PDA

View Full Version : Christians & Head Covering, Explanation



.iman.
10-17-2011, 02:50 AM
I would like an explanation of the following verse in regards to women covering their heads. It is clear to me that the Bible commands it, yet I never see Christian women following this, other than Amish or Mennonites. Why?

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
1 Corinthians 11:3, taken from the English Standard Version

Also, for Catholics, it is written in the 1917 Canon Law (1262) that a woman must cover her head. Why is this not followed?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ramadhan
10-17-2011, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by .iman.
Also, for Catholics, it is written in the 1917 Canon Law (1262) that a woman must cover her head. Why is this not followed?
When the most important of God's commandments (ie. Worship only ONE God, Do not bow down to likeness and idols, do not make ANY images of whats in heaven, earth etc) are not followed, would you expect lesser ones to be followed?
Reply

Amigo
10-17-2011, 07:15 AM
Originally Posted by .iman.
I would like an explanation of the following verse in regards to women covering their heads. It is clear to me that the Bible commands it, yet I never see Christian women following this, other than Amish or Mennonites. Why?

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."
1 Corinthians 11:3, taken from the English Standard Version
Continue at least until the end of the chapter.
It is a disgrace for women to be uncovered, not so much by clothing, but just covered, God meant it naturally by giving them long hair and making it clear that long hair are appropriate for women.

Women like to talk and to listen. In other words, they are more prone to keep thinging about others and listening to their stories. Their heads should not be so busy with the spirit of gossip. A covered head is a sign of no entry to thoughts or words from outside exept by the one who can move their head covering (their husband). Covering a head should mean that that head is not welcoming gossip (ears covered...).

The point is about honesty in obediance. Is the woman honestly listening to her husband, or she is listening to Oprah, Dr. Phil, or every body. If she is listening to her husband, then covering her head will not be a lie, but a sign to the world that she listen to her husband, no recommandation from other third party for authority to look up to.
But if she listens to other people, but not to her husband, then covering her head will be a lie, and therefore a greater sin.


Originally Posted by .iman.
Also, for Catholics, it is written in the 1917 Canon Law (1262) that a woman must cover her head. Why is this not followed?
The Church does not pretend this to be a commandement of God. The commandments are for honesty in obediance. Honestly covered women are better than thousands of pharisee women.

Covering heads is a sign and signs must be honest or it is a greater sin to actualy use them.
Many catholics are not practicing their faith, this is a big sin already, add to that an other sin of hypocrisy, that would be worse. But there is a movement of faithful women who are trying to live the truth of head coverings as it used to be. Of course nuns are mostly covered as they are more radical in faithfulness and their lives' settings make it easy to live out the honesty which must go with the sign.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-17-2011, 08:34 AM
Originally Posted by Amigo
It is a disgrace for women to be uncovered, not so much by clothing, but just covered, God meant it naturally by giving them long hair and making it clear that long hair are appropriate for women.

Women like to talk and to listen. In other words, they are more prone to keep thinging about others and listening to their stories. Their heads should not be so busy with the spirit of gossip. A covered head is a sign of no entry to thoughts or words from outside exept by the one who can move their head covering (their husband). Covering a head should mean that that head is not welcoming gossip (ears covered...).

The point is about honesty in obediance. Is the woman honestly listening to her husband, or she is listening to Oprah, Dr. Phil, or every body. If she is listening to her husband, then covering her head will not be a lie, but a sign to the world that she listen to her husband, no recommandation from other third party for authority to look up to.
But if she listens to other people, but not to her husband, then covering her head will be a lie, and therefore a greater sin.
Well this is to be expected.

Whenever there is commandment from God or teaching from prophet Jesus (pbuh) that christians do not agree or do not want to follow, they would write long convoluted words like the above to say that it's all parable, metaphor, or abrogated.

Even to justify adultery, early pagan latin christians invented pericpe adulterae (john7:53 - 8:11) and inserted it into latin vulgate john's gospel when no such passage existed in codex alexandrinus, vaticanus nor sinaiticus.

Originally Posted by Amigo
The Church does not pretend this to be a commandement of God. The commandments are for honesty in obediance. Honestly covered women are better than thousands of pharisee women.
No need to pretend that it's not God's commandment.
Even if it's God's most important commandents such as worship ONE god and make NO images/likeness and NO bowing to them, you christians break them anyway.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
.iman.
10-17-2011, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by Amigo
Continue at least until the end of the chapter.
It is a disgrace for women to be uncovered, not so much by clothing, but just covered, God meant it naturally by giving them long hair and making it clear that long hair are appropriate for women.

Women like to talk and to listen. In other words, they are more prone to keep thinging about others and listening to their stories. Their heads should not be so busy with the spirit of gossip. A covered head is a sign of no entry to thoughts or words from outside exept by the one who can move their head covering (their husband). Covering a head should mean that that head is not welcoming gossip (ears covered...).

The point is about honesty in obediance. Is the woman honestly listening to her husband, or she is listening to Oprah, Dr. Phil, or every body. If she is listening to her husband, then covering her head will not be a lie, but a sign to the world that she listen to her husband, no recommandation from other third party for authority to look up to.
But if she listens to other people, but not to her husband, then covering her head will be a lie, and therefore a greater sin.
I'm not really followingyou here. I understand your explanation is that a head covering isnot a material item (ie: piece of cloth) but it is metaphoricallyspeaking to say that a woman shouldn't let bad thoughts into her mind(like gossip), therefore, she should protect/cover her head fromthose thoughts? I don't agree with that explanation because it isclear that the verse is talking about a physical veil. Look atpictures of women from biblical times, take the Virgin Mary - she iscovered. Catholic Nuns also wear a head covering. What aboutwedding veils? They are supposed to represent purity and chastity,not a symbol to show that they are protecting themselves from evilgossip.


You also mentioned thatGod had given women long hair to cover themselves, but in this verse,it specifically states that if they don't cover themselves, then theymust cut their hair short.


Also, I did some researchmyself regarding the Canon law, and it was left out of the 1983 CanonLaws, therefore, it was abrogated, and replaces the previous code. This means that it is no longer REQUIRED to be followed, but thecustom can't be legislatively prohibited.


How does the Catholicchurch keep changing its rules when the message in the bible hasn'tchanged?




Why would a church make uprules if no one is going to follow them? Even if people don't followthe Canon laws, shouldn't they honor St. Paul's words in the bible?
Reply

Iconodule
10-17-2011, 04:37 PM
While it is not universally required, most Orthodox Christian churches expect women to cover their heads. Here is an exemplary Orthodox service in Abkhazia, where you can see that all women have their heads covered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8N6-...layer_embedded
Reply

Iconodule
10-17-2011, 04:45 PM
In the Ethiopian Church, women dress like this:

Reply

Ali_008
10-17-2011, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Amigo
Women like to talk and to listen. In other words, they are more prone to keep thinging about others and listening to their stories. Their heads should not be so busy with the spirit of gossip. A covered head is a sign of no entry to thoughts or words from outside exept by the one who can move their head covering (their husband). Covering a head should mean that that head is not welcoming gossip (ears covered...).
Originally Posted by .iman.
4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head
Considering your explanation, does this part of those verses mean that a man should keep his head open to all kinds of nonsense to honor his head (which here has also been referred to as God). :grumbling

Your explanation gives the picture that a man is allowed to listen to tales of all kinds to show his honor to God which I believe is not considered appropriate in any religion at all. The verses are very clear in demanding women to cover their head physically.

Many people claim to be believers of Christ and thorough Christians but the part of covering the head is highly ignored by most Christian women. Any proper explanation for that?
Reply

Amigo
10-18-2011, 01:36 AM
Originally Posted by .iman.
I'm not really followingyou here. I understand your explanation is that a head covering isnot a material item (ie: piece of cloth) but it is metaphoricallyspeaking to say that a woman shouldn't let bad thoughts into her mind(like gossip), therefore, she should protect/cover her head fromthose thoughts? I don't agree with that explanation because it isclear that the verse is talking about a physical veil. Look atpictures of women from biblical times, take the Virgin Mary - she iscovered. Catholic Nuns also wear a head covering. What aboutwedding veils? They are supposed to represent purity and chastity,not a symbol to show that they are protecting themselves from evilgossip.
When a chaste woman does have a veil, she uses her hair to do the job the veil does. All head covering are simply and extentions/emphasis of their hair. Women use them instinctively for the same purpose. That's how God meant it. Speech and thoughts are also involved in chastity. So chaste women don't just cover their ears, but also their mouth even eyes when necessary. They protect from anything which may draw their attention from where it is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by .iman.
You also mentioned thatGod had given women long hair to cover themselves, but in this verse,it specifically states that if they don't cover themselves, then theymust cut their hair short.
As I said before, please read the whole chapter, otherwise, if you pick what you want for what you want it to mean, they will mean what you want it to mean and I for one, I don't interfere with the judgements of God.


Originally Posted by .iman.
Also, I did some researchmyself regarding the Canon law, and it was left out of the 1983 CanonLaws, therefore, it was abrogated, and replaces the previous code. This means that it is no longer REQUIRED to be followed, but thecustom can't be legislatively prohibited.
How does the Catholicchurch keep changing its rules when the message in the bible hasn'tchanged?
Living things changes as they grow, but their seeds remain the same.
Reply

Amigo
10-18-2011, 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by Ali_008
Considering your explanation, does this part of those verses mean that a man should keep his head open to all kinds of nonsense to honor his head (which here has also been referred to as God).
It means that they should confront all kinds of evil and not turn away from threats.

Women are fragile, turning away from threats and entrusting themselves to those who should defend them is the wisest way for them and it honors God.
Men are meant to protect women. They are not meant to face away from threats but to confront threats and protect women. This is how men are supposed to honor Christ, for he did not turn away from all evil and nonsense, he faced them head on and destroyed them, even the last ennemy: sin and death.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-18-2011, 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by Amigo
When a chaste woman does have a veil, she uses her hair to do the job the veil does. All head covering are simply and extentions/emphasis of their hair. Women use them instinctively for the same purpose. That's how God meant it. Speech and thoughts are also involved in chastity. So chaste women don't just cover their ears, but also their mouth even eyes when necessary. They protect from anything which may draw their attention from where it is supposed to be.
As I said before, please read the whole chapter, otherwise, if you pick what you want for what you want it to mean, they will mean what you want it to mean and I for one, I don't interfere with the judgements of God.
Living things changes as they grow, but their seeds remain the same.

Should I hold my breath while waiting for you to furnish us with biblical verses to back up your long winded convoluted sentences above?
Reply

.iman.
10-18-2011, 05:59 PM
Again, Amigo, I am just trying to find a valid answer to my question. What is written in the bible must be followed by Christians, no?
I will continue on with the passage:


"13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God."

It is clearly written that women need to cover their heads. As previously mentioned, the hair of the women is her glory and femininity. But this doesn't mean that her hair is sufficient as the only cover for her- rather you have to reflect upon the previous verses - if a woman won't cover her head, then she must cut her hair, thus stripping her of her glory and femininity. (Verses 4 & 5). So, if you say that a woman's hair is enough to cover, then it completely negates verses 4 & 5.

Originally Posted by Amigo
Living things changes as they grow, but their seeds remain the same.
Fashions of women’s dress have changed and will continue to change, but Paul in this passage has explained very carefully that the headcovering symbolizes something which does not change. The last verse is saying that those who are contentious (those who want to argue against) then that there is no place for them to do so, because they do not have authority.

Thus, my final point about the Canon laws is that no priest- nor any human for that matter- has any right to overrule or abrogate any of God's laws. This is a contradiction of pure monotheism (which is supposed to be the First Commandment, right? Worship only ONE God). Pay attention to what is bolded, because even though it is referring to associating partners with ALLAH SWT, it can be applied to any other rules/regulations made up by others to suit their own needs. Allah SWT says in the Qur'an


"They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." (9:31 Muhsin Khan translation).
Reply

Iconodule
10-18-2011, 06:26 PM
Canons are not absolute like dogmas. Canons should be followed as much as possible but the Church allows for pastoral discretion in modifying or relaxing certain canons. They are not treated as infallible commands in stone but as guidelines for church discipline to be applied by bishops. Ultimately it is up to bishops to decide how a given canon is applied, and often it is considered favorable in certain circumstances to relax a canon. This is called ekonomia in the Greek church.

That said I am speaking as an Orthodox Christian and the Roman Catholic viewpoint might be different. For one thing we have never actually abrogated canons.
Reply

.iman.
10-18-2011, 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by Iconodule
Canons are not absolute like dogmas. Canons should be followed as much as possible but the Church allows for pastoral discretion in modifying or relaxing certain canons. They are not treated as infallible commands in stone but as guidelines for church discipline to be applied by bishops. Ultimately it is up to bishops to decide how a given canon is applied, and often it is considered favorable in certain circumstances to relax a canon. This is called ekonomia in the Greek church.

That said I am speaking as an Orthodox Christian and the Roman Catholic viewpoint might be different. For one thing we have never actually abrogated canons.

Thank you for clarifying. :thumbs_up
Reply

Amigo
10-19-2011, 07:53 AM
Originally Posted by .iman.
Again, Amigo, I am just trying to find a valid answer to my question. What is written in the bible must be followed by Christians, no?
I will continue on with the passage:

"13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God."

It is clearly written that women need to cover their heads. As previously mentioned, the hair of the women is her glory and femininity. But this doesn't mean that her hair is sufficient as the only cover for her- rather you have to reflect upon the previous verses - if a woman won't cover her head, then she must cut her hair, thus stripping her of her glory and femininity. (Verses 4 & 5). So, if you say that a woman's hair is enough to cover, then it completely negates verses 4 & 5.
  1. Bible is not the 'Christian Constitution'
  2. I believe that only God is our judge.
  3. Please read again my previous answers, I have addressed the remaining issues on women and headcovering.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-19-2011, 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by Iconodule
That said I am speaking as an Orthodox Christian and the Roman Catholic viewpoint might be different. For one thing we have never actually abrogated canons.
But you have abrogated the most important of God's laws?
Reply

Iconodule
10-19-2011, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Ramadhan

But you have abrogated the most important of God's laws?
One time I abrogated salamander news with deflatable kernel symbology.
Reply

Crystal
10-19-2011, 05:49 PM
My grandmothers (catholic) used to wear veils over their hair when they went to church and you can still see some older women still do today but I never see young people do that. As for why people don't do this anymore that is like asking why some muslim women don't wear hijab? I guess it's each persons own decision what they want to do although growing up in a Catholic school I was never taught about covering my hair so I guess its just something they decided to ignore ?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-19-2011, 11:36 PM
Originally Posted by Iconodule
One time I abrogated salamander news with deflatable kernel symbology.
I am quite glad that you had nothing to answer such basic question.

This means you understand that your church have abrogated God's laws.

It's the first step: realization that you've done wrong.

Next step is to find the truth in Islam.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-19-2011, 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by Crystal
My grandmothers (catholic) used to wear veils over their hair when they went to church and you can still see some older women still do today but I never see young people do that. As for why people don't do this anymore that is like asking why some muslim women don't wear hijab? I guess it's each persons own decision what they want to do although growing up in a Catholic school I was never taught about covering my hair so I guess its just something they decided to ignore ?
The analogy is incorrect.

No muslim scholars would ever say that hijab is not necessary, although the fiqh of hijab might be different, because hijab is commanded in the Qur'an and previous scriptures.
And you will never see a muslim woman perform shalah without hijab.

Meanwhile, the christians church leaders have altogether done away (ie. abrogated) the commandment to wear head covering for women.
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 02:02 AM
Being Christian is not about following commands out of obligation
Because it says in

Galatians 2:16 - "know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith inChrist and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."

Ephesians 2:8 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do"

Christianity is about accepting God's gift of salvation and in return, doing good deeds out of love.

Romans 13:8 - "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

I don't think women have to wear head coverings, it is just a symbol, actions mean more than symbols.
It was a custom in ancient eastern culture that a woman should cover her head, it's only used as a symbol in Corinthians 11.
Christianity is focused on love, the greatest commandment is to love God who is one, and to love everyone as yourself.
Even though Corinthians 11 says women should wear headscarfs, in the end it's not what we do that saves us; but it is through Jesus that we are saved.

By no means am I saying that as Christians we can do what ever we like in this life, if you have this faith, then you don't have the right faith and you don't understand Christianity, as it is written in James 2:14:

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead"
Reply

جوري
11-24-2011, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
I don't think women have to wear head coverings, it is just a symbol, actions mean more than symbols.
very true..and that's why every sin conceived of the flesh, of usury or homosexuality of lewdness and depravity is ever more prevalent in christian culture and by folks professing to be christian.
God's laws aren't meant to be arbitrary to make life difficult, and God's laws should be the same if they come from the same God and thus should be upheld. All of a sudden the message of oneness evolves into the message of 'love' and we've millenniums of that so-called love to attest God's glory


  • As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  • Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
  • Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
  • Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
  • Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
  • Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
    According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
  • In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
  • In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
  • The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
    [DO19-25]

Mission


  • Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
  • Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
  • Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
  • 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
  • 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
    Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)


  • First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  • Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
  • 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
  • Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
  • after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
    Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
  • Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
  • Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
    (In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
  • The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
  • Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
  • Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
  • Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
  • Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics


  • Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
  • Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
  • Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
    The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
    Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
  • Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
  • subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
  • After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
  • Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  • Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
  • Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
  • John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
  • University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
  • Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Witches


  • from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
  • in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
  • incomplete list of documented cases:
    The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars


  • 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
  • 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
  • 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
  • 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
  • 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
  • 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
  • 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews


  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  • 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  • The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  • First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  • Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  • Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
  • Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  • 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  • 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  • 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  • 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  • 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  • 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  • 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  • 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
  • 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples


  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
  • On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]

  • Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
  • In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
  • On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
  • The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
  • As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
  • The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
  • What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
  • The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
  • "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
  • Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  • "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

  • Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
  • In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
  • On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  • When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
  • So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
  • Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  • Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
  • Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
  • The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
  • Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  • Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
    "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  • Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
  • In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
  • In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
  • To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  • All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  • A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  • In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious events in US history


  • Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
  • Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
    More gory details.
  • By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities


  • Catholic extermination camps
    Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

    In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
  • Catholic terror in Vietnam
    In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

    Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

    The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:

    • "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."


Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....

  • Rwanda Massacres
    In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.

For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. [DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. [EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. [LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961. [MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People. [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992. [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992. [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00. [SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992. [SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996. [TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676. [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980. [WW] H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings). [WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:

  • N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
  • R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
  • J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
  • H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56






best,
Reply

Ramadhan
11-24-2011, 05:17 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Being Christian is not about following commands out of obligation
Because it says in

Galatians 2:16 - "know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith inChrist and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified."

Ephesians 2:8 - "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do"

Christianity is about accepting God's gift of salvation and in return, doing good deeds out of love.

Romans 13:8 - "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

It is interesting to note that you have more faith and belief in the words of saul of tarsus, instead of God (swt) and Jesus (pbuh).

You actually follow commandments of saul who have abrogated the laws.
Reply

crimsontide06
11-24-2011, 05:29 AM
Over time things that are in the Bible have been altered.... or their meanings changed to suit the lifestyles of the people. Kinda strange how in the Bible Jesus DOES refer to God as his "father" and Christians take it soooo literally YET something like being commanded to wear head coverings is watered down and not meant to be taking literally???? :rolleyes:
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 10:18 AM
It is interesting to note that you have more faith and belief in the words of saul of tarsus, instead of God (swt) and Jesus (pbuh).

You actually follow commandments of saul who have abrogated the laws.
Ramadhan, I don't have more faith in Paul than in Jesus. I read all of the writtings in the bible. But the verse in question is 1 Corinthians 11, so I am deemed right into quoting other scriptures from Paul.
Regardless of the point, I believe all of the Bible is inspired by God.

-Schpoogie
Reply

Ramadhan
11-24-2011, 10:26 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Ramadhan, I don't have more faith in Paul than in Jesus. I read all of the writtings in the bible. But the verse in question is 1 Corinthians 11, so I am deemed right into quoting other scriptures from Paul.
Regardless of the point, I believe all of the Bible is inspired by God.

-Schpoogie
tell me in simple words, do the commandment to wear headcovers for women need to be followed or not?
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 11:22 AM
They do not,
In simple words it is only God who can save us and not us.
All our efforts are not enough to attain God's standards, so what ever we do, it will not be enough.

So wearing a headscarf is not going to save you.
Nor will refraining from lust, nor will having never hated anyone, nor will never stealing, nor will not lying.

The fact remains, we can only be saved through Jesus Christ, and not of our own works.
Reply

Ali_008
11-24-2011, 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
They do not,
In simple words it is only God who can save us and not us.
All our efforts are not enough to attain God's standards, so what ever we do, it will not be enough.

So wearing a headscarf is not going to save you.
Nor will refraining from lust, nor will having never hated anyone, nor will never stealing, nor will not lying.

The fact remains, we can only be saved through Jesus Christ, and not of our own works.
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 12:07 PM
Bluebell, you list a long and large list of attrocities caused by loosely claimed 'christians'
But you ignore all the good things that have come out of Christianity, and all the good, loving and kind people.

I don't think its fair what you're doing, because the whole world is stained with sin and therefore people are going to sin obviously.
Not only Christians, but people of all religions, ideaologies, races have caused attrocities.
I believe it is imperitive to base our criticisms based on what is written on the religious texts.
And it says in Luke 6:27 to love your enemies and to do good to people who hate you
Reply

Ramadhan
11-24-2011, 12:25 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
They do not,
In simple words it is only God who can save us and not us.
All our efforts are not enough to attain God's standards, so what ever we do, it will not be enough.

So wearing a headscarf is not going to save you.
Nor will refraining from lust, nor will having never hated anyone, nor will never stealing, nor will not lying.

The fact remains, we can only be saved through Jesus Christ, and not of our own works.
I did not ask you whether covering head will save you.

I asked whether the commandment to cover head for women need to be followed or not.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-24-2011, 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Bluebell, you list a long and large list of attrocities caused by loosely claimed 'christians'
But you ignore all the good things that have come out of Christianity, and all the good, loving and kind people.

I don't think its fair what you're doing, because the whole world is stained with sin and therefore people are going to sin obviously.
Not only Christians, but people of all religions, ideaologies, races have caused attrocities.
I believe it is imperitive to base our criticisms based on what is written on the religious texts.
And it says in Luke 6:27 to love your enemies and to do good to people who hate you
In the past 2,000 years, christians have killed more people in the name of god, more than the followers of any other religions, combined.
Even today, instead of requesting "osama bin laden" to destroy two more towers (if they truly believed in "turn the right cheek"), the christian americans invaded and occupied 2 countries, directly and indirectly killing more than a million people.

Christians do not seem to regard their own bible very highly.
Reply

Ali_008
11-24-2011, 01:03 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
They do not,
In simple words it is only God who can save us and not us.
All our efforts are not enough to attain God's standards, so what ever we do, it will not be enough.

So wearing a headscarf is not going to save you.
Nor will refraining from lust, nor will having never hated anyone, nor will never stealing, nor will not lying.

The fact remains, we can only be saved through Jesus Christ, and not of our own works.


You know I totally get your theory. Christians have totally zero faith in anything. Which is why they drink, smoke, do drugs, are promiscuous, slaughter millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and salute the troops that do that and what not. If nothing is gonna save you then why even believe in Christ or God for that matter. Just live a nomadic life, you can never do anything about your hereafter, right??
Reply

Predator
11-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
They do not,
In simple words it is only God who can save us and not us.
All our efforts are not enough to attain God's standards, so what ever we do, it will not be enough.

So wearing a headscarf is not going to save you.
Nor will refraining from lust, nor will having never hated anyone, nor will never stealing, nor will not lying.

The fact remains, we can only be saved through Jesus Christ, and not of our own works.

In other words, you can do whatever you want and only need believe that Christ died for your sins and Salvation is yours , right ?

The Christian scheme of salvation is not only morally and rationally unsound, but also has no support of the words of Jesus. Jesus may be said to have suffered for the sins of men in the sense that, in order to take them out of darkness into light, he incurred the wrath of the evildoers and was tortured by them; but that does not mean that his death was an atonement for the sins of others and that only those who believe in his blood would be forgiven. Jesus had come to rescue men from sin by his teaching and the example of his godly life, and not by deliberately dying for them on the cross and offering his blood as a propitiation for their sins.

When a young man came and asked him, “Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” he mentioned nothing about his atoning sacrifice and the redeeming power of his blood. His reply was the same as that of every other prophet. For he said, “why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17) “Keep the commandments” – that, according to Jesus, was the way to eternal life.

What are the commandments


You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself any imageand you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.


You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.


Salvation could be gained by believing in God, eschewing evil and doing good, and not by accepting Jesus as the redeemer and believing in his blood atonement.

Also your book says :

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (Hebrews 10:26)
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 01:25 PM
I do not believe is it necessary to wear head coverings, frankly this verse is widely debated amonst Christian scolars. It is the only verse in the Bible that seems to talk about it, so it's not a very important issue. Frankly it seems out of Paul's character to talk about obeying the law, I personally believe the verse in question to be a latter addition and not from Paul.

In the past 2,000 years, christians have killed more people in the name of god, more than the followers of any other religions, combined.
Even today, instead of requesting "osama bin laden" to destroy two more towers (if they truly believed in "turn the right cheek"), the christian americans invaded and occupied 2 countries, directly and indirectly killing more than a million people.
Do you have any sources that say Christianity has killed more people in the name of God than any other religion?
Really, I don't want this to be an argument where we have to search statistics and put eachother down.
The notion of 'turn the other cheek' is a call to not fight back against anyone to attacks you, and you know what; it does seem silly, of course america has the right to defend itself. But in the end, Jesus taught these things as to say, the way we are meant to live is this: love your enemies.
What I'm trying to say is, that it is impossible to live out all of Jesus' commands because the world is sinful, if we could then Jesus would not have needed to die for us.

I am saddened that you think it is Christianity that is invading Iraq, please know that 'in the name of God' was not the reason for it.

Y
ou know I totally get your theory. Christians have totally zero faith in anything. Which is why they drink, smoke, do drugs, are promiscuous, slaughter millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and salute the troops that do that and what not. If nothing is gonna save you then why even believe in Christ or God for that matter. Just live a nomadic life, you can never do anything about your hereafter, right??
I will quote this scripture, and hopefully you will understand that Christians do not take good deeds for granted.

Galatians 5:13 - "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whateveryou want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."
Reply

Ramadhan
11-24-2011, 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
I do not believe is it necessary to wear head coverings, frankly this verse is widely debated amonst Christian scolars. It is the only verse in the Bible that seems to talk about it, so it's not a very important issue. Frankly it seems out of Paul's character to talk about obeying the law, I personally believe the verse in question to be a latter addition and not from Paul.
so you believe that the verse is a fabrication?

how interesting.

What other verses are fabrications?

in the other post you claimed that all of bible is inspired by god. so you believe God inspired lies, deceits, and fabrication?

Is that the kind of truth you believe in?
Reply

جوري
11-24-2011, 03:25 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Do you have any sources that say Christianity has killed more people in the name of God than any other religion?
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1479927



Originally Posted by schpoogie
I am saddened that you think it is Christianity that is invading Iraq, please know that 'in the name of God' was not the reason for it.
It is not?


I am with you though that outside of a crusade, greed and general pillaging is a great deal of it.

Originally Posted by schpoogie
of course america has the right to defend itself. But in the end
As do other countries, if I am even to subscribe to the notion that cave dwellers took down three buildings by reading a flight manual and getting a lap dance the night before, then America's transgressions were a good reason for it for starters, for what was their excuse before 911 for instance to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan?
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/khartoumbomb.html
as a single event, I don't have the time or desire for the laundry list.

best,
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 11:07 PM
so you believe that the verse is a fabrication?

how interesting.

What other verses are fabrications?

in the other post you claimed that all of bible is inspired by god. so you believe God inspired lies, deceits, and fabrication?

Is that the kind of truth you believe in?
Well it could be a fabrication, thats why scholars are debating on it. One of the reasons why I like Christianity is because we have freedom to debate our own scriptures, you would not believe me if i told you that the Quran had fabrications in it, I don't believe it is exactly the same as when Mohammad first recited it.
Regardless of the point, I think both books have been preserved well, there are only a few verses in the Bible which are being debated on, i know them and they are not very important verses.

Hey bluebell, that source doesn't say that Christianity has killed more people.
Look, I don't know much about political Islam, but i'm sure people have done just as bad things in the name of Islam as these people have done in the name of Christianity....please stop using 'the crusades' as a defence because I know that Islam broke out into many internal wars right after Mohammad's death, and I know there was a terrible thing that took place in India when Islam came, and the civil war in Sudan has costed millions of lives. I mean I havn't researched a whole lot, but I'm trying to say that, as humans we are sinful, we wage war. Religions don't kill people, people kill people.
Reply

جوري
11-24-2011, 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Hey bluebell, that source doesn't say that Christianity has killed more people.
add the numbers, it is called deductive reasoning!

Look, I don't know much about political Islam, but i'm sure people have done just as bad things in the name of Islam as these people have done in the name of Christianity
You don't know much about much which is bewildering why you'd gauge any topic with such bravado and with this miserable level of 'expertise'
....please stop using 'the crusades' as a defence because I know that Islam broke out into many internal wars right after Mohammad's death, and I know there was a terrible thing that took place in India when Islam came, and the civil war in Sudan has costed millions of lives. I mean I havn't researched a whole lot, but I'm trying to say that, as humans we are sinful, we wage war. Religions don't kill people, people kill people.
The crusade isn't a 'defense' but certainly the vein that runs through that very confusing and very bloody religion. Sudan has been sponsored well by Israel and the U.S and even that they've won their so-called christian state, they can't seem to stop killing each other, much akin to the Rwanda genocide where christians were annihilating one another!

read before you write!

best,
Reply

Ramadhan
11-24-2011, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Well it could be a fabrication, thats why scholars are debating on it.
So you believe that the truth can have fabrication?

For us muslims, and for most sane people with normal intelligence, truth shall not be mixed with falsehoods, and the truth must be free from any fabrications.

Originally Posted by schpoogie
One of the reasons why I like Christianity is because we have freedom to debate our own scriptures,
Really?
Majority christians (aka. roman and eastern catholics) were not even allowed to read bible until mid last century.

Originally Posted by schpoogie
you would not believe me if i told you that the Quran had fabrications in it, I don't believe it is exactly the same as when Mohammad first recited it.
Please bring your evidence that Qur'an had fabrication.
Unlike christians, we muslims must are commanded to believe when there is evidence and proof. If there is no proof, I will call you a liar. And as I remember it, Amigo said that a christian must never lie.
I understand that christians are allowed to "believe" and have "complete faith" without evidence. But that does not work on general population. In general population, truth must be based on evidence, and not on fabrications.

Originally Posted by schpoogie
Regardless of the point, I think both books have been preserved well, there are only a few verses in the Bible which are being debated on, i know them and they are not very important verses.
Then you have no idea whatsoever about your own bible and bible history.

a question for you: what is the original bible?

How can you say that bible has been preserved well when your current bible is sourced from a translated materials (not from original materials), written 3 centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh), and even then still contained so much outright fabrications.

Ever heard of pericopare adulterae (john 7:53-8:11)?
It is THAT passage which christians often cite to defend their godless lifestyles (homosexuality, priests molesting children, adulteries, etc). That passage was never in the oldest NT manuscripts, not in codex sinaiticus, not in codex alexandrinus, not in codex vaticanus. The passage was only inserted by lewd pagan roman popes and scribes into latin vulgate bible in the 6th century.

So somebody created a fiction, and attributed the fiction to Jesus (pbuh), a man who you worship as God, and you don't think it is important?
I am sorry, but you truly have twisted belief if you think attributing lies against god is not "important".

I can fill tens of pages telling you which hundreds of gospels were destroyed by pagan constantine and other pagan latin christians who handpicked which pagan belief of 3-in-1 gods that fit into their tradition and their previous belief.
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 11:37 PM
The crusade isn't a 'defense' but certainly the vein that runs through that very confusing and very bloody religion. Sudan has been sponsored well by Israel and the U.S and even that they've won their so-called christian state, they can't seem to stop killing each other, much akin to the Rwanda genocide where christians were annihilating one another!
These are just excuses, the fact is that people have shed blood in the name of Islam just as bad as in any other cause.
You forgot to adress the many civil wars that occured after Mohammad's death.
If you search hard enouph, you will find attrocities for any religion, including Islam. I'm not interested in discussing this topic further
Reply

جوري
11-24-2011, 11:40 PM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
I'm not interested in discussing this topic further
That is because you're undereducated and couldn't hold your own for a couple of mins.

best,
Reply

schpoogie
11-24-2011, 11:50 PM
Search on youtube for a video called:
Did the Umayyads change the Qur'an?
by a youtuber called "Lorientalist"

He is very educated about Islam,

I'm not an apologist, infact i hate reading and debating aimlessly, but i've seen debates; you can critisize the Bible, and we can critisize the Quran...it seems endless.
I think you just gotto stick with what sounds better, what you can related to the best, and which suits your needs more.
For me, Christianity is this.
If Islam had clear proofs then I would be persuaded, but i'm not.
Reply

جوري
11-25-2011, 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Search on youtube for a video called:
Did the Umayyads change the Qur'an?
by a youtuber called "Lorientalist"

He is very educated about Islam,

I'm not an apologist, infact i hate reading and debating aimlessly, but i've seen debates; you can critisize the Bible, and we can critisize the Quran...it seems endless.
I think you just gotto stick with what sounds better, what you can related to the best, and which suits your needs more.
For me, Christianity is this.
If Islam had clear proofs then I would be persuaded, but i'm not.
Bring me the before and after Quran then if you're truthful. We have only one version, the one that has always been!
I can not do the same for the bible and to be frank I am not even interested. Even if it were legitimate and not a horrible concoction of the scribes attributed to god and laced with a zillion pagan practice, I would still not follow a religion where the main theme is worshiping a man. To me it is no different than worshiping Ganesh at least they had some semblance of originality in their paganism and didn't build it on assimilating pagan practices from a conglomerate of Egyptian, Grecian or Zoroastrian etc.

As for what persuades you, that is of no consequence, I don't find you philosophically, theologically or intellectually stimulating .. and it is your privilege to worship as you please.

best,
Reply

Ramadhan
11-25-2011, 12:33 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Search on youtube for a video called:
Did the Umayyads change the Qur'an?
by a youtuber called "Lorientalist"
Please bring evidence here, tell me which parts of the qur'an are fabrications? when were they fabricated?

The umayyads changed the Qur'an? You don't know history do you? (eg. have you any idea
which umayyad? how it happened?
which verse that is fabrications?

Please state here, otherwise you are a liar.

Again, Amigo said a christian must not lie.
Or did amigo lie?

and if you believe in every youtuber, I have a bridge for you to sell.

Just for your information, have you any slightest idea that the qur'an had already been fully memorised by thousands if not tens of thousands of muslims by the time the umayyads dynasty went into power, and many of those memorisers lived far from ummayyads lands?
Have you any slightest idea that two copies of qur'an written during Ustman (ra) caliphate, which preceded the umayyads dynasty by hundred of years, still exist now and kept in the topkapi museum in istanbul and uzbekistan?
Have you any slightest idea that currently there are millions of hafiz/hafizah (memorisers of the qur'an, down to the t and dot), including my 16 yo girl-cousin, and several in this forum? If there had been changes during the umayyads dynasty, there would have been at least thousands of different versions of qur'an, but as you can see it, there is only one qur'an existing.


Originally Posted by schpoogie
I'm not an apologist, infact i hate reading and debating aimlessly, but i've seen debates; you can critisize the Bible, and we can critisize the Quran...it seems endless.
You are welcome to debate Islam and the qur'an, that is why we have sections "comparative religion", "clarifications about Islam", 'discover Islam" etc.

But it seems you are not comfortable when people even bring tiny, simple FACTS about bible.

You cannot expect to come here, shove some bible verses on us and tell us they are the truth or say that Qur'an has been changed without us challenging them, otherwise you are trolling.

You cannot seriously think that you can come here and tell us that bible has been well preserved, and not expecting us to show you evidence that your bible is nothing preserved at all?

Originally Posted by schpoogie
I think you just gotto stick with what sounds better, what you can related to the best, and which suits your needs more.
For me, Christianity is this.
So you believe that the truth must follow your desires and your needs?

That must have been why previous rabbis, scribes and priests changed messages by prophets (pbut) and word of god to suit their needs

Originally Posted by schpoogie
If Islam had clear proofs then I would be persuaded, but i'm not
You remind me of these verses:
57. Say (O Muhammad ): "I am on clear proof from my Lord (Islamic Monotheism), but you deny (the truth that has come to me from Allah). I have not gotten what you are asking for impatiently (the torment). The decision is only for Allah, He declares the truth, and He is the Best of judges." (QS. Al An'am)

I see that you have minimal knowledge of bible, but that is to be expected from christians as they are discouraged from learning history of their own bible. Please read these books by one of the world's most important NT scholars:

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christian...2142055&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing...2142055&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrup...2142055&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jes...2142055&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scripture...2142055&sr=1-6
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corru...2142055&sr=1-9
Reply

schpoogie
11-25-2011, 12:51 AM
No I don't know the history, but why should I take anyone's word? Lorientalist has studied the history so I showed you his video, if there are errors in it then that's on his behalf not mine.
Please know that there is a difference between lying and making an error.

I did not post Bible verses as to say it was the truth, I was only intersted in knowing if the Quran had similar verses which promote love, and there were some good verses but none really emphasising on love.

As would anyone feel uncomfortable when facing criticism, you have indeed given me reason to not believe in the Bible but no reasons as to why the Quran is better.
I will be posting in Clarrifications then
Reply

Ramadhan
11-25-2011, 01:18 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
No I don't know the history, but why should I take anyone's word? Lorientalist has studied the history so I showed you his video, if there are errors in it then that's on his behalf not mine.
You claimed Al Qur'an has been changed.

I asked you for proof.

You are now saying you believe Al Qur'an has been changed because some youtuber said so.

Now please, bring to these forum the main points of evidence from that youtuber.

Otherwise you are just a liar.

Originally Posted by schpoogie
Please know that there is a difference between lying and making an error.
Of course I do know.
But You DID claim that Qur'an has been changed.

Now bring evidence.

Originally Posted by schpoogie
I did not post Bible verses as to say it was the truth, I was only intersted in knowing if the Quran had similar verses which promote love, and there were some good verses but none really emphasising on love.
As we have shown you on the other thread that you just opened, I counted there were more Qur'an verses about love than the whole of bible combined together.

But this thread is not for those, is it?

You claimed that ALL bible is inspired by God.

And then I asked you if the head covering commandment need to be followed.

And then you said the commandment need not be followed because it was fabrication. (which contradicted your previous claim that ALL bible is inspired by God)

And then you said bible has been preserved, and then I gave you evidence that bible is far from being preserved.

And then you claimed that even qur'an is not preserved, and then I asked you for evidence.

And then you are like "uh ..oh... some youtuber said so, and if there is error, that's the youtuber".

You keep changing your stance on most fundamental level. Everybody knows that when you stand on the truth, you don't keep changing your belief.


Originally Posted by schpoogie
As would anyone feel uncomfortable when facing criticism, you have indeed given me reason to not believe in the Bible but no reasons as to why the Quran is better.
I will be posting in Clarrifications then
Please do not be dense.
You conceded that bible is inferior, but at the same time you don't think Qur'an is better? Is there some disconnect?

On authenticity alone, it is clear that Qur'an is the truth while bible is not. Not to mention on the content (as I have shown you in the other thread about lewdness, obscenity, sexual fantasies in bible).
I have not even touched upon errors, factual errors, contradictions in bible.
Reply

Abz2000
11-25-2011, 01:22 AM
obama also claims to believe Jesus (pbuh) died for his sins - but feels the bible including the sermon on the mount (jesus (pbuh's) first public speech) is a radical piece of work to be reviled





.....................it seems to be a recurring theme among many..............

Reply

syed1
11-25-2011, 01:26 AM
Subhanallah, he claims he has sufficient proof to not believe in the bible. Mashallah, that is one step towards seeking the truth. May allah guide you Inshallah, I am sure we are all eagerly waiting for you to post in the clarifications sections so that some of the more well versed may prove to you that quran is the word of god. then perhaps you will no longer be blind and openly accept our religion of peace . amen
Reply

schpoogie
11-25-2011, 02:53 AM
Let me just ask you out of curiousity, why do you think the Quran is the word of God?
Reply

جوري
11-25-2011, 03:03 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Let me just ask you out of curiousity, why do you think the Quran is the word of God?
Examining The Qur'an It is worthwhile knowing something about the Orientalism and its distortion of Islam. The academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated and often co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. Without a doubt, the foundations of Orientalism are in the maxim "Know thy enemy". When the Christian Nations of Europe began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to bear in order to help them with their task. Orientalists and missionaries whose ranks often overlapped, not just the servants of an imperialist government who were using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy, however subtly.
Quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. Two examples worth mentioning are that of Sir William Muir and Rev. St. Claire Tisdall, who were active missionaries and authors of several books on Islam. Today, these books are viewed as very biased studies, even though they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day. That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main "competitor" on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbour, Christians distortions and outright lies about Islam were widespread.
The modern day Orientalists may have become de-Christianised, but there still exist some age-old notions about Islam. The Christian missionaries as usual, rely on the material of Orientalists. But unfortunately, the Orientalists do not say what the Christian missionaries would like to point out. Hence misquoting is very rife in Christian missionary writing as most of the articles below would show.
This page exclusively deals with the Christian missionary propaganda, lies and distortion about the Qur'an. The Muslims assert that the Qur'an is same as recited by the Prophet Muhammad(P). There are no additional materials added to it nor subtracted after the death of the Prophet(P).
We have divided them into following sections so as to enable the reader to understand the issues involved here.
Textual Integrity
Logical Consistency
Miraculous Features
Sources Of The Qur'an
Issue Of Abrogation
Tafsir of the Qur'an
In this section, the Tafsir of some of the important verses of the Qur'an misquoted by the Christian missionaries would be provided along with the methodology of interpreting the Qur'an.
Qur'anic Studies
The content is be primarily the interesting papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Some material is also the excerpts from books. The aim of bringing such material on the web is to disseminate interesting information which otherwise would end up getting stacked in the libraries, unread.
Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur'an?
May be we should first check what the Church tradition has to say about the integrity or lack of it of the Bible!
The Canons Of The Old Testament & The New Testament Through The Ages
A comprehensive collection of biblical canons throughout the history from the time of Jesus to the modern day critical editions.
On The Textual Sources Of The New International Version (NIV) Bible
What are the textual sources of the NIV Bible? Can these textual sources be considered "inspired" or "original"? Such issues are dealt with in this article. It should be added that the arguments made against the "inspiration" or "originality" of textual sources of the NIV Bible are also valid for RSV, NASV and other Bibles. Please note that the article is not about translations of the Bible; it is about their textual sources.
The Integrity Of The Bible According To The Church Tradition
What about the Bible at the time of Muhammad(P)?
Is The Bible In Our Hands Same As During The Time Of Muhammad(P)?
Insha'allah, more information can be obtained by clicking on the above and following the argument through the links.
Reply

Ali_008
11-25-2011, 03:21 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Let me just ask you out of curiousity, why do you think the Quran is the word of God?
This question is too good. I can write all day why I believe the Qur'an to be the word of God but for your understanding I'll provide a few essential points and try to keep them brief at the same time, inshAllah.

  1. There are no contradictions in the Qur'an whatsoever. The verses don't rival each other rather are supportive.
  2. The Qur'an revealed facts about various fiels of science which have been discovered recently whereas the Qur'an was revealed over 1400 years ago.
  3. Not even a single verse of the Qur'an ever sounds illogical or makes you think "what the !@#$ is this suppose to mean?".
  4. Above all, the Qur'an supports monotheism which is the greatest fact ever.
  5. The Qur'an's eloquence can not be compared to any book in the world at all and reading it really makes you believe that no human can write this good.
  6. The Qur'an is an outstanding book. You won't find any obscenity anywhere and no hateful parts except for hardcore sinners and legendary miscreants like Pharaoh.
  7. The Qur'an has been preserved from the past 1400 years. There are no 2 versions of the Qur'an unlike the Bible (which has, only God knows, how many versions).
  8. It is filled with love, mercy and peace so much so that sometimes reading it with pure heart brings tears to your eyes and never ever makes you feel disgusted with what it has to say unless you are a repentant evildoer who indulges in self-disgust for his/her past.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-25-2011, 04:09 AM
Originally Posted by schpoogie
Let me just ask you out of curiousity, why do you think the Quran is the word of God?
For endless reasons.

For example, in the Qur'an, God made some definitive promises and those have passed, have been kept. One that you and everybody else in the world can test:

Muhsin Khan
Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption). (QS. Hijr:9)

If Qur'an were not from the creator, surely qur'an wouldn't have been preserved?
But it is.

Reply

Ramadhan
11-25-2011, 04:22 AM
More on the evidence why Qur'an cannot be from other than The creator of everything:

Originally Posted by Ramadhan
Qur'an was revealed as the guidance for all mankind, as the criterion for good and evil, etc. The miracles that the Qur'an inherently and outwardly contain are signs and evidence for those to believe that it is from none other than the creator of heavens and earth.

Those miracles such as:
1. complete preservation, despite being used by billions of people for more than 1,400 years in all continents. No other books, manuscripts, poetrys, etc is even close.

2. the fact that qur'an was revealed in 23 years, in stages, many of the verses responded to specific situations in specific times, and yet when completed became a book with unmatched and inimitable style and beauty with uninterrupted flow. The fact that prophet Muhammad SAW was fully illiterate also shows that there is no way the book was created by him, or even by any other human.

3. It contains descriptions about our nature from the biggest (the birth of the universe, how the universe is expanding, and the end of the universe) to the smallest (atomic sub particles, "zarrah"), to the make up of all living things, etc etc. These are popularly called "scientific miracles of the Qur'an". just google it. or read more here:
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/islam1.html
http://thisistruth.org/

4. There are also numerical/mathematical miracles of the qur'an (for example: the number of mentions of the words for land and sea/ocean in the Qur'an are exactly the same as the proportions land and ocean on earth, the word of Adam (as) is mentioned the same time as Isa (as) which corresponds to the ayah of the Qur'an where " the creation of Isa ibn Maryam is the same as Adam", etc.
You can read more here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...les-quran.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/25813-miracles-quraan-3.html

5. Linguistic Miracles. this is considered the main miracle of the Qur'an. I cannot summarize it in a sentence, but please read more here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/quran/13...uran-gems.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...les-quran.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...aid-about.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...les-quran.html
Reply

Abz2000
11-25-2011, 04:23 AM
this video clears much up:
you have to copy paste the title of the video into the search box and change the "x" of 23

Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!