�s funny!
Did you forget that the verses stated that the Byzantines had been
�defeated�? What did that mean? Did it mean that the war was over? Of course not! It meant that the Persians had scored major
victories and were advancing against the Byzantines. In the same context, the Quran stated that
within a few years, the Byzantines would �defeat� the Persians. The first such defeat came in 622 (6 years
after the prophecy) at the Battle of Issus.
If you look at it from this point of view, the prophecy came true. But, there is more to it. By 625, the Persians were on the run and the
Byzantines were advancing, having scored major victories in their invasion of Persia. The prophecy came true. For anyone to have made that claim in 616,
after the disasters which had befallen the Byzantines (the fall of Syria,
Jerusalem, the capture of the �True Cross�, and the fall of Egypt later), it
would have seemed like a hopeless prediction.
But, God made it happen.
Natassia: "We will have Mecca again." He had already decided
that he was going to make war on the pagans there. So, either the Muslims would
lose and the "prophecy" would go unfulfilled, or the Muslims would
win and the "prophecy" would be fulfilled. What Muhammad was telling
his men was no more than military propaganda to raise morale. That's not a
prophecy. If I know that I am going to take a test tomorrow, I can prophesy
that I will pass. If I pass the test the next day, does that make me a prophet?
The prophecies stated that all that would happen within Muhammad�s
lifetime. So, if he had died before any
of that happened, it would have been a false prophecy. That was an important condition which you are
purposefully ignoring.
Natassia: So, are you telling me
that MUHAMMAD split the moon? Did he really SPLIT it?
Yes.
Natassia: There is no set definition
for "original sin." Catholics believe one thing, Protestants
another...orthodox, something else... ((shrug)) So, stop telling me that I have
the wrong definition when there are multiple ones and the term is not even in
the scriptures to begin with.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Original sin may be
taken to mean: (1) the sin
that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain
with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common,
as may be seen by St. Augustine's
statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of
original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary
stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to
examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.
The Catholic concept of original sin was endorsed by Martin
Luther and John Calvin. This is about
90% of Christianity right here! How
could they deny it? Paul made it
explicitly clear that original sin was the real deal and that because of it,
all are doomed unless they accept Christ.
And as I pointed out, the term �original sin� may not be
literally in the Bible. But, the concept
is there. Paul is the source of the myth
itself. As his ideas became gradually
accepted, eventually the term was adopted.
Natassia: A sinful soul gets the
death penalty...the ultimate punishment. (Unless, of course, you are a fan of
torture. However, humans are the creators of torture. God is not a God of
torture.)
Atheists will love this!
There is no reason not to sin!
What�s the worst that could happen?
You will simply cease to exist.
Atheists believe this already!
But wait a minute.
Somewhere above, you quoted the Bible referring to �Sheol�. What about that? Contradictions, contradictions�
Natassia: Are you now telling me
that ALL of the Sodomites were 100% homosexual? At some point, every single
member of that city stopped having sex with the opposite sex?! Okay, let's
think about that for a minute.
I am saying that at the time when God decided to destroy the
city, most if not all of them were sinners (homosexuality apparently being the
most perverse of their sins). Were there
any righteous people there? Yes, Lot and his family.
And again, if there were children or babies there, God did what He
did. That is not your concern.
Natassia: Regarding the slaughter of
innocents: Am I trying to justify it? No. I'm just looking at it from a
simplistic, cause-and-effect point-of-view and 20/20 hindsight. If you knew
that your next-door neighbor's baby was going to grow up to kidnap, rape,
torture, and murder your daughter...would you kill him before that happened?
Well, I would move my daughter away so that he would not be
able to reach her! That sounds like the
reasonable thing to do. In any case, no
one knows the future except God. The
nonsense in the Bible about God ordering the Israelites (who were supposed to
be the light to the world as you put it) to massacre of thousands of innocents
is not something God would do. He would
have destroyed the entire nation Himself, as He had done in the past. Remember Noah�s people? He could have ordered Noah to raise an army
over time, and maybe even send the angels as He did against the Assyrians. But, no.
He decided to send a flood. See
the pattern. When a nation becomes too
wicked, God decides whether to destroy it or not. He does not order humans to do that. If that were so, Allah would not have
outlawed the killings of civilians, such as women and children the elderly and
the animals. And that reminds me. In some cases in the Bible, God even orders
the Israelite army to kill even the animals!
What was going to happen? Were
those animals going to grow up and trample an Israelite?
Natassia: See, here you said: "If they were
sinful, God would have handled them Himself."
Well, with one sentence you have
completely undermined shariah law. Congratulations.
Man, are you thick-headed.
If a nation is sinful, God deals with them Himself. Noah�s people. Sodom
and Gamorrah. Ad and Thamud. Get it?
Shariah law has nothing to do with it.
Natassia: Here's how it works:
Physical life-->death-->the grave
(Sheol/Hades)-->judgment-->eternal
destruction. This eternal destruction is also where the grave and death itself
are destroyed forever.
And what happens in Sheol?
Do they just sleep until its time for judgment? Or do they suffer? Why would anyone care to live a righteous
life when there is no price to pay?
Eternal destruction is not that bad.
Like I said, the Atheists already believe that they will simply cease to
exist. Why should anyone do good?
Natassia: Okay, I understand the salvation by being
close to God. I get that. It's this whole submitting part. I submit to God in
my life. I pray that His will be done and that I live my life according to His
will. I do my utmost to keep His commandments:
Do unto others as I would have them do to
me.Love the Lord my God with all my heart, and all my soul, and all my
mind.Love my neighbor as myself.Honor my father and my mother.Do not steal.Do
not bear false witness.Do not commit adultery.Do not murder.
Ironically, you forgot the number 1 commandment: Thou shalt not have any other gods before
me. Jesus is not God. The Holy Spirit is not God. God is God.
Natassia: However, Muslims believe
that in order to submit to God, they must submit to the Sunnah of Muhammad.
That's where I get tripped up. Muhammad's Sunnah = the will of Allah.
Muhammad's way of life becomes divine...which must mean that Muhammad was
divine. If he wasn't, then the Sunnah is imperfect...since only God is perfect,
right? And if the Sunnah is imperfect, then the will of Allah is imperfect.
We�ve been over this.
Don�t keep repeating the same nonsense like an automaton. Allah revealed the Sunnah to Muhammad. Therefore, to follow it is to follow
Allah. Muhammad (pbuh) simply taught us
how to follow Allah. The Sunnah
reiterates the Quran. Its purpose is to
show us through action what the Quran teaches.
Natassia: So, worshiping Jesus as my
Lord and Savior makes me a worse sinner in the eyes of Allah than the serial
rapist who believes in Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger? Dude. My
brain, heart, nor soul can wrap around that.
Well then, you are one confused individual, lady. The serial rapist will get his comeuppance in
the fire. The only thing that will save
him from the fire is his faith, if he indeed has any. The thing is that usually people who kill,
rape or maim don�t have any faith. So,
there is the possibility that the person who actually claims to believe may in
fact just be a hypocrite, and the hypocrite is doomed to the lowest pits of
Hell. It depends on the individual.
Natassia: How does knowledge
convict us of sin? Think about it. If you know in your heart that
torturing that young woman over there is wrong because it would cause her pain,
and you know that you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you...well, then
if you decide to torture her anyway, you've sinned. It doesn't take a written
code to tell you that rape is wrong. However, if you have no concept of empathy
or logic (like an animal, for example) then you cannot sin because what you are
doing is instinctual and primitive. Except for perhaps the severely mentally
retarded and very young children, all humans are instilled with the ability to
empathize.
Yes, but you said that simply having the knowledge makes us
all sinners. This is complete
nonsense. It would take the action of
sin in addition to the knowledge of it to convict someone. Simply being aware of sin does not make one a
sinner.
Natassia: What Adam and Eve did was
to disobey God. Disobeying God is a sin. He said, do not eat of that tree. They
knew they shouldn't do that, but they did it anyway. When they ate of the tree,
that is when they realized their sin of disobedience. Now all of us humans have
the ability to know when we have done something wrong. Our own hearts will
convict us of it. We can try to justify things in our minds (which is what Adam
and Eve tried to do), but deep down we will always know that what we did was
wrong.
And they would not have done that if they had not listened
to Satan. God warned them not to listen
to him. See? God taught us the path to salvation.
Natassia: What you have just told me
is that God made Adam and Eve in such a way that would leave them vulnerable,
and then He planted a tree, and then He allowed Satan to tempt them....all for
what? Why make creatures vulnerable to an environment and a Satan He created
only to torment them forever if they prove themselves vulnerable to the sin of
idolatry?
Once again, you purposely missed certain important facts
which would answer your questions. He
told them not to do it. He told them not
to listen to Satan. They did it anyway,
because they have free-will. But even
then, God listened to their pleas for mercy and forgiveness. That is my God. He provides a way for us to seek redemption
and salvation. We may not deserve it,
but He gives us a way anyway. Of course,
it still requires work and effort and suffering. God does test the believers. There is a tradition in Islam which states
that the road to Paradise is full of things
which seem hard and tough to do whereas the road to Hell is full of things that
are easy and that we enjoy and would do in an instant.
Natassia: The Bible is the words of
men inspired by their belief in God and their interactions with Him. All of
them agreed on the fact that God wants His people to be holy. That's something
I can trust because God is holy, and it makes sense that we need to be holy if
we want to be in His presence.
So are the Vedas, the Buddhist texts and every other
religious text. They were all written by
men who were �inspired� by their belief in God.
So, you admit the human origins of the Bible and yet you try
to maintain an aura of its scriptural importance. Why should I trust my salvation to the words
of men, some of whom were clearly heretics?
Natassia: I am the LORD your
God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy.....therefore be
holy, because I am holy. (Leviticus 11:44-45)
Nice. So, now you are
quoting the words of men out of context!
What is the context of this passage?
It is the dietary laws which God had made (which ironically Paul
annulled and which you deliberately did not quote). This has nothing to do with being
�perfect�. Let�s see what the actual message is:
�41
" 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not
to be eaten. 42 You are not to eat any creature that moves about on
the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many
feet; it is detestable. 43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these
creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean
by them. 44 I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be
holy, because I am holy. Do not make
yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. 45
I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be
holy, because I am holy.
46 " 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds,
every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about
on the ground. 47 You must
distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that
may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "
What�s next?
Natassia: Be holy because I, the LORD
your God, am holy. (Leviticus 19:2)
Again, it discusses various laws by which we can be holy. This has nothing to do with �perfection�. It simply says to follow God�s laws of purity
and cleanliness.
Natassia: How can Paul contradict
me? He came first. I can only contradict him. Have I contradicted him?
((shrug)) It's quite possible. I do wish you could provide a specific example
though.
Just a quick example of how he contradicts you on original
sin:
Rom. 5:12,
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
This teaching led Augustine of Hippo to believe that
unbaptized infants go to hell.
Natassia: How did poetry lead to the
killing of people? Obviously there must have been some truth to it if it
stirred up the anger of the pagans. Look, I hear bad poetry, songs, books,
speeches, etc. all the time. Does that mean I'm going to take a shotgun and go
kill people? No. And if I did, should that poet be executed for my crimes?
You obviously do not know much about Arabic history and
culture. Poetry was the main medium of
communication in those days, like television is today. It could be simply used to tell stories, like
how Homer�s epic poems were told orally, or it could be used as a powerful
propaganda tool. Armstrong notes:
�Ka�b�s [one of the chiefs of Bani Nadir] verses made it
very clear to the Quraysh that not all the people of Medina stood stoutly behind Muhammad. The Jewish tribes were formidable. They had sizeable armies and impressive
fighting power and, in the event of a Meccan attack, might well be prepared to
join the Quraysh to get rid of the upstart.
Poetry was central to the
political life of Arabia and Ka�b�s songs helped to rouse the Quraysh from
the torpor of depression and grief into which they had been thrown by the
defeat [at Badr]. [�]
Henceforth, Abu Sufyan would direct the struggle against
Muhammad. [�] He led 200 men to the
outskirts of Medina,
where they camped in the fields, and by
night he slipped into the territory of the Jewish Bani Nadir, Ka�b�s tribe� The
next day he and his men devastated some fields, burned down some palm trees�and
killed two of the Helpers who were working on the land. As soon as he heard the news, Muhammad led a
troop of Muslims in pursuit and the Quraysh promptly fled�� (see Armstrong,
183)
So, not only did Ka�b ibn al-Ashraf collude with the enemy,
he was directly responsible, along with his compatriots, for supporting a
Quraysh raid which killed two innocent people.
That is why Ka�b was eventually assassinated. He was a traitor, as were most of the Bani
Nadir.
Natassia: What kind of poison
takes three years to kill? Oh, any. A drug might not kill you but it can
cause kidney, liver, and or heart damage that will kill you within a matter of
a few years. Who said that the poison was spread throughout the meat evenly?
Maybe his buddy got a huge amount of it and Muhammad only got a trace. Who
knows. However, Muhammad himself admitted that it was the poison that was
killing him. Or was he wrong?
Who knows? According
to the narration, the most heavily poisoned area was the shoulder, which
Muhammad (pbuh) preferred. He chewed it,
but spat it out. Even if he did die of
the poisoning (as claimed in the Sirah by Ibn Ishaq), and three years later at
that, he would simply have died a martyr, like many prophets before him which
were killed by the Jews. If that was the
case, the Jews could not kill him before he became the undisputed ruler of Arabia. So, God
protected the Prophet until his mission was complete. So, even then, they could not kill him when
it would have made a difference. Had
they killed him at Khaibar, Islam would probably have died with him and the
Muslims would never have captured Mecca. It would have ended there and paganism would
have been victorious. And yet, that is
not how it happened. He survived long
enough to defeat the pagans. Keep in
mind that this is if we assume that the story in the Sirah is authentic, which
I am unsure of. I will look into it
further.
Natassia: I wonder if you have every
heard of the Arabic Infancy Gospel? It originated in the 6th century.
The Gnostic Gospels were circulating the Roman Empire
by the late 2nd century. Would it be so hard to believe that such stories
circulated to Syria and even
Arabia by the 7th century? Let's not work
backwards here.
The only one working backwards is you. The earliest Arabic manuscript of either the
canonical Gospels or the apocryphal Gospels is from the 9th
century. They were extremely rare in Arabia.
Natassia: You begged the question
again. You said that the Quran came to correct the Judeo-Christian stories.
If that's the case, what does that make the Gnostic Gospels and apocryphal
writings that came after them? You are having to assume that the
Judeo-Christian stories were corrupted, but the Gnostic Gospels somehow became
less corrupted despite the fact that they were based on Hellenism and were not
sanctioned by Christ's earliest followers.
What are you talking about?
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
When did I say that Gnostic texts were �less corrupted�?
Natassia: I'm glad you brought up
that parable in Luke. I am hoping you could break it down for me logically,
verse-by-verse, and explain your interpretation. Let's start by assigning real
people for the metaphorical characters and we can go from there.
It�s not my interpretation.
This is what I have heard from Christians.
Natassia: I have read all of surah
9. I can logically prove to you that 9:5 is not about self-defense. It is about
aggressive warfare taken out on people who are not currently attacking Muslims.
Uh-huh. Suuure!
Natassia: Do the
"persons" of God have different personalities? They have
different purposes and manifestations. Are they equal? Define equal
(since Muslims have a funny way of looking at that word. They say men and women
are equal--they're just different.)
What, now you have your own definition of what �equal�
means? Is the son superior, inferior or
�equal� to the Father? To the Holy
Spirit? And vice-versa?
Why does the son pray to the Father?
Natassia: What is it with this
"corruption" word? I can't read anything written by a Muslim about
Christianity or Judaism without seeing that word being thrown around. What do
you mean by corruption? Do you mean that evil is interjected into something
good? I mean, that's always what I've taken the word to mean. If I download a
virus onto my computer, I've corrupted the system software. If I bribe a judge
to give me a not-guilty verdict, I've corrupted the judicial system. So, care
to explain this "corruption" word for me so that I don't
misunderstand your meaning?
It means putting the words of men in between the words of
God. It means making up your own laws and
rules. It means making the words of men
into the words of God. You have already
actually proven that. You say the Bible
is the word of men, not God, albeit men who were �inspired by their belief in
God�. And yet, these men claimed that
the Bible was God�s word !
Natassia: Jesus did make an
important lesson which was reiterated by the adulteress story. See Matthew
7:1-5. Besides, have you really examined that story? Didn't you realize what
was going on in it? If you read the Torah, you would know that the adulteress
AND the adulterer are to be stoned by the community. If you recall, there's no
mention of an adulterer in that story. So, it looks to me like they were
breaking the law of the Torah, not to mention undermining the authority of the
Romans.
So, now the story is true?
I thought you agreed it was a fabrication?
Natassia: The law says to not bear
false witness against your neighbor. In other words, you cannot tell a
falsehood that could potentially hurt someone. Would you agree that this is the
same in Islam?
Didn�t I give an example of how Islam looks at lying?
Natassia: The scriptures are what
they are. Unfortunately, we humans try to make them out to be more, or
sometimes less, than what they are. However, this is yet another concept (like
the be holy one) that is reiterated throughout the scriptures.
What are they? I am
getting tired of your vague responses.
Are they the words of God or the words of men?
Tweet
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Natassia wrote:
Man, I really know you Christians
well! I was expecting this sort of response. The Quran does refer
to the Psalms of David. However, many of the Psalms we have today were
not written by David. So, can the complete version of Psalms we have
today be considered as error-proof or divinely inspired? Certainly
not. But, that does not mean that there is some truth in it. The
same goes for the rest of the Bible.