Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 67

Thread: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

  1. #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    As you still refuse to acknowledge that the "Law of Moses" is actually the law that God, whom you believe is Jesus, gave to Moses to give to Israel, as such you are still left with the self-contradictory stance of God "mercifully" freeing mankind from laws that He Himself imposed upon them, which He refused to do for several centuries until He tried to live the law Himself and only then realized how oppressive it was. That being said, if Jesus' fulfillment of the law meant breaking it, why does all the evidence point to his disciplines continued adherence to the Law and demand that others follow it (e.g., food and circumcision)
    Wow..a few straw men in there. Jesus lived it fully as the text says. He was sinless. You're mistaken re the disciples...recall Peter and the vision re eating all of God's creation. How can you say the disciples followed the OT dietary laws?

    Furthermore, you and I, being non-Jews, were not obliged to follow the Law in the first place, by your own admission, but yet you still declare that Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that saved us from it, though we were never obliged to abide by it in the first place. Being that God is the source of the very laws you condemn, an undeniable fact that you simply ignore (laws which non-Jews who were never obligated to follow and were subsequently freed by Jesus from having to follow them), the "mercy" of Jesus "fulfilling" the law by "breaking" it, necessarily came after the generations upon generations of oppression characterized by that very same God's demand that His law be fulfilled. What is so merciful about an All-knowing God changing His mind only after millions of people were dead and gone? (The words "fickle" and "capricious" come to mind.)
    Friend, if you seek engagement, please keep your posts simpler...I'm a dullard. God's laws apply to all men...we are all under sin and law.

    If I physically abuse my child, breaking her leg in the process, and then after she has healed, I take her for ice cream, I doubt she will appreciate my "mercy" and the joy of the ice cream won't take away the sting of the crutches. When that is the philosophical underpinning of your theology is complete and utter irrationality and logical contradiction, can we really blame you for your seeming inability to hold a sane, rational conversation in any substantial subject or even understand (or care to understand) what is really being said?
    Wasn;t it you who appoligised a few posts about your tone...now look. If you can keep your posts simpler, I might be able to work through the content...I'm a dill, remember.

    I
    ndeed, Islam does focus on justice, which is why God gave mankind guidance in the organization and administration of religious, civic and secular life - in which justice is a necessary element. Islam focuses on justice because unlike early Christians, we did not expect the world to end in a few weeks and understood that life must go on until it does not. But in early Christanity, the emphasis on Jesus' imminent return and the withdrawl from society which necessarily ensued left condemned, sinful, "fallen" men to their own devices, being given absolutely no guidance of running the affairs of communities and societies outside of temple administration when Jesus did not return in a timely manner and they realized life had to continue; inevitably leading to papacy (which I assume you deem to be heretical) and then secularism, as laws must necessarily exist to maintain order and ensure people can live in peace and security. So while you chest thump your religious anarchism, Christian members of Congress are debating whether or not two men can get married, Christian employees in the Pentagon are developing weapons that can kill more effectively and Christian bankers are devising interest-bearing schemes to get around government regulations to make people who have more than enough money even richer. This is where being delivered from "from sin and death" has left us: an entirely civilization is which sin and death is forcibly exported around the globe.
    Spare me. 'Christians in the Pentegon'? So, now you;re makeing the US the 'great evil West.' Look at your own Islamic past to get a sense of how Mo and his followers lived, fought and hated.

    What did the thief do to obtain his salvation? He believed and repented (ignoring the version where this is not the case). I do not accept that God demands blood and a faux sacrifice in order to free men of His own oppression of shackling them to laws that He knew they could never adequately fulfill. As SweetP asked you in the past, what kind of god condemns men for continually losing a game rigged against them?
    The koran acknowledges the laws of the torah...so you cannot raise this issue with me. God is holy and he has laws. eg the 10 commandments. But Jesus said, even if you have hate in your heart, you commit murder. Boy, there;s a lot of Muslims here who hate Jews...!

    Jesus himself said his sacrifice was anew coventent in his blood.

    What a saviour...what love of God to save us.

    Kind regards

  2. #32
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    I would normally remind you that massive quoting does very little good in a discussion forum, but since Jude does not really care what we have to say, I guess it really doesn't matter.
    Nice tone. Aren't you supposed to be in Ramadhan, acting more pious and loving?

    BTW, the man09 is in dialogue with me offline...due to forum rules, I'm not allowed to quote any of his swearing and hate words to me...but I'm still answering each and evryone of his posts in a plesant and kind manner.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    this is your self righteous christian style. you mention my swearing even though you know according to your religion you shouldn't have a problem with me cursing and swearing at you. you mention my sin of swearing , which i admit is wrong, but according to your book made by men you should have kept it a secret.






    bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:28)

    Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. (Romans 12:14)

    Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:9)

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    But Jesus said, even if you have hate in your heart, you commit murder. Boy, there;s a lot of Muslims here who hate Jews...!
    you love hamas, don't you? you don't have 1 percent of hatred against hamas in your heart. you like self righteous christian love them just like you love israel.



    the man09 is in dialogue with me offline...due to forum rules, I'm not allowed to quote any of his swearing and hate words to me...but I'm still answering each and evryone of his posts in a plesant and kind manner
    don't try to be turn the other cheek style christian so people can see how you are innocent little puppy and wolves surrounding you and taking you to pieces. don't try to act like innocent puppy. the christians played this game because they thought by kissing oppressors a ss they would win them over. this is what u r trying to do here with your self righteousness


    That reason is that powerless groups have often treated their oppressors as if they were benefactors for a variety of pragmatic reasons, e.g., the desire to avoid harsher treatment, the hope of winning acceptance, and the futility of resistance.
    but NO MATTER HOW puppy like the christians were acting the JEWS WERE clever enough not to fall for thier paganism and convert to christianity, they could smell christian puppy act miles away and knew that EMOTION doesn't JUSTIFY polythiesm .
    Last edited by theman09; 26th July 2012 at 16:08.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    So, now you;re makeing the US the 'great evil West.' Look at your own Islamic past to get a sense of how Mo and his followers lived, fought and hated.
    but you love mo, you love him with all your heart and soul. you should not compare coz in your theology ONE sin is enough for being condenmed.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by jude3 View Post
    You're mistaken re the disciples...recall Peter and the vision re eating all of God's creation. How can you say the disciples followed the OT dietary laws?
    Which occurred in Acts, which allegedly recounts the acts of the Apostles after Jesus was gone. So if I am so clearly wrong about the disciples and Jesus indeed taught "freedom" from the law according Paul's declaration, why did an angel have to repeatedly appear to Peter to convince him to even enter the house of a Gentile, let alone sit at the same table and eat the same food? Furthermore, why was he questioned by the other disciples in Jerusalem upon his return and have to justify himself by means of the angelic visitation (and not Jesus' prior instruction), the newer converted Jewish Christians still finding fault with his answer? That really doesn't gel with the narrative you have decided to believe. And the preponderance of Jewish Christians who affirmed Jesus as the Messiah AND followed Orthodox Jewish law in the early Church is a well-documented phenomenon that no one but someone such as yourself can so readily dismiss. But you have never let facts get in the way in any of our discussions, have you? (e.g., the prohibition of pork being a "man-made" law)

    Quote Originally Posted by jude3
    Nice tone. Aren't you supposed to be in Ramadhan, acting more pious and loving? BTW, the man09 is in dialogue with me offline...due to forum rules, I'm not allowed to quote any of his swearing and hate words to me...
    Did you not say that you are hear to preach and not dialog? My tone reflects the same convictions that you have. I haven't insulted you, I haven't called you names, I haven't cursed at your, I haven't lost my temper. I simply critiqued you arguments and theological positions, and like usual, your response is little more than an emotional appeal with no substance and not even an attempt to demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning.

    And isn't there something in Christianity about not exposing the faults of others? Or is that one of those OT laws you were "freed" from? When you are in a conversation with someone, while having absolutely no regard for their opinions they are expressing, your "kindness and politeness" while completely refusing to engage with them is little more than a pathetic missionary tactic that will affect no one with even an iota of grounding in their own tradition. You can be as nice as you want, but when people intuit that you really do not care, it engenders their disaffection from you. Your style is repulsive and you are not winning over anyone to your side.

    All of this is rhetorical of course, as I don't expect anything substantive from you since you have absolutely no regard for anyone who doesn't share you specific beliefs. I just pray that you one day snap out of your religious haze and actually consider things outside of the enclave you have created for yourself.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 26th July 2012 at 15:42.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  7. #37
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    Did you not say that you are hear to preach and not dialog? My tone reflects the same convictions that you have. I haven't insulted you, I haven't called you names, I haven't cursed at your, I haven't lost my temper. I simply critiqued you arguments and theological positions, and like usual, your response is little more than an emotional appeal with no substance and not even an attempt to demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning.
    No, I did not say preach...I said teach....that is to relay the words of Jesus per the NT...and relay how the OT points to Yeshua, just as Jesus claimed it did. Hearing this is hard for people...as evideinced by your reactions. But consider how Jesus spoke to the Jewish leadership....was it all 'interfaith dialogue'? Come on, let's be real here. You are all very quick to get huffy about my tone..but your reactions are the same as the Jews...indignant...'how dare this person come onto OUR forum and tell us what OUR prophet said.'

    Yes, I push strongly....but so do you. In many Muslim countries, Christians can't even get a say. So, at least we can have robust and strong dialogue....but when we do...you get all huffy.

    Your style is repulsive and you are not winning over anyone to your side.
    The message of the cross is repulsive and offensive. Jesus said so...he also said that he came not to bring peace, but to divide. This issue is too important for man's eternal salvation for niceties to come before truth. If you have utterly chosen to reject Jesus' claims/words etc, then please don't be angry with me. You are very free to excuse yourself from this. Besides, aren't we both at extremes? If I reject Mohammad's teaching and claim the Koran is false, then I am a doomed by you. I'm not getting all precious and demanding you treat me nicely and say nice things about my theology...! Under Islam, I am a pagan/heathen, destined for judgement and punishment. That is totally fine by me...I fully understand your teaching. But don't start getting precious because I dare make the same statements about your theology/destiny. I do this BECAUSE I have love, as Jesus did, for the lost. I do this because he told me to do this.

    What is so tragic with this forum and your replies...is that you claim to seek pleasant dialogue...as if exchanges help you better understand etc. But we KNOW our differences are world's apart. My entire theology/salvation/life is anchored on Jesus being God...and him dying for my sins. No other faith/religion accepts this...so it is completely black and white for me. You talking about the Koran to me is the same as Hindu talking about snake worship, or a Mormon talking about weird space crafts and gold plates. All fun and interesting...but ZERO benefit when it comes to life and eternity.

    If you're only interested in intellectualism, fine, I'm sure there are plenty of year one theology students you could engage with to tickle your collective fancies.

    'Understanding Islam' is exactly why I'm here...but in the context of Muslims REALLY being ably to truly understand Islam through the lense of Yeshua...not through others.

    Kind regards.
    Last edited by jude3; 27th July 2012 at 07:32.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by jude3 View Post
    No, I did not say preach...I said teach....that is to relay the words of Jesus per the NT...and relay how the OT points to Yeshua, just as Jesus claimed it did. Hearing this is hard for people...as evideinced by your reactions...What is so tragic with this forum and your replies...You talking about the Koran to me...
    Yet I do not talk about the Qur'an to you, the content of my posts being a discussion of our mutual theologies, perspectives on the law and Bibilical accounts. What is so tragic about my replies (other than your inability to adequately respond)? I do not care about your tone and your message is not offensive to me. It is your presentation and my pointing such out was attempt at me advising you, of giving you feedback as a fellow humanbeing, but you are clearly content in the way you do things and have no consideration for any feedback we have to give. That is fine. Continue to proceed as you have. But let it be known that I have never called for you to be censored or banned. So you can stop playing the victim card. And it is not lost upon us that while you give speeches and "teach", you routinely ignore any direct discussion of Biblical text. You make grandiose claims and emotional appeals to my "reaction" being like the Jews as a very thinly veiled mechanism to ignore any actual discussion.

    You push strongly your evangelism, "Jesus loves you! He has freed you from obedience to the Law!" While hiding behind your inability to defend your own positions as a call for my "intellectualism". You claim that I am mistaken about the disciples, I explained to you how you clearly have denied the implications of the text you claim to believe in, and you don't even pretend to "teach" me how I am wrong. A cycle that repeats itself again and again on this forum...

    Was there any discussion in your last reply about how your own citation of Acts is an argument against you? None. Was there any discussion with theman when he countered that your "interpretation" of "If he takes another wife, he may not reduce her food, her clothing or conjugal rights" that it is possibly referring to a second wife after divorce and not polygamy is completely absurd? None. So is God saying that a man marrying another woman after his first wife should not stop him from having sex with his ex-wife out of wedlock OR that it should not stop him from giving conjugal rights to a corpse in the case of widowers - since a "second" wife could occur ONLY through: a) polygamy, b) divorce or c) the death of the "first wife", with there being no "d"? So which is it? We will never know, because you cower in the corner and play the victim whenever you are actually challenged by anyone or cry "intellectualism!" whenever challenged to make a reasonably sound argument. Was there any discussion with me in the past about how your claims that not eating pork was one of the man-made laws that Jesus freed the Jews after is patently FALSE when you considered that your own Bible clearly states that "The LORD" establishes these laws directly through Moses in Leviticus? No. You just said it was man-made, and since you are the Divinely guided teacher of us all, that was that..

    You don't want to teach. You want to preach. Preachers stand on pulpits, often of their own making, and talk to people who cannot talk back. Teachers, like Jesus, on the other hand, are not afraid to back-up their positions, defending their positions even against people openly opposing them. You don't want to have any interfaith "dialog" because you can't stand your ground for more than 5 minutes in an actual "intellectual debate". Our "reactions" are us calling you out on your b.s. and by calling us "Jews" you free yourself of the need to have to actually reply. (We are only left to wonder what you would say about me if part of my argument against you ROUTINELY was simply to call you a Jew... Yes, theman does it. But you do not see any of us defending his approach.)

    As to our last point of contention:
    Quote Originally Posted by jude3
    You're mistaken re the disciples...recall Peter and the vision re eating all of God's creation. How can you say the disciples followed the OT dietary laws?
    I re-state: the early Christian community was composed of primarily Jewish peoples who continued following the Law and believed in Jesus. His actually disciples continued preaching and teaching to Jews and clearly continued to follow the Law - not just the 10 commandments - but the "LAW" as a reference to the Torah which includes not only the 10 commandments, but books like Leviticus whose contents you ignore whenever it is convenient to do so. So they not only followed the 10 commandments, but dietary laws and other rituals. This is proven by your own citation in that it took an angel two prompts and a non-Jewish stranger calling him by name (who could not have possibly known him), telling him he was told by an angel (a third prompt) to invite him over for dinner before Peter did something that allegedly Jesus has already taught him was okay. He was so opposed to eating non-Kosher food that two appearances by an angelic being from Heaven was not enough to dissuade him to act contrary to what Jesus, the truly Orthodox rabbi, had taught him. Upon returning back to Jerusalem, back to the main church, back to the principal religious institution established by the remaining disciples, back to the Church was was Jesus' actual legacy, he was questioned immediately about his actions and had to defend himself against his fellow Jewish Christians who blamed him for what he did. Blamed him for something that Jesus allegedly had been teaching them all along and the newer converts of whom, newer converts who were the students of the older disciples, did not fully accept his argument. Like Peter himself initially, the visitation by an angel from Heaven was not enough to change their attitude towards the Law. An attitude you claim that Jesus had already clarified to them.

    This was half of my last post. Did you even pretend to address it? No. Of course not. I rarely, if ever, talk the Qur'an with you since you clearly have no regard for its contents. I talk the Bible and when I do, you run, hide and call me an intellectual. Your god was a rabbi. I think he would appreciate my "intellectualism".

    Have a nice day sir. Unless you actually want to address the real issues and defend your own pathetic Biblical interpretations, don't worry about me trying to corrupt you with my "interfaith dialog".
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 27th July 2012 at 09:13.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  9. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    I am new to this forum, and I wish you all peace.

    After reading through some of the discussions, I get a sense of inter-faith antagonistic thought... perhaps this is what forums allow people to disburden themselves by, just a place to match wits.

    Being of a serious nature, I wonder how opinions would differ, on the understanding of Romans 6:23 means, with respect to the question of the sort of Hitler... I had heard that many Christians understand the verse to say that "no matter what we do on the Earth, the fact that we die pays for our sins." This is a foreign thought for a critical thinker. Comments?

    (Choosing Hitler is OK but what about all those who were originators of the "Yovodah" and what about our modern-day oppressors? In fact, many are using religious beliefs to further their selfish goals...

    So, I hope to see peaceful discussion on this forum.

  10. #40
    Senior Member naderM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Africa and Europe
    Posts
    695

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    the early Christian community was composed of primarily Jewish peoples who continued following the Law and believed in Jesus. His actually disciples continued preaching and teaching to Jews and clearly continued to follow the Law - not just the 10 commandments - but the "LAW" as a reference to the Torah which includes not only the 10 commandments, but books like Leviticus whose contents you ignore whenever it is convenient to do so. So they not only followed the 10 commandments, but dietary laws and other rituals.
    In order to justify the undeniable fact that Jesus never transgressed and always abided by all the laws of the Torah while Paul declared these same laws obsolete, Christians attempt word acrobatics to equate "the Law of the Lord" with "the Ten Commandments" or "moral laws" (assuming there is such a thing as 10 commandements) and the "Law of Moses" with the now obsolete "ceremonial law" (the remaining 603 laws of the Tanakh). However what these Christians want to classify as "ceremonial law" is called "the Law of the Lord" many times Ex13:7-9,1Chron16:40,2Chron31:3-4. The "Law of Moses" and the "Law of the Lord" are used to refer to the same books.
    Even Jesus in Matt12:5 refers to the ceremonial law as "the Law" because he considered the Mosaic Law to be one inseparable unit. He equated what Christians call Moses' "ceremonial law" with "the law of the Lord" numerous times Luke2:22-24,39. When he was asked which of the commandments was the greatest he quoted two commandments neither of which were from the so-called "Ten Commandments" Matt22:34-40 but from what Christians want to differentiate as Moses' "ceremonial law" Deut6:5,Lev19:18. It is obvious that the Bible never even once makes any distinction in terms of the Law between the moral (which Christians want to be so-called 10 commandements) and the ceremonial.
    41:53 We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and in their own souls, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth.

  11. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    i have said this before and i say it now that it is EASIER to break the moral laws than ritualistic ones, but christians never say that thier man god myth freed man from moral laws. christianity has made man look like an animal that cannot rise above sin and desperately needs man god myth. sin is like a disease and no matter what you do you will sin even when you try to sincerely REPENT to god. your repentance is going to have sin dna in it and so is your guilt. they tell us that ALL sin in gods eyes = THE same and will EARN you death and destruction. hitler could have easily said in his prayers " dear god, u gave me the disease of original sin. you know i can't repent sincerely and you know i can't have genuine guilt for what i have done. you know that you DIED for all sins and INSINCERE repentance IS included in your sacrifice to yourself, so please do not punishm me YOU killed yourself for ALL my sins "

    this is the problem with a god creating 100 % flesh and then getting it punished to appease/please himself it does not HELP dealing with sins at all . it seem like a selfish act and THE ACT in human flesh is ranked above all human acts because human acts cannot save them , but gods ACT to himself through his created blood and flesh can fix things up for human person in the christian mind.


    you have to ask yourself , what brought the christian god down to his knees in the first place ? human beings brought him down because in christian theology you can only cover yourself with gods actions he did to himself in his flesh form and shine it in his face like a magic wond to COOL him down. christians like jude say that deeds/repentance/sincerety are all useless and if they weren't useless god wouldn't have been brought to his knees.

    christianity is the perfect escue for keeping man to the level of lawless and misguided animal.
    Last edited by theman09; 27th July 2012 at 12:39.

  12. #42
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    Yet I do not talk about the Qur'an to you, the content of my posts being a discussion of our mutual theologies, perspectives on the law and Bibilical accounts. What is so tragic about my replies (other than your inability to adequately respond)? I do not care about your tone and your message is not offensive to me. It is your presentation and my pointing such out was attempt at me advising you, of giving you feedback as a fellow humanbeing, but you are clearly content in the way you do things and have no consideration for any feedback we have to give. That is fine. Continue to proceed as you have. But let it be known that I have never called for you to be censored or banned. So you can stop playing the victim card. And it is not lost upon us that while you give speeches and "teach", you routinely ignore any direct discussion of Biblical text. You make grandiose claims and emotional appeals to my "reaction" being like the Jews as a very thinly veiled mechanism to ignore any actual discussion.
    Calm down. You talk about mutual theologies...but I've outlined they are poles apart. When I get close to subject with Shafique, he defers to the oh-so-convenient "we don;t have the true bible" argument.

    You push strongly your evangelism, "Jesus loves you! He has freed you from obedience to the Law!" While hiding behind your inability to defend your own positions as a call for my "intellectualism". You claim that I am mistaken about the disciples, I explained to you how you clearly have denied the implications of the text you claim to believe in, and you don't even pretend to "teach" me how I am wrong. A cycle that repeats itself again and again on this forum.
    I'd be happy to explain the verses...but not when there's this tone.

    Was there any discussion in your last reply about how your own citation of Acts is an argument against you? None. Was there any discussion with theman when he countered that your "interpretation" of "If he takes another wife, he may not reduce her food, her clothing or conjugal rights" that it is possibly referring to a second wife after divorce and not polygamy is completely absurd? None. So is God saying that a man marrying another woman after his first wife should not stop him from having sex with his ex-wife out of wedlock OR that it should not stop him from giving conjugal rights to a corpse in the case of widowers - since a "second" wife could occur ONLY through: a) polygamy, b) divorce or c) the death of the "first wife", with there being no "d"? So which is it? We will never know, because you cower in the corner and play the victim whenever you are actually challenged by anyone or cry "intellectualism!" whenever challenged to make a reasonably sound argument. Was there any discussion with me in the past about how your claims that not eating pork was one of the man-made laws that Jesus freed the Jews after is patently FALSE when you considered that your own Bible clearly states that "The LORD" establishes these laws directly through Moses in Leviticus? No. You just said it was man-made, and since you are the Divinely guided teacher of us all, that was that..
    Not cowering, just using my time wisely. When you are engaged in an attacking mode, I have no interest in going into theology. For example, Doc started a thread about understanding the bible. He expressed courtesy and an interest in the exploring. Your tone is completely the opposite...so I choose how to engage with you.

    You don't want to teach. You want to preach. Preachers stand on pulpits, often of their own making, and talk to people who cannot talk back. Teachers, like Jesus, on the other hand, are not afraid to back-up their positions, defending their positions even against people openly opposing them. You don't want to have any interfaith "dialog" because you can't stand your ground for more than 5 minutes in an actual "intellectual debate". Our "reactions" are us calling you out on your b.s. and by calling us "Jews" you free yourself of the need to have to actually reply. (We are only left to wonder what you would say about me if part of my argument against you ROUTINELY was simply to call you a Jew... Yes, theman does it. But you do not see any of us defending his approach.)
    Sorry, I;m confused....when have I called you a Jew? I said your proud stance is like the Jews...when Jesus spoke strongly against them, they jumped on him...couldn't handle being challenged. Did he sit around and the camp fire signing songs with them? What did he call them....? White-washed tombs, who's father was the devil. Talk about interfaith dialogue.

    I re-state: the early Christian community was composed of primarily Jewish peoples who continued following the Law and believed in Jesus. His actually disciples continued preaching and teaching to Jews and clearly continued to follow the Law - not just the 10 commandments - but the "LAW" as a reference to the Torah which includes not only the 10 commandments, but books like Leviticus whose contents you ignore whenever it is convenient to do so. So they not only followed the 10 commandments, but dietary laws and other rituals. This is proven by your own citation in that it took an angel two prompts and a non-Jewish stranger calling him by name (who could not have possibly known him), telling him he was told by an angel (a third prompt) to invite him over for dinner before Peter did something that allegedly Jesus has already taught him was okay. He was so opposed to eating non-Kosher food that two appearances by an angelic being from Heaven was not enough to dissuade him to act contrary to what Jesus, the truly Orthodox rabbi, had taught him. Upon returning back to Jerusalem, back to the main church, back to the principal religious institution established by the remaining disciples, back to the Church was was Jesus' actual legacy, he was questioned immediately about his actions and had to defend himself against his fellow Jewish Christians who blamed him for what he did. Blamed him for something that Jesus allegedly had been teaching them all along and the newer converts of whom, newer converts who were the students of the older disciples, did not fully accept his argument. Like Peter himself initially, the visitation by an angel from Heaven was not enough to change their attitude towards the Law. An attitude you claim that Jesus had already clarified to them.
    Sorry, I'm not going into all of this. You don't need to start on behalf of the others. Peter recognised Jesus as the Christ, "the son of the living God.' I'm not debating one aspect of diet, when we can't agree on the hundreds of other points.

    This was half of my last post. Did you even pretend to address it? No. Of course not. I rarely, if ever, talk the Qur'an with you since you clearly have no regard for its contents. I talk the Bible and when I do, you run, hide and call me an intellectual. Your god was a rabbi. I think he would appreciate my "intellectualism".
    Your intellectualism is prideful. Recall Nichodemus...very righteous...very knowledgable...one of the top legal guys. Sought out Jesus...knew he was special etc. Jesus cut right through him and said, you need to be born again. Nick's intellectualism counted for nothing. Jesus calls us to come to him like children...with a child like faith. It's very hard for the pious to humbly bow the knee, especially before the cross of calvary and ask for Jesus' salvation. Man wants to go it alone....

    Have a nice day sir. Unless you actually want to address the real issues and defend your own pathetic Biblical interpretations, don't worry about me trying to corrupt you with my "interfaith dialog".
    Saying have a nice day and I;m pathetic in the same sentence is pretty poor...especially in Ramadhan month.

  13. #43
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    At least the forum dudes are coming out....;-)

    Nothing like a tag-team fight....

  14. #44
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,710

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    I am very calm right now and have been this entire time. As I said, I apologized in the past for being unnecessarily provocative. But I will not apologize for speaking strongly, as you constantly remind us Jesus did. I didn't call you pathetic, I called your interpretations pathetic. If you prefer a different adjective, absurd will do. You aren't interested? First you only want to only talk about a Bible, now you don't won't to "go into it"? You don't care anything about the Qur'an, you will not talk about the Bible, and now you don't want to discuss its contents either. But you'll talk to DocW, who generally only asks questions only to promote discussion and who you claimed in the past was confused and needed some other brand of guidance, because his "tone is nicer", but yet, you refuse to have an interfaith dialog, as we are "poles apart" and Jesus didn't "sit around campfires". I assume you are just waiting for me to curse or call you a name so you can parade it around the forum as evidence of your superior etiquette and religion...

    I can only assume that the only acceptable scenario in your opinion is one where you are "teaching" and I do nothing but sing your praises and uncritically accept everything you say. In essence, your message to me is that I am wrong, but you have no interest in showing me how. Challenge? That is not allowed. You interpret me standing my ground as hostility, but you standing your ground is Christ-like? The moment you characterized my alternate interpretation of your own Scripture as "intellectualism" and my critiques of your interpretation as "attacks" I knew it was over. You are confusing intellectualism with sound reasoning and the ability to make a valid argument. Ironically, Paul's words seem the most relevant: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." So are we children or are we men?
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 28th July 2012 at 01:43.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  15. #45
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,607

    Default Re: Hitler in Heaven? Possibly says Christians.

    I am very calm right now and have been this entire time. As I said, I apologized in the past for being unnecessarily provocative. But I will not apologize for speaking strongly, as you constantly remind us Jesus did. I didn't call you pathetic, I called your interpretations pathetic. If you prefer a different adjective, absurd will do. You aren't interested? First you only want to only talk about a Bible, now you don't won't to "go into it"? You don't care anything about the Qur'an, you will not talk about the Bible, and now you don't want to discuss its contents either. But you'll talk to DocW, who generally only asks questions only to promote discussion and who you claimed in the past was confused and needed some other brand of guidance, because his "tone is nicer", but yet, you refuse to have an interfaith dialog, as we are "poles apart" and Jesus didn't "sit around campfires". I assume you are just waiting for me to curse or call you a name so you can parade it around the forum as evidence of your superior etiquette and religion...
    Not at all...and I appreciate your pleasant manner...thank you.

    But let's look at this. NOTHING is more serious to me than Jesus deity and the redemptive plan of the blood atonement and his sacrifice, through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The OT points to this through imagery/models/types...and jesus claims this.

    So, unless you want to go into an exhaustive discussion re the veracity of the NT, then I cannot and will not engage. This is not arrogant or harsh on my part. For centuries, people have debated the differences in scriptures. Why debate ABOUT our scriptures...? Jesus didn't do that...he 'simply' used the scriptures (septuigant etc) to point out the prophecies etc of him.

    This is all I can do.

    I'd genuinely love to engage with you on some biblical theology...but you and I know this would only be fair if you wanted to do that.

    I'm being honest in that, after following Jesus for 30+ years, I cannot and will not accept other scriptures as being true...eg David Koresh, Ellen G White, Joseph smith, Koran etc. You can berate me if you wish, that's ok.

    I can only assume that the only acceptable scenario in your opinion is one where you are "teaching" and I do nothing but sing your praises and uncritically accept everything you say. In essence, your message to me is that I am wrong, but you have no interest in showing me how. Challenge? That is not allowed. You interpret me standing my ground as hostility, but you standing your ground is Christ-like? The moment you characterized my alternate interpretation of your own Scripture as "intellectualism" and my critiques of your interpretation as "attacks" I knew it was over. You are confusing intellectualism with sound reasoning and the ability to make a valid argument. Ironically, Paul's words seem the most relevant: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." So are we children or are we men?
    I'm very sorry that this is the conclusion you've drawn. I wish to clarify something. Like with Doc, I did not take a stance of a dictator teacher...as you are intimating. IF I see someone is genuine in inquiring about the bible, then I will obviously engage in a healthy and open manner. Surely you'd do the same for the Islam seeker? But, if I was aggressive to Islam, what would be your position re 'teaching' me?

    Perhaps you'd like to pick a key theological subject, eg law, atonement, Passover, blood, paridise/heaven, etc...?

    Kind regards.

Similar Threads

  1. Strange question about a possibly Arabic word?
    By Ashmath1024 in forum General Conversations
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th March 2012, 19:21
  2. According to the Quran, can christians go to heaven?
    By sm_yaseen in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 310
    Last Post: 5th February 2012, 03:31
  3. Some Possibly Tough Questions
    By Bubba in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 6th May 2006, 12:52
  4. Hitler and christianity
    By ali in forum Interfaith Dialogue
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 14th April 2006, 03:57
  5. sex in heaven
    By zeus in forum Discussion Archives
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 3rd November 2003, 09:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •