God refutes the bahai concept of "Manifestation of God" in the Quran
Mr Mahdi
misguided. It elevates human beings above the level of human and gives them
divine attributes.
God in the Quran refutes this heretical concept invented by the misguided
bahais:
"Say (O Muhammad): 'I am only a human being like you..." (Quran, 41:6)
This contradicts the false bahai belief that messengers and prophets (and even
those who are not but bahais claim they are) are not just human beings but
"Manifestations of God" who are given divine attributes.
When will bahais realize that their false religion is not guidance but
misguidance and an invention from the enemies of God. Only Islam is something
that cannot be refuted, unlike all religions such as bahaism, Christianity,
etc.
Mahdi Muhammad
Matt Menge
> The bahai concept of "Manifestation of God" is purely an invention of the
> misguided. It elevates human beings above the level of human and gives them
> divine attributes.
>
> God in the Quran refutes this heretical concept invented by the misguided
> bahais:
>
> "Say (O Muhammad): 'I am only a human being like you..." (Quran, 41:6)
>
Actually, according to Dawood'a translation it reads:
"Say: 'I am but a mortal like yourselves.'"
Which of course is correct, because Manifestations of God get old and
die like the rest of us. According to the Baha'i concept what
differentiates a Manifestation from a man is that the Manifestations
receive a revelation from God, and this is the same as in Islam.
Best Regards,
Matt
Cal E. Rollins
The Muslims I know believe in the teachings of Christ. Are you saying
you don't? --Cal
Mr Mahdi
>you don't? --Cal
Come on, you can't be that simple. Yes we DO BELIEVE IN THE TEACHINGS OF
CHRIST, but Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are two different things.
The reality is that Christianity and what Jesus taught are not the same and
this can be proven with evidence. From the scriptural tampering of the Bible
to the formation of Christian belief long after Jesus, currently Christianity
has distorted and twisted the true teachings of Jesus.
As a matter of fact, Islam teaches that all humans, including Jesus, Muhammad
and the rest of the prophets and messengers are only human and nothing more
than that. Read the Quran for once.
Mr Mahdi
>
>"Say: 'I am but a mortal like yourselves.'"
The Quran is in the arabic language and not based on translations.
Translations are an attempt to interpret the meaning of the Quran in another
language, but cannot be called the Quran per se, since Allah revealed the Quran
in Arabic and not any other language.
At any rate, the word God used in the Quran was "basharun" which means "human".
You say "bashar" to someone who speaks Arabic and they understand as "human"
because that it what it means.
There is a Hadith where Muhammad (saaws) said he did not want his followers do
to him what the Christians did to Jesus by elevating him above the level of a
human being
> According to the Baha'i concept what
>differentiates a Manifestation from a man is that the Manifestations
>receive a revelation from God, and this is the same as in Islam.
Stick to the issue. The issue here is not whether or not "Manifestation of
God" means someone who received revelation from God but if those who receive
revelation from God are above the level of human being.
Mahdi Muhammad
Cal E. Rollins
ask you a simple question after you made a simple (minded) statement. I
haven't memorized the Qu'ran like you have, but I did take a couple of
graduate literature courses in it. Lovely book. Very inspiring. I
never could understand from it though how so many Muslims are inspired
to hate and intolerance. Why is that? --Cal
Mr Mahdi
>never could understand from it though how so many Muslims are inspired
>to hate and intolerance.
The Bible and Christianity for that matter has inspired far more violence and
advocated evil things such as racism, colonialism, and other forms of evil that
thrive in Christian countries. Who could forget the "fruits" of Christianity
from the world wars that killed millions of people (started by Christians),
enslaved so many people and perfected the art of racism (even in the name of
their Christian beliefs); where sin of all kind are so common that fornication
is a sin that more than 90% of christians committed one time or another, just
to name one sin out of many that is tolerated by Christians. Christianity is
one of the leading reasons why so many scientists and intellectuals are
atheists/agnostics, since the Bible can easily be refuted and Christianity has
been to anti-intellectual that it had to take non christian movements and
beliefs to "reform" Chrisitianity and Christians.
As far as the "intolerance" that we see amongst some Muslims, it depends on
what you mean by intolerance because when you attend Jum`ah or Friday Prayers,
most places you go to in places in the West it is the most integrated place you
will see while Sunday service for the Christians is the most racially
segegrated hour. It seems that in areas like the South where people are "more
Christian", racism is more common and open.
Islam has laws protecting non Muslims and giving them the right to practice
their faith while the Bible has laws calling for the wholesale slaughter of
"heathens" (read Ezekiel 9 for one good example), even calling for the murder
of women, children, old people, etc.
So you need to ask yourself way why so many Christians are inspired to hate and
intolerance, even in the name of their god who they call "The Prince of Peace".
Mahdi Muhammad
Cal E. Rollins
I'll buy that. Too bad Christians and Muslims can't love each other and
the rest of the world like Baha'is do. Right? All those nice teachings
seemingly gone to waste all around. --Cal
Matt Menge
> God" means someone who received revelation from God but if those who receive
> revelation from God are above the level of human being.
>
In my mind this is the issue. To receive a revelation from God is, by
definition, above the level of a normal human being.
Best Regards,
Matt
QisQos
> to him what the Christians did to Jesus by elevating him above the level of a
> human being
>
Mahomet was wrong, the Christians recognize Jesus as TRUE MAN and TRUE
GOD - his nature was both fully human and fully divine, so he really
suffered as a human being - not elevated above humanity but truly a
human being in the real and literal sense.
Jesus died for your sins so that you might be saved from damnation .
Mahomet by contrast did nothing for the salvation of souls and only
promoted a book of rules based on what he could glean from jewish oral
traditions in Arabia. Mahomet is dead, he did not rise from the dead,
nor did he sacrifice himself for the remission of sins.
Qis
Mr Mahdi
>Mahomet was wrong, the Christians recognize Jesus as TRUE MAN and TRUE
>GOD - his nature was both fully human
Something that even your Bible, which has thousands of versions (all
contradicting each other: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/ )
doesn't even say. No where in the Old Testament is the word Trinity or the
name Jesus is mentioned. All the books of the Jews never said anything about
God being three in one that is why Jews consider Christianity a paganistic
heresy.
So using your own Bible, Christianity proves itself to be a complete heresy and
a paganistic creation of those who came after Jesus (as).
Jesus (as) was a prophet and messenger of God. Even your Bible said that he
"prayed" to God. What kind of God would pray to God? Even your Bible said
Jesus was tempted and even got angry at God by saying "why hath my Lord
forsaken me"? How would God say something like that about Himself? And why
did Jesus call God "Lord" and not himself Lord? Where did God ever call Jesus
Lord?
What kind of God is limited in power that the only way that He can save people
is that He must allow an innocent person (or God according to Christians) to be
killed when God saves people through His mercy, not through having someone
innocent killed?
Jesus said in the Bible (or at least they claim) that he came to fulfil the Law
not break it. Christians break the law and disobey Jesus (to obey Paul and
their church) by breaking the Sabbath and changing it to Sunday, eating pork,
worshipping 3 gods and not one (no where does the Mosaic law say anything about
God being 3 in 1), and making the Messiah whom God shall send into a god, which
doesn't make sense because the messiah is sent by God; how could God send
Himself?
Even your tampered Bible refutes Christianity. In Matthew 10:34, its claims
Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace but the sword, and yet you call
him the Prince of Peace. In Ezekiel 9 and other places in the Bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml, it says
that God ordered people to massacred men, women, children, and old people, and
yet you say that God is only love. In your own Bible it said that God saved
Jesus when he was on the cross and yet you call Jesus and not God your Saviour.
The paganistic not monotheistic aspect of Christianity is what proves that
Christianity was never from Jesus but an invention of Paul and those who formed
various sects and denominations in Christianity.
The fruits of Christians in the past 2000 years has nothing been wars, racism,
hate (like how you are showing us here), UTTER HYPOCRISY, anti-intellectualism
(even most Biblical scholars do not believe in the Bible being from God), and
sin galore. Christianity has never been able to deal with racism since it
promotes racism and hate. Christian nations allow all types of wicked sins and
it is proof that Christianity produces evil because it lies about God and it is
not from God nor from Jesus (as).
As far as what Muslims did to Christians, we rescued you white racist supremist
devils from utter ignorance when we brought science, knowledge, justice, and
hygiene to Europe. We allowed Christians and jews to practice their faith
while you devils killed anyone who wasn't Christian (such as int he Crusades,
Inquisition, Reconquista, etc.). Thanks to you guys, today most scientists and
intellectuals do not even believe in God and even experts of the Bible are
mostly agnostic or atheists.
And did the Christians ever thanked the Muslims? No, their innate and
irrational hatred increased even though Muslims have risked their lives
protecting Christians and allowing them to worship their faith in the
Caliphate.
You shall know them by their fruits. So if you believe in this verse, you will
concede that Christianity has brought nothing but destruction in the form of
death, hate, and many other types of evil that are prevelant in Christian
countries.
Mahdi Muhammad
Mr Mahdi
>definition, above the level of a normal human being.
>
Your brainwashed mind of course refuses to concede to anything wrong with
bahaism, so you obfuscate and twist the issue as well as the language. First,
to receive revelation from God is given to certain people whom God chose, and
of course, the last one to receive it was Muhammad (saaws). At any rate,
although the messengers and prophets were special because they received
revelation, they were not above the status of human beings. The bahai heresy
of "Manifestation of God" puts these men above the status of human beings,
giving them divine attributes. Receiving revelation from God does not make you
like God or His manifestation, it just makes you a human being whom God decided
to reveal His revelation to.
To use your faulty logic, being a genius is being above the level of a "normal"
human being. Being able to lift 400 pounds is being above the level of normal
human beings. I can go on and on but this shows the fallacy of your logic.
Given something such as strength, intelligence, and even revelation that
"normal" human beings generally do not have does not make you more or less
human than a normal human being.
Stick with the issue and no amount of twisting it would save your false
religion from the reality that it can be refuted and it is not from God.
Mahdi Muhammad
Brid
violence are completely unknown in it. Just ask the Christian Copts,
Armenians and Hellenes, they'll tell you!
Bedizened Sister Brid
PS We have another scripture to do with motes and beams.
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote in message news:<20030505164430...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
QisQos
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/bostom_ltr_nro_25jul02.html
Unfortunately, the so-called "tolerance" and "protection" alluded to
was afforded only upon submission to Islamic domination by a
"Pact"--or Dhimma--which imposed degrading and discriminatory
regulations. The main principles of dhimmitude were (and continue to
be): (i) the inequality of rights in all domains between Muslims and
dhimmis; (ii) the social and economic discrimination against the
dhimmis; (iii) the humiliation and vulnerability of the dhimmis.
Moreover, Ms. Menocal seems to be totally unaware of the dire
consequences for infidel dhimmis in Muslim Spain who rebelled against
the repressive Dhimma: slaughter of the rebels, and enslavement of
their women and children.
In reality, Muslim Spain was a country of constant jihad ruled under
Maliki jurisdiction, which offered one of the most severe, repressive
interpretations of Islamic law. Muslim Spain was populated by tens of
thousands of Christian slaves, and humiliated and oppressed Christian
dhimmis, in addition to a small minority of privileged Christian
notables. The muwallads (neo-converts to Islam) were in nearly
perpetual revolt against the Arab immigrants who had claimed large
estates for themselves, farmed by Christian serfs or slaves.
Expropriations and fiscal extortions ignited the flames of continual
rebellion by both muwallads and mozarabs (Christian dhimmis)
throughout the Iberian peninsula. Leaders of these rebellions were
crucified, and their insurgent followers were put to the sword. These
bloody conflicts, which occurred throughout the Hispano-Umayyad
emirate until the tenth century, fueled endemic religious hatred. An
828 letter from Louis the Pious to the Christians of Merida summarized
their plight under Abd al-Rahman II, and during the preceeding reign:
confiscation of their property, unfair increase of their exacted
tribute, removal of their freedom (probably meaning slavery), and
oppression by excessive taxes.
The leader of the muwallad rebellion in southern Andalusia (near
Ronda), Ibn Hafsun (d. 918), roused the peasants against the Muslim
government which he accused of confiscating their property, and
subjecting them to heavy tribute, and against the Arabs who were
crushing them with humiliations, while treating them as slaves. In
Grenada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela, and his son Joseph,
who protected a once flourishing Jewish community, were both
assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the
Jewish population by the local Muslim community (at least three
thousand Jews perished in an uprising surrounding the 1066
assasination, alone). Finally, although Maimonides is frequently
referred to by Menocal as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated
by the enlightened rule of Muslim Spain, his own words debunk
Menocal's utopian view of Islamic treatment of Jews: "..the Arabs have
persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory
legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase,
and hate us as much as they.."
errol9
mrm...@aol.com wrote on 6/5/03 4:10 am:
> No where in the Old Testament is the word Trinity or the
> name Jesus is mentioned. All the books of the Jews never said anything about
> God being three in one that is why Jews consider Christianity a paganistic
> heresy.
Hi Mahdi,
good to see you back on TRB amongst the mad loonyes fanatices Shi'ites,
Nimaites, Bahai'tes, Kholites, Ahmadites, Manicites Starrites and last but
not least the Dermod Ryderites. I had to put him in, otherwise I would have
received a solicitors letter threatening me with court action for leaving
him out.
Madhi, getting back to answer your above statement, the Jews never believed
in Jesus anyway, never mind believing in the trinity. So how would it be
mentioned in the Old Testament? But reference to the Trinity is in the New
Testament, I quote:
St Mark 28, 19 "Go ye therefore , and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the *Father*, and of the *Son*, and of the *Holy Ghost*.
Errol
Dermod Ryder
"Brid" <bridci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5a5c190.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Yeah Brother Mahdi. Islam is wonderful. Racism, colonialism and
> violence are completely unknown in it. Just ask the Christian Copts,
> Armenians and Hellenes, they'll tell you!
>
> Bedizened Sister Brid
>
> PS We have another scripture to do with motes and beams.
Oh Lordy, Sister Brid,
Thou hast come under the wrath of Miss Maddy! For thou hast stated
things that are NOT so in the world according to Maddy where Muslims
are good and all else is bad.
Not to worry! He's essentially just like Splasher, a bit of a
bungalow - only fatter and more hare-brained!
Dermod.
errol9
mrm...@aol.com wrote on 6/5/03 4:22 am:
> The bahai heresy of "Manifestation of God" puts these men above the status of
> human beings, giving them divine attributes.
Not only that Mr Madhi, the Baha'is cant agree amongst themselves who
actually is the return of Christ, the Bab or Baha'u'llah. On top of that the
Ahmadis Muslims claim their prophet was the true 19th century *madhi* and
the Bab was an imposter. I presume as a different type of Muslim you believe
both of them are imposters, heritics and apostates anyway?
Would you not agree Madhi, the Baha'is should have stayed as a sect of
Islam like the Ahmadis and leave western Christians out of their argument
over the return of the Promised one. Christians just want top be left alone
away from these mad Ahmadis and Baha'is and their weird prophesies most of
them cant understand anyway.
Christians just like waiting for the second coming whether it happens in
their lifetime or not. The concept that he will return keeps them happy.
Errol
QisQos
> devils from utter ignorance when we brought science, knowledge, justice, and
> hygiene to Europe. We allowed Christians and jews to practice their faith
> while you devils killed anyone who wasn't Christian (such as int he Crusades,
> Inquisition, Reconquista, etc.).
Let me tell you about the Reconquista.
The Catholic Spaniards got tired of being taxed to death by the
Mahometans, having their women kidnapped to fill the licentious harems
of your robed potentates and their children sold into slavery. The
so-called protections under dhimmi consisted of enormous taxations
which could only be paid from usurious loans obtained from members of
"that other religion". Of course default, not uncommon, resulted in
the confiscation of land and enslavement. So much for the much vaunted
protection of the rights of members of the other religions.
The myth that Mahometan rule of Spain was a paradise of tolerance and
high learning is just that - a myth.
For the most part the mahometan rule of Spain was a reign of terrorism
and vice during which most of the non-mahometans, that is to say, the
Catholic population, were enslaved to colonialist Berbers and Syrians
who were avaricious, merciless brigands. In fact, Spain was one of the
first countries to be afflicted with Taliban style Islamic
fundamentalism in the form of the muwwahidun, the Almohads, under
which civil war and strife were the rule, not the exception, and in
their fanatical zeal for the type of taliban hegemony your kind wants
to impose on the world destroyed their own strength by weakening the
political foundations of the Cordoban kalifate.
Nevertheless, mahometans remained in Spain after 1492, a little known
fact and were allowed to keep their farms and orchards and were
tolerated until 1609 when they rose up against the Crown, Philip III,
and were of necessity expelled. In fact, the moorish economic
influence was then so strong, (which is evidence of their actual and
real success under the Catholic crown and speaks against the
oppression you accuse of) that their expulsion resulted in the
economic decline of Valencia, a sacrifice for national security it
seems - echoes which hold true for today's world post - September 11,
2001.
But you claim so many mathematicians and scientists and doctors come
from Islam to enlighten Europe, where are the Islamic guides of today?
Why has Islam become such an ignorant and backwards religion, nation
and people? If you look at the historical record, after the time of
Ibn Rushd there is almost NOTHING. No philosophers, no mathematicians,
no scientists, nothing, just a few poufy mystics and legalists arguing
about minutiae of hadith.
Why? Because Islam became anti-intellectual. The writings of Abu Hamid
Al Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya did more to destroy Islam than anything
the Crusaders or other freedom fighters from the Reconquista could
have done. Your own fanaticism made your religion the weak and
backwards state it is in today.
Ghazali's Tahfut al Falasafia and Ibn Taymiyyah's worship of the
as-salaf turned the minds of the mahometans to reject knowledge and to
endlessly quibble over the meanings of the falsified hadiths of Ayisha
and Abu Huraira. Others have given themselves over to the irrational
musings of mystics like Rummi and Hafiz singing about wine and boys or
Ibin Arabi writing profane verse about teenage girls.
Had your religion not turned to the false hadiths and the false
teachings of Ibn Taymiyya and Ghazali, you would be easily convinced
of the truth of Christianity.
Sadly, the mahometan mind is more actively engaged in the hadiths
about haram meats, women's monthly courses and the toilet protocols
than about things of God .
But to blame the west for the decline of your people is not supported
since your own people are their own enemy.
Case in point - to return to Spain, had it not been for the religious
factionalism and fighting between the splinter groups in Spain, the
Reconquista may never have succeeded, but the fighting between the
Taifa kingdoms, the religious sectarian wars between the Almohads and
the Murabites, all weakened the mahometan rule from within. The
Almohads had secured Spain by 1174 after civil war with the Murabites,
and by 1212 lost the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa to the Catholics
and the beginning of the end of Arab colonialism on the peninusla was
at hand.
The same is true today, the talibans and salafis actively brought the
wrath of the west upon your lands - lands which are subdued with ease
- and now you blame others for what you have done to yourselves. Your
own treachery brought about your defeat in World War I, surely the
British could not have defeated the great Sultan had not God willed it
first, and used the treacherous bedouin wahabi to give Britain the
control of your oil and your lands, to divide up the Ottoman Empire as
they saw fit and to create non-nations like Iraq, Kuwait, Syria and
even Israel: Divide and Rule.
The golden myth of "Islam"; upon inspection it always yields a sad
picture of fanaticism, endemic civil unrest, and oppression .
Q is Q
Cal E. Rollins
While we're on the subject of wonderful Islam, how do we explain to the
sceptical Westerner that Muhammad's most beloved wife was six years old
when He married her and was allegedly nine when He consummated His
marriage to her while her playmates snickered? Have you seen the website
on Aisha that includes hadith and stories on their relationship? Really
spicey stuff that makes Muhammad look like a randy old man lusting after
babies rather than a Prophet rising above the carnalities of this world.
Having been born a Christian but later a born-again Baha'i, I just rebel
at such demonstrations of low-class humanity in my Prophet. Christ was
so pure and unsullied by the things of this world and just seems to set
the standard for the Manifestations, don't you think? --Cal
Mr Mahdi
>
LOL, and not the world wars, Crusades, Cold War (I forget about that last
time), race wars (riots in America over race for example), slavery, sins, etc.
that you racist devils perfected and even invented. You refused to comment on
those since you realized it was the truth but your evil nature makes you an
utter hypocrite.
And remember, it had to take non Christian beliefs (most secular) and movements
to "reform" the minds of you devils, since you used your Bible to justify
everything from white supremacy, slavery, rape, murder, colonialism, etc.
It is no coincidence that nearly all the hatred and racist bashing of Islam is
committing by white Christians (such as yourself) who found another excuse to
express their innate racism and hate of everything that is not white and/or
Christian. Christians are a minority in the world, and the white Christians
are even a smaller minority within this minority, and yet they have been
overall the source of hate, racism, wars, intolerance of every kind, ignorance,
superstition, etc.
It was the Church that killed people who believed the earth was not flat and
not the center of the Universe. It was the Muslims who were leaders in science
to the point that even today, many of the words used in astronomy and math came
from Arabic and coined by Muslims. But the devils like yourself never thanked
us, despite how we helped you people.
It is Islam that was the only real ideology that stood in the way of white
Christian supremacy. It was the Muslims who defeated you devils in the
Crusades and you never forget that. That is why that so many white Christians
hate Islam to the point that they forgot why they hate Islam and Muslims, they
realize that it is like a tradition they must adopt because everyone else seems
to do it.
As far as your (distorted) version of the Reconquista, you forget that Jews,
Muslims, and Christians were victims of the Christians (Catholics) and it was
them who fled Christian evil. The devils didn't just kill Muslims, but Jews
and Christians. That is why Muslims, Jews, and Christians fled to the Ottoman
Islamic Caliphate because they know the Islamic state would protect them and
allow them to practice their faith.
Even the Orientalist Bernard Lewis, who is definitely not pro Islam talked
about the history of tolerance amongst Muslims and in the Islamic state on
C-SPAN a few weeks ago. He also said that the trend of Muslims being
intolerant of non Muslims is something they adopted from the Christians who
were always intolerant in their 2000-year history.
I am sure you must of read the verses of mass murder and pillage in your "Holy"
Bible". I wonder if your god the "Prince of Peace" was the one who ordered
civilians to be massacred in the Bible, or was it the "Father"?
If the devils in Spain were complaining about the Muslims taxing them to death,
why did the devils kill not just Muslims but Jews and other Christians? They
were not taxing anyone but were being taxed them.
You forget that the tax is a protection tax; if the Islamic state cannot
protect non Muslims then the Islamic state will return the tax money. This
happened in Islamic history because Muslims knew that they cannot accept the
tax if they cannot protect non Muslims.
But devils like you don't care for the truth. It is your utter hypocrisy that
proves the evil nature if those who are misguided by man made religions and
desires.
As far as the current state of Muslims, it is because the ignorance of Islam
and most important the lack of Islamic intellectual leadership and Muslims
united under a Caliphate that Muslims are backwards, ignorant and under the
subjugation of non Muslims. When Muslims had a Caliphate, it was the complete
opposite. It was the Muslims who were the superpower, the intellectual leader
and the most advanced nation on earth.
The Taliban and other pseudo "Islamic" states are a result of the lack of
islamic intellectual leadership and of course a general ignorance of Islam
amongst Muslims. But it is the Caliphate that is the Islamic state; not
"Emirates", republics, or kingdoms. None of this states adopt Islam as an
ideology nor is the authority solely to the Muslims (they are members of the UN
that recognizes divisions amongst Muslims and make Muslims to boycott each
other, etc.).
What makes a state Islamic is several things and the most important is that
they adopt Islam as the ideological system of life, not Capitalism, democracy,
Socialism/Communism, etc. The last state to do what was abolished in 1924 by
the hands of the devils.
Then you will see the justice and true human advancement. Not exploiting the
people like the colonialist devils but liberating the people. Not making them
second class citizens like the colonialist but equal citizens. We have moved
our capitals of the Islamcu state to lands we liberated; the devil colonialists
never moved their capitals to lands they conquered.
But when God wills, the Caliphate will return soon.
Mahdi Muhammad
Mr Mahdi
(http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm ) and elsewhere that has the age
of consent for sex as young as 12 years old. In America, is it generally 18.
So according to the man made belief of "age of consent" which is based on what
is fixed and not what is in accordance to human nature, countries that do not
have their age limit to that of 18 are countries that promote "pedophilia".
The inconsistent mind of human beings are the one of the causes of their own
confusion and inconsistency. They can't even agree on the simple issue of "age
of consent," since they are not basing it on what agrees with human nature.
At any rate, another very interesting fact to point out is none of the early
attacks against the Prophet Muhammad (saaws) were in regards to the marriage to
A`ishah, since marriages until recently were common.
If you can find an attack of Muhammad on the issue to the marriage of A`isha
that predates the last two or three centuries, good luck because you won't find
it.
But as far as pedophilia goes, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 55b) allows the marriage
to three year olds!! (http://www.abbc2.com/islam/english/toread/talmud2.htm ).
Why don't people today started bashing Judaism on the issue of pedophilia?
Jesus (as) never lead a state. He didn't fight wars because he was not a
leader of an ideological state like Muhammad (saaws). Jesus never married
either so where are the laws of marriage that we see Jesus implementing? So do
we abolish marriage because Jesus never married?
Getting back to Jesus (as), he said that he claim to fulfil the Law and not
break it. So explain to be why Christians break every Mosaic law? Even
according to what the Bible claims that Jesus said, Christianity is a heresy.
Imagine a religion being a heresy according to your own holy book.
Mahdi Muhammad
Mr Mahdi
>in Jesus anyway, never mind believing in the trinity. So how would it be
>mentioned in the Old Testament?
Christianity came from Judaism. The "Holy" Bible contains both the New and Old
Testament. The word Trinity is not mentioned in either the New or Old
Testament. Jesus said he came to fulfil the Mosaic Law, which can be found in
the OT. At any rate, if Christianity came from Judaism and Christianity has
beliefs and practices that complete go against Judaism, Christianity is
basically a heresy according to the Bible and Judaism.
As for the NT, it never mentions or alludes to the Trinity. The verse you
quote only supports the concept of Trinity after it was formulated 300 years
after Jesus in the Nicene Creed.
If the Trinity is a foundation of a creed, why on earth is the "word" never
mentioned anywhere in the Bible? Why did it take 300 years after Jesus to come
up with that word?
Mahdi Muhammad
Mr Mahdi
>actually is the return of Christ, the Bab or Baha'u'llah.
I know, and that also goes for the Imam Mahdi. Bahais cannot even agree who is
the Imam Mahdi, bab or bahaullah. Bab claimed to be Imam Mahdi and bahais say
that bahaullah is the promised one of Islam, who of course, is Imam Mahdi.
According to bahaism, both bab and bahaullah are the Imam Mahdi! How silly can
one get!
I never seen a "religion" like bahaism where the creed is even disputed amongst
bahais of the *same* sect. Bahais gave me totally contradictory explanations
of how they can justify having a prophet, messenger and religion after Islam,
from things like how "Seal of the Prophets" were for the Adamic cycle
(conceding that Muhammad was the last) to how "Seal" does not mean last (both
explanations contradict and invalidate each other).
Bahaism since day one is an utter joke. After studying bahaism I realized that
most the titles that bahais attribute to bahaullah were never claimed by
bahaullah but those who came after him. It is interesting because it proves
that the bahai creed is still being formulated, which proves that even
bahaullah was imcomplete in regards to the teachings of his own religion!
Furthermore, it proves that bahai doctrine did not begin nor end with
bahaullah, proving the case that bahaullah did not address all the needs for
people in this day and age.
Mahdi Muhammad
errol9
So much for the 9th century House of Wisdom in Baghdad
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Kindi.html
No doubt the Islamic peoples of today do no justice to themselves by finding
fault with western Christianity because of their own failings.
Many Muslims attitudes to life remember me of the squander of a husband who
spends all his inheritance then blames his poor wife because she has no food
to feed him. Then in his resentment he becomes jealous and resentful with
anger of those others who have been pious and worked hard to make ends meet.
Errol
in article 29a4262b.03050...@posting.google.com, QisQos at
Qis...@aol.com wrote on 6/5/03 4:27 pm:
Matt Menge
> >In my mind this is the issue. To receive a revelation from God is, by
> >definition, above the level of a normal human being.
> >
>
> Your brainwashed mind of course refuses to concede to anything wrong with
> bahaism, so you obfuscate and twist the issue as well as the language.
Well gosh Mahdi, I'm flattered.
First,
> to receive revelation from God is given to certain people whom God chose, and
> of course, the last one to receive it was Muhammad (saaws).
This argument has been done to death.
> At any rate,
> although the messengers and prophets were special because they received
> revelation, they were not above the status of human beings. The bahai heresy
> of "Manifestation of God" puts these men above the status of human beings,
> giving them divine attributes.
The difference between the Baha'i concept and the Islamic concept is
that in the Baha'i concept the divine revelation is perpetual, whereas
in the Islamic concept divine revelation only comes in brief spurts.
The Manifestations of God are otherwise human. They get old and die.
They have to eat and sleep. Sometimes They don't even know what is
going to happen to Them.
> To use your faulty logic, being a genius is being above the level of a "normal"
> human being.
Being able to lift 400 pounds is being above the level of normal
> human beings.
I think you are misusing the word "normal"; statiscally it means
within a few standard deviations from average. But I digress.
I can go on and on but this shows the fallacy of your logic.
> Given something such as strength, intelligence, and even revelation that
> "normal" human beings generally do not have does not make you more or less
> human than a normal human being.
An infallible revelation from God is a qualitative difference.
Either you've got it or you don't. It does not mean you are no longer
human, but it does mean you speak on God's behalf, and God is
definitely not human.
> Stick with the issue and no amount of twisting it would save your false
> religion from the reality that it can be refuted and it is not from God.
I am sticking with the issue, Mahdi. I assume by "twisting" you mean
that I said something you did not expect.
Regards,
Matt
Brid
and children with respect and accorded them dignity. He sets the
standard for us all.
Brid
PS Cal, I haven't been able to track down the Black Pearls book here
yet, but there is a copy of Segal's 'Black Diaspora' on the shelves.
Is it worth reading too?
crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<13188-3EB...@storefull-2336.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
errol9
mrm...@aol.com wrote on 6/5/03 6:22 pm:
Madhi you Muslims get so annoyed over the Christian trinity just as some
Baha'is who get all hot and bothered about some Christian beliefs. If it
bothers you so much why do you live in the Christian west. Go away back to
some other middle eastern country were you dont have to even look at white
Christians anymore. Take up the ubbly bubbly pipe with a touch of that old
dark arabian Bob Hope they smoke and calm your nerves. You might even be
able to trade a couple of camels for a few dusty maidens to smooth your brow
tickle your fancy and take away all that stress and tension brought on by
all these nasty white redneck bastards you met in the west.........Errol
Errol
>
> Mahdi Muhammad
>
> http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/index.html
Brid
>
> Oh Lordy, Sister Brid,
>
> Thou hast come under the wrath of Miss Maddy! For thou hast stated
> things that are NOT so in the world according to Maddy where Muslims
> are good and all else is bad.
And what a sad and frightening world it is too. Brother M. should
preach to the brethern at alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox. They
eat his kind for breakfast there with pitta and falafels!
>
> Not to worry! He's essentially just like Splasher, a bit of a
> bungalow - only fatter and more hare-brained!
>
> Dermod.
>
Now, Now Dermod, He sounds nothing like Splasher.
Brid
QisQos
Your imaginary history of the world is most fascinating Mr. Mahdi.
I bid you good day.
Q is Q
Mr Mahdi
>Madhi you Muslims get so annoyed over the Christian trinity
God is annoyed of this evil lie and heresy. Not only that, the Bible does not
even mention or allude to God as a Trinity, that is why the Nicene Creed had to
come up with the innovation to try to justify their paganism and make it look
monotheistic. You Mr. Gilligan need to study history, and the funny thing is,
that even Christian historians admit to the creation of the "trinity concept"
in the Nicene Creed.
As for the rest of your racist rants Mr. Gilligan, I see that your innate
racism and hatred of all that challenges white Christian supremacy and hegemony
makes you hate the truth and cling to falsehood. Truth hurts, and since you
are a Christian, you realized that your religion is refuted and not from God so
you decide to talk about something else, since you cannot defend your refuted
religion with evidence.
Mahdi Muhammad
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 6/5/03 7:58 pm:
> The difference between the Baha'i concept and the Islamic concept is
> that in the Baha'i concept the divine revelation is perpetual, whereas
> in the Islamic concept divine revelation only comes in brief spurts.
So what you are saying Matt is the greater percentage of Muslim males suffer
more from premature ejaculation than do Baha'is. Three brief spurts and is
all over. Baha'i males at least manage five.....................Errol
Mr Mahdi
>Your imaginary history of the world is most fascinating Mr. Mahdi.
>
Then refute it. The fact remains that you as a white Christian supremist would
outright ignore the evil nature of many of your people is indicative that your
religion produces evil fruit that are utterly hypocritical. If a Christian
murders, you ignore but if a Muslim slaps the face, you rant on how Islam is
evil that it would make people slap faces. I seen this hypocrisy from many
Christians who bash everything other than white Christian dogma.
As a matter of face, Christians have been the biggest killers of people. They
killed 6 million Jews in WWII as well as started the war and WWI before that.
They were involved in the Cold War were more millions were killed. They nuked
civilians in Japan twice and colonialized nearly the whole world and treated
the people they conquered as inferior human beings.
If I all say is "imaginary", refute it. Again, the simple fact remains that
you refused to even try to refute because you know it is the truth and your
innately evil nature makes you ignore your own history and focus on everything
that is not white or Christian. I refuted your imaginary because facts and
evidence prove you wrong. You couldn't refute me because facts and evidence
prove me right.
I bid you bad day.
Mahdi Muhammad
Randy Burns
had any time for women do you? or any of the other apostles?
Cheers, Randy
--
Brid <bridci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5a5c190.03050...@posting.google.com...
Randy Burns
Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03050...@posting.google.com...
errol9
mrm...@aol.com wrote on 6/5/03 10:49 pm:
Tell me Madhi are you a truthful member of the Islam Shoghi Effendi has
told all American Baha'is what they must do:................Errol
"The mission of the American Bahais is no doubt to eventually establish the
truth of Islam in the West."
- from a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer
July 30, 1941
>
>
> Mahdi Muhammad
>
> http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/index.html
Matt Menge
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BADDFBDE.227D6%err...@ntlworld.com>...
Paul Hammond
> Exellent post QisQos.
>
> So much for the 9th century House of Wisdom in Baghdad
> http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Kindi.html
> No doubt the Islamic peoples of today do no justice to themselves by finding
> fault with western Christianity because of their own failings.
>
Oh Errol, I'm so happy for you.
I've taught you something, and now you refer to it again.
Well done!
Now, I would join in here to defend Islam's reputation against
such an attack - but you won't get me arguing on Maddy's
side for money - so you'll just have to imagine what I
would say here, and maybe google up some of my past posts
on the subject if you'd like to know what I think.
Paul
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 7/5/03 10:08 am:
Well then you are a hypocrite if you wont support Madhi. This only shows you
are more interested in personalities than the objective subject....Errol
errol9
mrm...@aol.com wrote on 6/5/03 10:49 pm:
> Gilligan wrote:
>
>> Madhi you Muslims get so annoyed over the Christian trinity
>
> God is annoyed of this evil lie and heresy.
Madhi, do you consider yourself a good Muslim with all these recent insults
you have come out with against white Christians in your recent posts. Do you
honestly believe the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would approve of your actions.
Prophet Muhammad's Charter of Privilages to Christians
This was the letter written to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt.
Sinai in 628 AD:
"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who
adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants,
the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my
citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No
compulsion is to be on them.Neither are their judges to be removed from
their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a
house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the
Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's
covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my
secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel
or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place
without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to
pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented
from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the
nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the
world)."
This charter of privileges has been honored and faithfully applied by
Muslims throughout the centuries in all lands they ruled. Interesting
according to the Charter Muslims should respect their Christian brothers and
sisters. But honestly Mr Madhi do you think you could you ever see the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) writing such a charter for the Baha'i Faith?
Mr Madhi, If the Prophet Muhammad (PBUM) were alive today would he accept or
refute the Baha'i concept of Manifestations of God the Bab or Baha'u'llah?
Errol
Cal E. Rollins
Yes. Segal's black diaspora book is worth reading, since it's the most
definative one on the topic. If you want to understand slavery in the
Baha'i Holy Households and in 19th century Iran, then Segal's _Islam's
Black Slaves_ is a must. The info on sex with slave boys among the
aristocracy would give you a good deal of insight into understanding the
prohibition against it in Baha'u'llah's Aqdas. Maybe even Susan has
read the book by now, although some time back she felt such a book she'd
never heard of could be of any value (it was in the NYT book review).
When you read Segal's chaper on "Iran: the "Heretic Country," see if you
don't get chills and fever that nowhere have you seen Baha'is, even the
scholars, recommending it be read, although it was targeted toward the
Black Muslims (Nation of Islam). You'll think, however, he's alluding
to the Faith. At least I did. It sure scared the hell out of me.
Great guy, Segal.
Mahdi's comments on Islam are serving the same purpose. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
You may be correct on what goes on in other countries regarding sex and
marriage with children, but in the West among "civilized" or highly
technological persons we value the concept of childhood, the time when
our babies develop those qualities needed for adult life. We don't
appreciate having that precious time impinged upon by sex-driven,
domineering adults wishing to exercise their salaciousness upon
developing children. I recall the comment attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha
when He reportedly told Baha'is to allow the then infant Shoghi Effendi,
the future Guardian of the Faith, to play and be a child, for he would
have lots of responsibilities and challenges being an adult. In my
opinion, childhood is precious and ought not to be abused by adults--for
profit or even by prophets.
When I read that article in the Los Angeles Times a while back about
Muhammad, then an old man, having sex with a nine year old (maybe even a
six year old), I was mightily dismayed. Then I recently read the Muslim
website on the traditions surrounding Aisha, including the graphic
pedophilia (she and the other children were even laughing about
Muhammad's sperm count, amount, or whatever, for Allah's sake! ) Did
she ever get pregnant, or was she too young at six or nine? What is the
purpose of a Muslim marriage?
To me, the Muslim view on sexual abuse of children doesn't bode well for
civilized people. Allah help the world's children if Islam gets into
the West in any appreciable degree (maybe it's too late?)! Or am I
wrong, unfair, or misinformed here? I don't seem to be, from what I
read in your last post on the subject. You circuitously seem to agree.
--Cal
errol9
Rollins at crol...@webtv.net wrote on 7/5/03 3:21 pm:
This is a good post Cal and spoken from the heart. I agree with you 100%
But, one question remains unanswered concerning the divine neture of the
Baha'i belief in Progressive Revelation.
If Baha'is look upon the Prophet Muhammad as a "Manifestation of God" how
can they at the same time judge him as a *PEDOPHILE*
You would agree Muhammad cannot be both a Manifestation of God and a
*PEDOPHILE* at the same time, he has to be either one or the other?
Errol
Paul Hammond
Try looking up the definition of the word "hypocrite",
Errol dear. There's probably a picture of you by it,
considering how you read any post from me as a personal
attack on you, regardless of content.
Paul
Mr Mahdi
>refute the Baha'i concept of Manifestations of God the Bab or Baha'u'llah?
Bahaism is a heresy and Prophet Muhammad (saaws) prophecized the emergence of
people from the Muslim community who would claim to be prophets and messengers
and creators of a new religion. During the time of the Prophet (saaws), there
was a person named Musailama al-Kadhdhaab who claimed prophetood and Muhammad
(saaws) ordered the Muslims to fight him and his followers. So in other words,
he would refute the concept of "Manifestation of God" and the whole religion of
bahaism.
Mahdi Muhammad
Cal E. Rollins
Well it seems to me quite simple. We get the civilized world to accept
Muhammad or change the age of consent to six instead of 15, then we
couldn't possibly view Muhammad in any way but a Prophet. However,
you'll recall that Baha'u'llah in the Iqan points out the human flaws in
the Prophets which make them a sour/sore test to potential believers.
Essentially, then, it's our fault if we can't overlooked Their faults.
Luckily for Them, most of the followers of any of the Prophets tend to
overlook the problematics unless they're dealing with societally touchy
taboos--slavery and pedophilia two of them. At some point in our
Manifestational History maybe the marginalization of females outside the
seats of real power will be a touchy issue to religious people. Star
would like that to be sooner rather than later, but too late for another
800 plus years. Star, eat your heart out!
But, anyway, a true devote of Muhammad has to overlook the fact that He
had sex with a child-bride. At least He married her. I'm one of his
devotes but am sorely tested by that bit of news, now confirmed by Mahdi
who finds the news perfectly compatible to his personal beliefs. Ich
and ouch and boo-hoo! --Cal
Brid
Sure what do they know about it? Take my advice Brother and go to
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox or look in at the Eastern
Orthodox board at Beliefnet. Don't bother with Baha'is or wet western
liberal Christians, go to the people whose faith is based on the one
holy consubstantial and life-creating Trinity. A *warm* welcome awaits
you, I guarantee it!
Sister Brid
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote in message news:<20030506142243...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
errol9
Rollins at crol...@webtv.net wrote on 7/5/03 7:15 pm:
What I find hard to swallow is had the reverse been the case and Jesus
Christ had had so many wives as Muhammad had. Also had one of them been a
child bride of six or nine years old the Muslims (with their already unusual
views agaist western sexual depravity) would have ripped Jesus's moral and
spirtual wellbeing to absolute shreds screaming *PEDOPHILE* *PEDOPHILE*
*PEDOPHILE* from every street corner from New York to Mecca......Errol
Mr Mahdi
>marriage with children, but in the West among "civilized"
Give me a break. Your "civilized" society tolerates racism. I guess racism is
civilized. Your "civilized" societies has one of the highest crime rates in
the world, even to the point people are killing each other over shoes and over
stares. Your "civilized" society treats women less than a human being and
instead value them as sex objects. Your society has kill the Indians and even
experimented with harmful chemicals one innocent people. Your society allows
all types of porn and immoral values, and yet you call this civilized.
If this what is civilized, I would never want such filth. As far a marriages,
things like swinging, orgies, homosexuality, are more tolerated than a man
having more than one wife, giving them what is due and treatly them fairly.
Adultery is not a crime but "bigamy" is.
What a hypocrite and how dare you call your society "civilized". Tell that the
blacks who have for centuries in America been victims of such wicked racism to
the point of being lynched, raped, discriminated and every other crime against
humanity launched against them.
As far as sex stories are concerned, you need to read the Bible, which contains
chockfull of porno talk. Read Ezekiel 25 for starters.
And your god bahaullah (may God curse him) had 3 wives, despite attempt to
"abolish" (which is never did but those who came after did) polygamy. If
polygamy was wrong, why didn't your god practiced what he preached and divorced
the two other wives?
>What is the
>purpose of a Muslim marriage?
To fulfil our duties towards God by creating a generation of fearful
worshippers of God and not a society where kids kill over kids and people are
having kids out of wedlock, like your "civilized" society does.
I forgot, you are civilized, so all these things God condemns are okay and all
the things God allows are wrong, since it not "civilized". And how stupid to
say civilized because that very word does not have a static meaning but a very
relative and dynamic one. It depends on how one defines civilized, and people
defined it differently.
May God protect humanity from your "civilized" society that has been the cause
of so many wars, killing, rape, exploitation and every other evil in this
earth.
Mahdi Muhammad
Brid
> Actually only Luke does that, you don't really believe that Paul or Peter
> had any time for women do you? or any of the other apostles?
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
Yes Randy I do. Peter was married so he obviously had time for women.
He travelled to Joppa to raise a woman, Dorcas, from the dead! Women
were also among those mentioned as important supporters in the work of
Paul, including Lydia and Priscilla, and Paul holds up the faith of
Eunice and Lois as an example to Timothy. The early church was very
attractive to women, especially widows, as it made provision for them
in a hostile world. There is a wealth of new research being undertaken
in this area.
Luke is not the only one of the four evangelists who tells us of
Christ's attitude to women, the other synoptics do as well. John has
much to add about Martha and Mary of Bethany and the Samaritan woman
at the well with whom Christ discussed theology.
These things are there Randy, and are being rediscovered anew. It is
the fate of women to be marginalized when men control things, they
don't call history his story for nothing!
Brid
Brid
'Islam's Black Slaves'. Looks like I'll have to order that one through
a university library. I'll start with the Black Diaspora since it's
actually on the shelves.
I don't know if I am surprised that Segal's work on Islamic slavery is
not on the Baha'i recommended reading list, it's such an explosive
topic. Heck, I would prefer to see some books on Baha'u'llah's
long-suffering wives rather than Queen Marie of Romania!
Brid
crol...@webtv.net (Cal E. Rollins) wrote in message news:<14679-3E...@storefull-2331.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
errol9
bridci...@yahoo.com wrote on 7/5/03 10:06 pm:
> Thanks Cal. I was getting the Black Pearls title mixed up with Segal's
> 'Islam's Black Slaves'. Looks like I'll have to order that one through
> a university library. I'll start with the Black Diaspora since it's
> actually on the shelves.
>
> I don't know if I am surprised that Segal's work on Islamic slavery is
> not on the Baha'i recommended reading list, it's such an explosive
> topic. Heck, I would prefer to see some books on Baha'u'llah's
> long-suffering wives rather than Queen Marie of Romania!
You touched on something here which is very interesting Brid. How many women
in Babi/Baha'i history is there any literature on. With the exception of
Tahrith the only female "letter of the Living" little or nothing has been
recorded about early women in this so called new modern religion which
shouts from the roof tops about its equality between men and women.
Errol
Dermod Ryder
"Mr Mahdi" <mrm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030506143410...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> I know, and that also goes for the Imam Mahdi. Bahais cannot even
agree who is
> the Imam Mahdi, bab or bahaullah. Bab claimed to be Imam Mahdi and
bahais say
> that bahaullah is the promised one of Islam, who of course, is Imam
Mahdi.
> According to bahaism, both bab and bahaullah are the Imam Mahdi!
How silly can
> one get!
Anticipating the return of the Caliphate looks like a good contender.
Dermod Ryder
"errol9" <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:BADF24DC.22A0A%
> What I find hard to swallow is had the reverse been the case and
Jesus
> Christ had had so many wives as Muhammad had. Also had one of them
been a
> child bride of six or nine years old the Muslims (with their already
unusual
> views agaist western sexual depravity) would have ripped Jesus's
moral and
> spirtual wellbeing to absolute shreds screaming *PEDOPHILE*
*PEDOPHILE*
> *PEDOPHILE* from every street corner from New York to
Mecca......Errol
The Gospels are strangely quiet on the marital status of Jesus. There
are several strains of thought on this, the most interesting being
that it would have been most strange if he had not been married; it
being almost compulsory for a Jew at that period. Had he been married
then what of the issue of the marriage? And who was his wife? The
one known as Magdalene who has been libelled down the ages as a common
whore?
Catholicism has traditionally maintained he was not married just as it
has maintained the myth of Virgin Birth and that his mother remained
"ever-Virgin" despite the obvious allusions in the Holy Writ to his
brothers (including especially James, whom Eisenman identified as the
"Teacher of Righteousness"). The myth of Virgin Birth arises from the
translation of the Septuagint - what we refer to as the Old Testament
translated from its native Aramaic to Greek for the Hellenic Jews.
There being no Greek word to match the Aramaic, "almah" for a young
woman who has not yet borne issue the translator substituted
"parthenos" which meant a literal virgin with no sexual experience.
The author of Matthew casting around for fulfilled prophecies came up
with this one and a myth was born.
The real problem of course is that religionists become so besotted
with the author of their own cult that they overlook major or minor
faults and then ascribe to him the status of a demi-god or the godhead
itself. Jesus was deified that he might better compete with the
pantheon of Roman gods, which even included a fair number of the
Caesars. As Macluhan so apttly put it in the sixties - the medium
became the message. Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah are as
personages revered more than any sayings attributed to them.
Dermod Ryder
> May God protect humanity from your "civilized" society that has been
the cause
> of so many wars, killing, rape, exploitation and every other evil in
this
> earth.
At least it doesn't encourage people to commit suicide in the name of
jihad.
The problem with bollixes like you is that they wish to deny people
the freedom your God gave them and that includes the freedom to sin,
if they so choose without having sex-crazed mullahs and clerics
chasing them all over the place. That's what freaks you religionists
out - you cannot abide people doing what they want to do especially if
it's enjoyable. Go get a life Maddy and wipe your ass with your right
hand - it won't kill you!
Randy Burns
mainstay of the early spread of Baha'i in the West.
Randy
--
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BADF4DC6.22B2D%err...@ntlworld.com...
> in article d5a5c190.03050...@posting.google.com, Brid at
Dermod Ryder
many women
> in Babi/Baha'i history is there any literature on. With the
exception of
> Tahrith the only female "letter of the Living" little or nothing has
been
> recorded about early women in this so called new modern religion
which
> shouts from the roof tops about its equality between men and women.
>
> Errol
There is work out there on Lady Blomfield, Ethel Rosenberg (by Rob
Weinberg), Corinne True and those three spring to mind immediately.
Anybody else have a better memory?
Dermod Ryder
"Matt Menge" <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03050...@posting.google.com...
> Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.
Man and Superman, Matt??????????
Dermod Ryder
> > bungalow - only fatter and more hare-brained!
> >
> > Dermod.
> >
>
> Now, Now Dermod, He sounds nothing like Splasher.
Oh yes - he does! Stick around here a bit longer and you'll see that,
if he continues to hang out.
One area in which they are similar is that of responding to my posts.
To the best of my recollection Maddy has only ever responded to one
post of mine in the 3 years I have haunted this place. Splashy also
fails to respond to a high proportion of my posts.
Dermod.
>
> Brid
errol9
Grim_Re...@btinternet.com wrote on 7/5/03 11:22 pm:
I was refering to the 19th century Persian women around the time of
Baha'u'llah wives were alive. This was mentioned by Brid in her post.
Errol
>
>
>
Starr*
As I recall it almost confirmed in your mind that indeed Baha'u'llah was Black.
Starr*
Dermod Ryder
>
> I was refering to the 19th century Persian women around the time of
> Baha'u'llah wives were alive. This was mentioned by Brid in her
post.
You didn't make that clear.
However you should perhaps realise that female equality is very much
an adjunct from Western influence. Certainly in the household women
knew their place and only got to eat after the men as was the norm in
that culture.
No religion has ever advocated the full equality of the sexes until
forced so to do by secular influences and pressure and, even then,
have to be dragged to even a semblance of it. I doubt that Orthodox
Christianity allows female priests - that's one area where
Protestantism has marched triumphant. No religion indeed has ever
willingly advanced the cause of humanity - too busy arguing
theological differences and trying to exterminate the opposition.
A plague on all their disgraceful houses!
Dermod Ryder
> Well then you are a hypocrite if you wont support Madhi. This only
shows you
> are more interested in personalities than the objective
subject....Errol
Support Maddy and his hare-brained scheme to restore the Caliphate and
theocratic rule by the saints????
Are you out of your tree?
>
Matt Menge
popular. I personally own the book on Bahiyyih Khanum, which contains
a great deal of her own writings. I really love this book and regard
her writings as being second only to sacred Scripture. There is also
"Portraits of Baha'i Women", which I haven't gotten down to reading
yet. I believe there is also a book out on the wife of the
Baha'u'llah.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BADF4DC6.22B2D%err...@ntlworld.com>...
QisQos
> break it. So explain to be why Christians break every Mosaic law?
This is easy MM.
The Mosaic Law was ordained as a satisfaction or reparation fot SIN.
It was based entirely upon sacrifice. Jesus, being the Perfect Victim,
or sacrificial offering fulfilled the debt. Therefore, no further
obligations are needed by the Mosaic Law, because the debt was paid by
God's own Son, Jesus Christ.
It therefore stands to reason that the numerous and burdensome
observations of the Jews are now not needed nor are they pleasing to
God; by extension neither are your lambs at Eid.
The debt is paid, Mr. Mahdi, it is now up to you to claim your
salvation by accepting Jesus as yoyr Savior, getting baptized and
reforming your life.
Nevertheless, as acceptance of the debt the Christian is expected to
adhere to a proper code of conduct outlined in the epistles of Paul,
and to participate in the sacramental life of the Church in order to
receive the Grace from God to live a Holy life.
Those who fail in this reject the Covenenat between God and His Son
for the remedy of their sins and thus fall under the code of the Law,
and because the Law has been fulfilled, those who claim the Law are in
grave peril of going to Hell.
I do hope this clears up some of the misconceptions that you have
about Jesus Christ.
Exsurgat Deus
Q
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> From:
> http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/bostom_ltr_nro_25jul02.html
>
> Unfortunately, the so-called "tolerance" and "protection" alluded to
> was afforded only upon submission to Islamic domination by a
> "Pact"--or Dhimma--which imposed degrading and discriminatory
> regulations. The main principles of dhimmitude were (and continue to
> be): (i) the inequality of rights in all domains between Muslims and
> dhimmis; (ii) the social and economic discrimination against the
> dhimmis; (iii) the humiliation and vulnerability of the dhimmis.
> Moreover, Ms. Menocal seems to be totally unaware of the dire
> consequences for infidel dhimmis in Muslim Spain who rebelled against
> the repressive Dhimma: slaughter of the rebels, and enslavement of
> their women and children.
>
> In reality, Muslim Spain was a country of constant jihad ruled under
Do you forget the reality of the times? Spain was a garden compared to
what the Catholics were doing to Catharis and their Catholic friends
across the Pyrenees - haven't we been through this once already?
who said, "Slay them
all, for the Lord doth know His own"? Some say it was Simone de
Montfort. These other guys say it was some cleric. If these Moors
were persecuting Christians, that is bad, yet, compared to de Montfort,
killing Catholics simply because they interacted with Cathars, the Moors
do look pretty good, heavenly, even, in the contrast of the day, though
beastly in our eyes.
"The pope asked Philippe II Auguste, the French king (and a cousin to
comte Raymond VI de Toulouse), to take action against high nobles in
southern France who permitted Cathars to openly practice their faith."
...
"In 1206, the pope's legate, Amaury, sent his assistant, another
Cistercian monk, Pierre de Castelnau, to Provence to form a league
of knights to fight Catharism. Castelnau invited comte Raymond VI
of Toulouse to lead this host. Raymond saw no value in such a
campaign against this community that was widely spread and well
ingranied in his lands. He rejected the "idea of waging war
on his own subjects," and Castelnau called for Raymond VI's
excommunication. The pope ratified the excommunication of Raymond
in May 1207."
...
"Raymond-Roger III de Trencavel (age 24/25 and nephew of Raymond
VI de Toulouse) realized that the crusaders were heading for his
lands. Though he was a Roman Catholic, Roger de Trencavel tolorated
particularly strong Cathar concentrations in his viscounties of
Carcassonne and Albi. He met with the religious 'commander' of the
crusade, Arnaud-Amaury, at Montpellier, to 'surrender to the Church'.
However, Amaury refused to receive Roger de Trencavel. Knowing that
his lands were to be attacked, Raymond-Roger deTrencavel quickly
returned to Carcssonne to organize his defenses."
...
"On the afternoon of 22 July, the town launched a sortie which, when
forced back into the town, was closely persued by a band of the
crusaders. Once inside the walls of the town, the crusaders seized
Béziers within an hour. Immediately there began a mass slaughter of
Catholics and Cathars, alike. When asked by one of the crusader
warriors about the possible killing of Catholics along with the
heretic Cathars, Arnaud-Amaury is supposed to have delivered his
nefarious statement "Kill them all! God will recognize His own!"
Accounts vary as to the numbered slaughtered (10,000 to 20,000, with
just over 200 estimated to have been Cathars) in this, the bloodiest
and first, battle of the crusade. The massacre frightened many
other towns to surrender without resistance."
"Present among the crusaders was a Cistercian monk, Pierre des
Vaux-de-Cernay, who ten years later would write his chronical Historia
Albigensis of the campaign."
...
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/albigens.htm
Even this Catholic Encylopedia seems to suggest that this slaughter of
the Cathars was necessary to preserve humanity. I hope someone can
explain to me how I've misread this?
"Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but
an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after
persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression,
which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort
intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp
the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death penalty was,
indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be
remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably
more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes
provoked. Raymond VI and his successor, Raymond VII, were,
when in distress, ever ready to promise, but never to earnestly
amend. Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the
Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled
moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by
Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles
that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very
extinction of the human race."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
>
> (snip) Finally, although Maimonides is frequently
> referred to by Menocal as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated
> by the enlightened rule of Muslim Spain, his own words debunk
> Menocal's utopian view of Islamic treatment of Jews: "..the Arabs have
> persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory
> legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase,
> and hate us as much as they.."
Shall I search about for some quotes from the dozens of slaves sold by the
Roman Catholic Church in the United States in the 19th century? I'd
expect that they _really_ felt disappointed, and we'd be talking a bit
closer to contemporary times and local places, for some.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote in message
> > As far as what Muslims did to Christians, we rescued you white racist supremist
> > devils from utter ignorance when we brought science, knowledge, justice, and
> > hygiene to Europe. We allowed Christians and jews to practice their faith
> > while you devils killed anyone who wasn't Christian (such as int he Crusades,
> > Inquisition, Reconquista, etc.).
>
> Let me tell you about the Reconquista.
>
> The Catholic Spaniards got tired of being taxed to death by the
What Catholic Spaniards are you talking about? Goths had invaded the Iberian
peninsula after the Vandals. Christian Iberia was predominately Arian, until after
the Moors.
Your term, "Reconquista" is a whitewash. The Franks were not "reconquorering" Spain,
they hadn't been there until they were chasing out the Andalusians!
>
> Mahometans, having their women kidnapped to fill the licentious harems
> of your robed potentates and their children sold into slavery.
Sounds almost as aweful as the local Jesuits selling whole families to slave markets
hundreds of miles away, hundreds of people!
(Snip)
Andalusia a thousand years ago looked better than Catholic Maryland did 160 years
ago.
Best wishes!
- Pat
QisQos
> outright ignore the evil nature of many of your people is indicative that your
Mr. Mahdi:
If you would be willing to support some of your statements with
sources then we could talk, but since you are only interested in
spewing forth what distorted lies you have been indoctrinated with in
the ignorant madrasas of your backwards satrap there is little use in
providing scholarly references.
Please, feel free to foam at the mouth in your taliban style: trust me
you are not winning souls for Mahomet.
Q
Randy Burns
loaf just to make you happy?
Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03050...@posting.google.com...
Mr Mahdi
evil):
>Jesus, being the Perfect Victim,
>or sacrificial offering fulfilled the debt.
This is dogmatic nonsense. You claim your God is all love but the only way He
can save people is to have an innocent person killed. That limits God's power
to do anything He choses as well as promote the idea and having an innocent
person tortured is the best way to please God. Not only that, responsibility
for sin is abrogated which makes a mass-murderer and rapist, porn star drug
king pin CHRISTIAN better in the eyes of God than a peaceful, nice Jew or
Muslim who was killed by this "saved" Christian.
Also, why did Jesus (as) command people to do good acts if they are in vain,
since getting God's mercy through good actions does not get you into Heaven,
but just saying "Jesus is my Lord and Saviour." Getting back to that, why
didn't what you call the "Father" ever God Jesus ""Lord" or God but Jesus
called God God and Lord. Furthermore, if Jesus is the saviour, why does the
Bible say Jesus was saved by God? Why couldn't the "Saviour" save himself on
the cross (Jesus never died on the cross anyways).
And this nonsense is even more funny:
>The debt is paid, Mr. Mahdi, it is now up to you to claim your
>salvation by accepting Jesus as yoyr Savior, getting baptized and
>reforming your life.
Now good deeds are in vain (since responsibility for actions are abrogated) and
now my life is only reformed through worshipping three gods? Many Christians
who used to be gang bangers, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, womenizers,
etc., totally reformed after accepting the truth of there is only one God and
Muhammad is His last prophet. Many of them don't even cuss anymore let alone
go back to their old lifestyles. Christianity never reformed any society but
made it more evil; not a single Christian country today bans porn and major
sins like adultery are totally tolerated. This is the fruits of Christianity,
which proves your religion to be from other than God. In the Arab world,
countries that have a higher rate of immoral behavior are usually countries
with a high Christian population or at least have been colonized by a Christian
country like France. AIDS and other STDs are rampant throughout the Christian
world, moreso than any Muslim country. Take a Muslim village and a Christian
one in the same city in a Muslim country and see that Christians are most
likely to commit major acts of sin such as fornication, adultery, prostitution,
etc than the Muslims do. Practically all of the countries that ban porn for
example are Muslim countries while no Christian country would ban such evil
filth.
I can take you to the ghetto (even a white christian racist supremist as
yourself) and show you churches on every corner and yet crime is so rampant in
the area. Even the ministers, preachers, priests and so on are committing acts
of adultery, fornication and even homosexuality and rape. These are again the
fruits of evil, and using this Biblical verse, proof that Christianity is from
other than God.
A religion that invented lies against God and His prophets like Christianity
did is evil. You guys do not follow Jesus but Paul, who invented heresies and
put them into Christianity and slandered the honorable name of Jesus (as).
Must I keep reminding (and you keep ignoring) and your hatred of Islam stems
from the fact that your ancestors hated Islam for being the only true force
that stood in the face of white Christian supremacy? Must I keep reminding you
that it is no coincidence that nearly all of the anti Islam people are white
christians, even though Christians make a minority in the world and whites make
even a smaller minority amongst christians.
Thank for proving the evil nature of being a racist christian bigot. You help
people to leave and be turned off by Christianity than those who openly hate
it.
Mahdi Muhammad
Cal E. Rollins
Obviously you haven't read Ronald Segal's _Islam's Black Slaves_. Read
it to get a true picture of black slavery in Islam. Not a pretty
history. So don't get cute about racism in the West. Read that book,
then hang your head in shame.
And you've got to be kidding about Western respect for women. Have you
seen a Muslim woman lately? If that's respect you Muslim men show
women, Allah save the concept of respect, because it's definitely not
what Aretha Franklin had in mind in her famous, Grammy-winning song.
So Muslims can't call anybody's pot beige on racism and respect for
women when your own kettles are jet black. At least adults are adults;
but children are children and shouldn't be the prey of old (or young)
Muslim (or any other) men. --Cal
Mr Mahdi
I don't need to. The fact remains that Christians not only enslaved more
people than Muslims but the treatment of them was FAR WORSE than Muslims
treated their slaves. In Islam, we are commanded to free slaves, while amongst
Christians, they are rewarded with money and a bigger plantation.
Slaves in Islam were not forced to be Muslims but slaves were forced to be
Christians by the white slavemasters. Slaves were seen as less than human
(even 3/5 of a human) while Islam see slaves as 100% human.
Many blacks are not converting to bahaism or Christianity to flee from racism
but to Islam. I seen it all my life and what I never saw was bahai
missionaries going to the prisons (or even ghettos) teaching their stupid
religion amongst the downtrodden. Are they afraid?
>Have you
>seen a Muslim woman lately?
It is amazing that when you devils whine about why Muslim women cover, you
never ponder the fact that there are more women than men on earth and yet
nearly all of the rapes are men raping women and nearly all of the consumers of
porn are men! If men and women are truly the same in regards to their nature,
why men are more sex-crazed than women? If it were the same, the same amount
of women would buy porn just like men and vice versa and the rapes of women
against men would be the rape as men against women.
Women are beautiful and proper dress is to protect their honor and not to
exploit then and treat then like sex objects as they do in the West.
You are more stupid than I thought, since bahaism and secularism has
brainwashed your mind and overlook the evil of your own society and its
double-standards.
Why don't I see you complaining about why a woman who takes off her clothes
makes more money in the west than a woman who has a PhD and is helping humanity
in a positive way? Is this how yori beloved West "respects" women?
Mahdi Muhammad
Cal E. Rollins
You got that right. There's plenty of hush-hush about the fate of
Navaab. Eventually, when we know more, I suspect we'll have the makings
of a Neo-Greek tragedy. Plus I'd like to know why all those
half-siblings of the Master, the Greatest Holy Leaf, and the Purest
Branch were such rotters and hateful ones. The way I count, there were
three good ones and 11 bad apples. Sure makes a person who is not
completely brain-dead think. I wish I really knew our history. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Don't forget Juliet Thompson if you want to read about a real, fantastic
woman. And her buddy Lua Getsinger was nobody to shake a stick at
either. --Cal
Sekhmet
>There is work out there on Lady Blomfield, Ethel Rosenberg (by Rob
>Weinberg), Corinne True and those three spring to mind immediately.
>Anybody else have a better memory?
There are also books on Martha Root, Dorothy Baker, Tahirih, Bahiyyih Khanum,
and Navvab, I think. And probably more...
--Sekhmet
errol9
> Well, I know here in Minnesota the book on Martha Root is pretty
> popular. I personally own the book on Bahiyyih Khanum, which contains
> a great deal of her own writings. I really love this book and regard
> her writings as being second only to sacred Scripture. There is also
> "Portraits of Baha'i Women", which I haven't gotten down to reading
> yet. I believe there is also a book out on the wife of the
> Baha'u'llah.
I was referring more to 19th century early Bahai' Persian women other than
Tarith I should have mentioned Bahiyyih Khanum (The greatest Holy leaf).
However If one reads this book on Bahiyyih Khanum one cant help but notice
she is used as a medium to propagate and idolise her father and brother. The
book is not a true biography on her life, it is a hagiography to Baha'u'llah
and Abdul-Baha. In fact most of Shoghi Effendi's secondary literature
becomes utterly boring after you pass the introduction stage, they nearly
all tell the same tear dripping tale about Baha'u'llah's horrendous life
(from the Black hole in Terahan to Acre already covered in Nabil's
Dawnbreakers by the same author. I dare say the book written on Baha'u'llah
1st wife would undoubtly be similar. Persian Bahais of that time were (like
Muslims) inclined to keep their females hidden out of the way and very
little was known about them. There have been other books on 20th century
western Bahai women who served the Faith like Martha Root, Lady Blomfield,
Ethel Rosenberg & Corinne True (already mentioned by Dermod). But all in
all in the last 50 years of the 19th century there were only two, Tarith and
Bahiyyih Khanum. Baha'u'llah's other two wives number 2 & 3 became Covenant
Breakers, so nobody will be writing about them. In fact I doubt if you will
find little or no research material on 19 century Baha'i females anymore
than you would find on the Babs or Bahau'llah's slaves and servants, because
most females were treated no better than their Muslim neighbours,like serfs.
Errol
Dermod Ryder
> for the remedy of their sins and thus fall under the code of the
Law,
> and because the Law has been fulfilled, those who claim the Law are
in
> grave peril of going to Hell.
I'm only in "grave peril"!?!?!?!?!?
What must I do to be lost?
Dermod Ryder
"Cal E. Rollins" <crol...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10688-3EB...@storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
But you do know the history, Cal. It's there in black and white (no
pun inteded).
After all those rotten apples began to become rotten they were written
out of the plot and so became non-persons who did not exist. i think
this is quite easy to recognise and accept.
Dermod.
>
Dermod Ryder
> >Mr Madhi, If the Prophet Muhammad (PBUM) were alive today would he
accept or
> >refute the Baha'i concept of Manifestations of God the Bab or
Baha'u'llah?
>
> Bahaism is a heresy and Prophet Muhammad (saaws) prophecized the
emergence of
> people from the Muslim community who would claim to be prophets and
messengers
> and creators of a new religion. During the time of the Prophet
(saaws), there
> was a person named Musailama al-Kadhdhaab who claimed prophetood and
Muhammad
> (saaws) ordered the Muslims to fight him and his followers.
Aren't these religionists the same the world over and from one age to
another? If anybody disagrees with them they try to kick the livin'
shit out of him! and then they have the pure faced effrontery to
present themselves as "civilised".
Arsebiscuits!
Dermod Ryder
Indeed not! But ye are both doing a grand job promoting the virtues
and verities of "God-fearing Atheism" - the product I am currently
preparing for launch into the lucrative religious market.
> Q
How's "M"?
Dermod Ryder
Trinity?
Why on earth is he asking anybody about anything? He already knows
all the answers.
> Sure what do they know about it?
Not a lot.
> Take my advice Brother and go to
> alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox or look in at the Eastern
> Orthodox board at Beliefnet.
Do you want to give him heart failure? On second thoughts ......
> Don't bother with Baha'is
We don't bother with them either.
> or wet western
> liberal Christians,
Just buy them a raincoat.
> go to the people whose faith is based on the one
> holy consubstantial and life-creating Trinity.
The old three-in-one - "lubricates, preserves and protects" your soul
on its interminable journey through the travails of life. These
heretics just fail to understand the mystery of the Trinity. Patrick
gave them the analogy of the shamrock but, sure, heathens like Sister
Maddy have never seen a shamrock, never mind quaffed a pint of the
pure!
The Trinity is not, of course, three Gods (though it is a University
College in Dublin) but one God manifest with three separate, distinct
but united persons. Not unlike Nemo, Starr and Splashie - Father,
Daughter and the Holy Spigot (would that we could turn off the
interminable flow) - whom one can see as a trinity (but not the Holy
Trinity) here on this humble group - three separate persons united in
one thought and expression.
Shall I prostrate myself in total humility before your Sisterhood and
crave forgiveness for this monstrous blasphemy? Shall I incur the
Curse of Brid Cilldara? Or shall we trade - my Curse of the Reaper
against your Glendalough Saint?
> A *warm* welcome awaits
> you, I guarantee it!
It's HELL!
Bishop Dermod.
>
> Sister Brid
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 8/5/03 2:38 am:
> Shall I search about for some quotes from the dozens of slaves sold by the
> Roman Catholic Church in the United States in the 19th century? I'd
> expect that they _really_ felt disappointed, and we'd be talking a bit
> closer to contemporary times and local places, for some.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
>
Now now now Pat, be careful, remember when I sent some US Newspaper
websites regarding ( Child molesting Catholic Priests) to TRB yourself and a
load of other feckers sent and Aircraft carrier fleet plus the marines
after me accusing dear old Errol of being an Anti-Fenian Orange Bigot?
But do send them I wont complain, the WASP's sold a lot of slaves also, so
the Catholic's were not the only ones to buy and sell slaves. Were not many
of the original slaves dealers in Africa Muslim. Every religion was involved
in the slave trade including the Baha'i Faith, so its no big deal...Errol
errol9
mrm...@aol.com wrote on 8/5/03 3:31 am:
> Why don't I see you complaining about why a woman who takes off her clothes
> makes more money in the west than a woman who has a PhD and is helping
> humanity in a positive way? Is this how yori beloved West "respects" women?
Madhi, Women in the west are not forced at gun point to take their clothes
off. Some of them like doing it willingly. some Naturalist's (both sexes)
like taking their clothes off just like God made them. They go nude swimming
(its called skinny dipping) go to nature camps were they play tennis, and
sit down to eat together and go rammbling in the countryside. Mind you they
have to watch out for those little busy busy bees, wasps and bugs that bite,
because getting stung on the bum can spoil a whole afternoon. I dont know if
the Baha'is approve of naturalism. But your Muslims are as bad as old
stuffed shirts evangelical Protestants when it comes to baring all. In the
west either sex can take off their clothes and do a PHD at the same time,
suit yourself. Here is an Art exhibition were 200 guests took their clothes
off as part off the venue. I wonder if the UHJ will invite it to Haifa in
the near future. Are not the Baha'is always shouting from the rooftops how
wonderful supporters of the arts they are. I wonder what the average Baha'i
think of this Conceptual Nude opening art exibition at the Saatchi gallery?
I think many Baha'i fundies would be supporting you Madhi along with
Evangelical Prod's in holding a flag waving campaign to stop such outrageous
unGodly behaviour. I think its high culture professional conceptual art.
Errol
BBC NEWS ENTERTAINMENT ARTS
Nude opening for Saatchi gallery
Nigella Lawson arrived in style
A celebrity guest list has helped launch Charles Saatchi's art gallery on
the banks of the Thames in London.
More than 1,000 guests gathered for the lavish opening party at London's
Saatchi Gallery dedicated to contemporary art.
Among those attending were Saatchi's partner Nigella Lawson, model Sophie
Anderton, actors Jeremy Irons and Stephen Fry and Sir Mick Jagger's daughter
Jade.
Guests were treated to a nude happening by Spencer Tunick, with almost 200
volunteers dressing down for the cameras
Photos from the party
Following the 35-year-old artist's directions, 160 naked volunteers, some
giggling with embarrassment, posed in several positions - to the delight of
tourists on the adjacent London Eye.
Brid
of the enemy. You shock me.
Abbess Brid
"Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<b9dc2q$i1tvh$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de>...
Cal E. Rollins
You really should read Segal's _Islam's Black Slaves_. One of the
stated reasons it was written was to inform American blacks (and blacks
elsewhere) about the horrors of slavery in Islam. I, like you, thought
that Muslim slavers and owners were benign. However, Islam has done its
fair share in contributing to the social death of a major portion of the
world's society through the aegis of slavery. So feel free to wallow in
the sloughs of ignorance. However, I, for one, thank Allah for the
revelations in _Islam's Black Slaves_. I invite you to read the book
and free yourself of your illusions. It might be painful, but you'll
survive. I have. Allah, of all plotters, is Greatest. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
I'm totally out of the loop here (is that the correct Internet jargon
?). Who the hell is Sister Maddy? Is that a cognate of Maddy which I
assumed was Mr. Mahdi. Now if you're implying that Sister Maddy (aka
Mahdi) is really Star in another one of her disguises, I give up. --Cal
QisQos
> for sin is abrogated which makes a mass-murderer and rapist, porn star drug
> king pin CHRISTIAN better in the eyes of God than a peaceful, nice Jew or
> Muslim who was killed by this "saved" Christian.
>
Here is a link to some interesting insights about mahometanism and the
logical fallacies used by its adherents, like yourself :
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/logic.htm
"When Muslims attack the character and motives of anyone who
criticizes Islam, they are using irrelevant arguments. The character
of someone is no indication of whether he is telling you the truth.
Good people can lie and evil people can tell the truth. Thus whenever
a Muslim uses slurs such as "mean," "dishonest," "racist," "liar,"
"deceptive," etc., he is not only committing a logical fallacy but
also revealing that he cannot intellectually defend his beliefs. "
Your understanding of Christianity is quite superficial and erroneous,
no doubt based upon whatever nonsense you have been taught in your
madrassas.
The Christian is exhorted to good works: faith alone is dead:
James 2:26 - For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith
without works is dead also.
James 1:22 - But be doers of The WORD, and not hearers only, deceiving
yourselves.
As such your argument falls apart because sinners do not get
absolution simply by professing Jesus as Lord and Savior - the idea of
sola fide or Faith alone.
And again:
1 Corinthians 6:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by
the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:
all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the
power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy
both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the
Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by
his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I
then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an
harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body?
for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body,
and in your spirit, which are God's.
So you are quite incorrect in your estimation of Christian morality
and holiness, MM.
At any rate, about God being all Love, that is another modernist myth.
God is also Just and as such Judges the good and the evil, and it is
his act of Mercy that brought the sacrifice of the Cross so that those
who believe and abide therein might be saved - through a tangible sign
not merely in a hypothetical intellectual belief as you propose Mr. M.
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son that whoever
should believe on his should be saved" John 3:16
Also you have to realize that not all of the things that you blame
Christians for were done in the name of Christ.
WWI and II were most likely planned and executed by Freemasons who
have an ongoing agenda to undermine the Church and enslave humanity to
a purely naturalistic end. Protestants make up the vast majority of
Freemasons, so you can see just how easy it has been for you to
confuse the two. There is no such thing as a Catholic freemason since
they are excommunicated the minute they take that pledge - regardless
of if the person continues to say he are Catholic or not, the Church
condemns Freemasonry and its ideals. It might be interesting to know
if bahaism is actually an adaptation of Freemasonry since so many of
the bahaist principles appear based on Freemasonic ideals.
Nevertheless, many of your other points are simply irrational and
cannot be commented on, to do so would not be right. However, it would
help you to learn some rudiments of logic so that you would not
persistently arrive at erroneous conclusions as frequently as you do.
There was a time when logic was used in Islamic thought, but that went
out the window with Al Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya. I would urge you to
look into your own history and see just how badly the thinking in
Mahometan writing has become since 1300 AD.
Q
QisQos
> Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled
> moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by
> Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles
> that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very
> extinction of the human race."
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
>
>
Asd the article you cited stated the Church officially disapproved of
the extremes by which the Albigensian war was conducted. So the blame
properly falls upon both sides of the warring nobility.
The Albigensians and the extinction of humanity: that one a central
tenet of their religion - that life was evil and bringing babies into
the world was evil. They practiced abortion and birth control , not
simply to limit the population but to eliminate the birth of human
beings altogether. t
So the statement made by the Catholic Encyclopedia was not simply
hyperbole but was based upon what was known about the central belief
of the Cathars. far from being vegan pacifists they were life-hating
extremists.
But I pointed this out before about the Inquisition: the extremes
taken by the government are done without the consent of the Church.For
example, the idea of blood purity to hold office or be clergy in Spain
was a secular, not and ecclesistical law and was condemned by the
Pope. The Spanish decided to not follow what the Pope said.
About slavery, I wrote previously on TRB that the Pope in 1839 issued
a decree to the American Catholics expressly forbidding trade in or
political support of slavery. In this letter he cites previous Papal
decrees as far back as the 16th century which forbade Catholics to
trade in slaves African and Indian slaves.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm
"By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any
Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible
this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from
publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or
privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this
Apostolic Letter. "
Long before Bahallah ever said anything about the matter of slavery.
The point is that you are confusing what individuals and secular
governments do with what the Church does. These are not always in
agreement. When a secular authority acts against the wishes iof the
Church it should be evident that the secular authority, not the
Church, is the culprit and to blame for the outcome. So in your
example: Simon de Montfort and his colleagues were responsible for the
excesses of the Albigensian war, not the Pope who had demanded more
leniency.
But this concept may be too subtle to the bahaist mind which has been
trained for years to obey every decree by the UHJ or face expulsion,
investigation by the Counselors or loss of voting rights. Not every
act of disobedience in the Catholic Church results in excommunication
or public humiliation- unlike what appears to be with the bahaists.
Also in the Church there is a long tradition of due process, even in
the events leading up to the Albigensian Crusade a long period of
negotiations had taken place which abruptly ended when the Cathars
assassinated the papal Envoy on the last of the many diplomatic
missions to Occitania. You did forget to attend to that , Patrick,
that the assassination of Peter Castelnau, the papal legate, by the
"peaceable vegan Cathari" was the event which started the war.
Q
Mr Mahdi
>Here is a link to some interesting insights about mahometanism and the
>logical fallacies used by its adherents, like yourself :
>
Typical copout. To complain when you cannot refute is what devils like
yourself always do when faced in reality. You haven't proved that
Christianity, which is based on the teachings of Paul (not Jesus) and the
theologians is not a heresy according to the Bible. It is funny that centuries
of Judaic scripture never mentioned anything about the name Jesus, let alone
God being 3 in 1. Nor does the scriptures even mention that the Messiah is
also God Himself. It doesn't mention that the only way God can forgive people
is to have an innocent person tortured and killed. Your religion has no basis
in the Bible, again, making it a heresy according to your own book. And to
have a "god" that is eternal and yet dies is beyond illogical and
inconsistence, it is totally mad and absurd.
You refused to comment on the Reconquista that the devils waged against not
only the Muslims but Jews and Christians, putting a hole in your argument that
it was a war to end Muslim oppression. The Crusades was started by Christians
in the name of their god and their religion. More recently, the devils in
Serbia killed and raped over 300,000 Muslims in order to purge Serbia, Bosnia
and Kosovo from any existence of Muslim and Islam. A true indication of the
evil and barbaric nature of devils who call themselves Christians.
And don't white about me calling you a racist, because the fact is that you
devils are a minority within a minority and yet nearly 100% of the anti Islam
bashing is done by you folks. It is no coincidence, and to say it is, is to be
in pure denial.
Why doesn't the rest of the world have the same anti Islam feelings you devils
have to the point of leading Crusades and missionary campaigns? And you whine
about me calling you racist? Why hasn't the non Muslim world in Asia, Africa
and South America lead a crusade against Islam and Muslims, when they form a
majority of the world's population.
Satan has made your evil acts and nature look so nice to you that you don't
even realize how evil and hypocritical you are, since the devil and not God is
the one who is guiding you.
Try refuting this link since it contains tons of Biblical contradictions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml . I
wonder since the Bible has full of inconsistencies, does it make your god an
"author of confusion." If the Bible is confusion with its contradictions and
errors, how can you reconcile the Bible with the claim in the Bible that God is
not the author of confusion?
As for more things to "refute," tell me, which version (not translation) of the
Bible is from God? Why does the Catholic Bible have more books than the King
James? Which is more accurate?
Why was the NT formulated at the same time as the Nicene Creed? Why did it
take scholars to "determine" what books are the word of God? What was their
criterion to judge something as the word of God or not?
Christianity lead to the secular revolutions in Europe and elsewhere. In a
recent survey, it said that over 60% of all scientists are atheists.
Christianity for the thinker is a total anathema to intellectualism, and this
is evidence from the inconsistencies in Christian dogma to the hypocrisy of
Christians. Most Biblical scholars are in fact agnostics or atheists, which
should tell you how having more knowledge of the Bible makes you more of a
disbeliever in it.
For example, if Jesus (your god) loves me, why do I need to be a Christian in
order to be "saved?", if he already loves me and knows I am Muslim? He loves
me show much that if I do not become Christian, I will be sent to hell forever.
Typical christian logic.
You never answered my question in regards to a non Christian who was a good
person being killed by a wicked Christian person.
Books written by non Muslims have commented on the irrational hatred by white
Christians of Islam. Here is a good article that explains the brief history of
European hatred of Islam, even by atheist Europeans:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/orientalism.html
Mahdi Muhammad
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote in message
> > Getting back to Jesus (as), he said that he claim to fulfil the Law and not
> > break it. So explain to be why Christians break every Mosaic law?
>
> This is easy MM.
>
> The Mosaic Law was ordained as a satisfaction or reparation fot SIN.
> It was based entirely upon sacrifice. Jesus, being the Perfect Victim,
> or sacrificial offering fulfilled the debt. Therefore, no further
> obligations are needed by the Mosaic Law, because the debt was paid by
> God's own Son, Jesus Christ.
>
Who was the debt paid to? Who did God give His Son to? Has it occurred to you
that the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law were a vehicle which made sense to the
people of the time, that ultimately, man could not murder the Son of God to
obtain forgiveness of sin, for murder and rejection of God (the motivation for
killing Blessed Jesus) are not acts of repentence, but more sins.
>
> It therefore stands to reason that the numerous and burdensome
> observations of the Jews are now not needed nor are they pleasing to
> God; by extension neither are your lambs at Eid.
>
There is something to be said for that.
>
> The debt is paid, Mr. Mahdi, it is now up to you to claim your
> salvation by accepting Jesus as yoyr Savior, getting baptized and
> reforming your life.
>
I believe that this spiritual paradigm of debt has become outmoded. Another
paradigm of the Old Testament was one of proximity, that Adam and Eve dwelt with
the Lord in the garden. I believe that now is a time to dwell with God, and, in
dwelling with God, willingly, to sin no more.
>
> Nevertheless, as acceptance of the debt the Christian is expected to
> adhere to a proper code of conduct outlined in the epistles of Paul,
> and to participate in the sacramental life of the Church in order to
> receive the Grace from God to live a Holy life.
>
> Those who fail in this reject the Covenenat between God and His Son
> for the remedy of their sins and thus fall under the code of the Law,
> and because the Law has been fulfilled, those who claim the Law are in
> grave peril of going to Hell.
>
Sad, but true, certainly something for you to consider.
>
> I do hope this clears up some of the misconceptions that you have
> about Jesus Christ.
Amin!
- Pat
QisQos
> only the Muslims but Jews and Christians, putting a hole in your argument that
> it was a war to end Muslim oppression.
I did provide a lengthy comment on the Reconsquista, Mr. M. and now
you LIE and say I did not. The facts speak for themselves: the
mahometans were colonialists who enslaved and oppressed Catholic Spain
and were rightfully driven out - just as they have been from Austria
and Greece and every land with a Christian majority. Those are the
facts, it is not my problem if they do not fit the lies and
fabrications that you are taught by the fanatical mullas of your
madrassas.
Obviously I am wasting my time in discussing with you.
There is nothing further to say.
I bid you adieu I pray The Lord Jesus Christ open your eyes to the
Truth.
QisQos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the
> > Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled
> > moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by
> > Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles
> > that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very
> > extinction of the human race."
> > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
> >
> >
>
> Asd the article you cited stated the Church officially disapproved of
> the extremes by which the Albigensian war was conducted.
Oh! Clicking on the hot link, I copied and pasted below.
"The Council of Reims (1148)
excommunicated the protectors "of the heretics of Gascony
and Provence." That of Tours (1163) decreed that the
Albigenses should be imprisoned and their property
confiscated. A religious disputation was held (1165) at
Lombez, with the usual unsatisfactory result of such
conferences. Two years later, the Albigenses held a general
council at Toulouse, their chief centre of activity. The
Cardinal-Legate Peter made another attempt at peaceful
settlement (1178), but he was received with derision. The
Third General Council of the Lateran (1179) renewed the
previous severe measures and issued a summons to use force
against the heretics, who were plundering and devastating
Albi, Toulouse, and the vicinity. At the death (1194) of the
Catholic Count of Toulouse, Raymond V, his succession fell
to Raymond VI (1194-1222) who favoured the heresy. With
the accession of Innocent III (1198) the work of conversion
and repression was taken up vigorously."
Allow me to enumerate how the Church showed its disaproval of the
extremes in eliminating the Albigens:
1) It excommunicated Roman Catholics who sheltered them.
2) It decreed that they be imprisoned and forfeit their property
3) The Third Lateran Council summoned force to be used against them -
apparently they did not comply willingly with
being robbed blind and imprisoned!
4) Then Pope Innocent III decided to go medievel!
Your assertion that the Church objected to the excesses, while the
article lists some of the excesses which the Church instigated, implies
that you either failed to read the article, or, you don't consider the
imprisonment, and pillaging of all Cathars, imposed thourhg a crusade,
to be excessive.
> So the blame
> properly falls upon both sides of the warring nobility.
What about the primary schools which should have taught their charges
how to read, or the Church that might have instilled a bit of morality,
so that the congregant might know that it is excessive to slaughter
folks simply for holding a different religion.
>
> The Albigensians and the extinction of humanity: that one a central
> tenet of their religion - that life was evil and bringing babies into
> the world was evil. They practiced abortion and birth control , not
> simply to limit the population but to eliminate the birth of human
> beings altogether. t
>
I think you've confused the Roman Catholic version of the Cathari, with
the Cathari version. Even if they were killing themselves, as you
allege, that can not justify killing all those that had not killed
themselves yet, particularly when one considers that many of the victims
of the Church were also Roman Catholics who just happen to live near,
and get along with, Cathars as good neighbors.
Here is a link to some information on the Cathar Church:
http://www.ordotempli.org/ancient_cathar_rites.htm
>
> So the statement made by the Catholic Encyclopedia was not simply
> hyperbole but was based upon what was known about the central belief
> of the Cathars. far from being vegan pacifists they were life-hating
> extremists.
No. The Catholic Encyclopedia presents the official version of
Catholicism. Find the Cathar sources advocatign thuggery and you have
something.
> But I pointed this out before about the Inquisition: the extremes
> taken by the government are done without the consent of the Church.
Once again, either you have your own idea of what extreme measures, or,
you simply refuse to see that even the Roman Catholic encyclopedia
acknowledges the role of the Church in instigating this violent
oppression of a community based solely on their religion.
> For
> example, the idea of blood purity to hold office or be clergy in Spain
> was a secular, not and ecclesistical law and was condemned by the
> Pope. The Spanish decided to not follow what the Pope said.
Today, we are on the other side of the Pyrenees.
> About slavery, I wrote previously on TRB that the Pope in 1839 issued
> a decree to the American Catholics expressly forbidding trade in or
> political support of slavery.
Yes, and I previously wrote that that letter had more likely been
instigated by an incident in my neighborhood where Jesuit priests sold
hundreds of people to one or more slave markets in New Orleans, which is
hundreds of miles away.
> In this letter he cites previous Papal
> decrees as far back as the 16th century which forbade Catholics to
> trade in slaves African and Indian slaves.
> http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm
Well, no. The earlier letters specified East Indian slaves. This is
where the ban was extended to Negroes.
> "By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any
> Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible
> this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from
> publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or
> privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this
> Apostolic Letter. "
Once again, I observe this does not cite any prior ban on trading in
slaves from Africa, or slaves in general. Furthermore, that this is a
new ban, rather than a restatement of some previous ban on slaverey, can
be inferred simply by glancing up to the previous paragraph, which
includes the following statement,
"This is why, desiring to remove such a
shame from all the Christian nations,
having fully reflected over the whole
question and having taken the advice of
many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals
of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in
the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn
and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful
Christians of every condition that no one
in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil
him of his possessions, reduce to servitude,
or lend aid and favour to those who give
themselves up to these practices, or exercise
that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as
if they were not men but rather animals,
having been brought into servitude, in no
matter what way, are, without any distinction,
in contempt of the rights of justice and
humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes
to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope
of gain, propositions of purchase being made
to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions
and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in
these regions."
> Long before Bahallah ever said anything about the matter of slavery.
>
> The point is that you are confusing what individuals and secular
> governments do with what the Church does.
Not at all. You turn a blind eye to evidence provided by Roman Catholic
sources which specifically cite various bishops and councils as
instigating various unwarranted outrages against the Cathars. Instead,
you categorize it as saying that the Church really disaproved of these
things which were specifically said to have been instigated by the
Church, even the Pope! Furthermore, you misrepresent Papal statements
as saying that they have forbidden the enslavement of Africans, when
they really had specified "the Indians of the Eastern and Southern
Indies".
> These are not always in
> agreement. When a secular authority acts against the wishes iof the
> Church it should be evident that the secular authority, not the
> Church, is the culprit and to blame for the outcome.
The Jesuits who sold these African Americans were no secular authority,
nor was Innocent who ordered a crusade against the Cathars.
> So in your
> example: Simon de Montfort and his colleagues were responsible for the
> excesses of the Albigensian war, not the Pope who had demanded more
> leniency.
"With the accession of Innocent III (1198) the work of conversion and
repression was taken up vigorously."
"Innocent
III, in view of the immense spread of the heresy, which
infected over 1000 cities or towns, called (1207) upon the
King of France, as Suzerain of the County of Toulouse, to
use force. He renewed his appeal on receiving news of the
assassination of his legate, Peter of Castelnau, a Cistercian
monk (1208), which judging by appearances, he attributed to
Raymond VI. Numerous barons of northern France,
Germany, and Belgium joined the crusade, and papal legates
were put at the head of the expedition, Arnold, Abbot of
Citeaux, and two bishops. Raymond VI, still under the ban of
excommunication pronounced against him by Peter of
Castelnau, now offered to submit, was reconciled with the
Church, and took the field against his former friends."
Note, there, Innocent called for the use of force, and papal legates
were put at the head of the crusade.
> But this concept may be too subtle to the bahaist mind which has been
> trained for years to obey every decree by the UHJ or face expulsion,
Hahaha
> investigation by the Counselors or loss of voting rights. Not every
> act of disobedience in the Catholic Church results in excommunication
> or public humiliation- unlike what appears to be with the bahaists.
Well, in the case of the Albigens, they were deemed heretics by Rome,
and exterminated.
> Also in the Church there is a long tradition of due process, even in
> the events leading up to the Albigensian Crusade a long period of
> negotiations had taken place which abruptly ended when the Cathars
> assassinated the papal Envoy on the last of the many diplomatic
I had the impression that they were being punished long before the
envosy was assassinated. Also, the assisanation was attrributed to
Raymond IV, a Catholic, hardly fair to wipe out the Cathars for the
excesses of one Catholic nobleman, who would turn against their friends
on the field of battle!
> missions to Occitania. You did forget to attend to that , Patrick,
> that the assassination of Peter Castelnau, the papal legate, by the
> "peaceable vegan Cathari" was the event which started the war.
Well, that is just another example of the violence of a Roman Catholic,
and, in the bigger scheme of things of little relevance beyond an
example of your, now suspect, reading skills.
"Raymond VI, in face of the threatening
military operations urged by Innocent against him, promised
under oath to banish the dissidents from his dominions."
...
"He renewed his appeal on receiving news of the
assassination of his legate, Peter of Castelnau, a Cistercian
monk (1208), which judging by appearances, he attributed to
Raymond VI. Numerous barons of northern France,
Germany, and Belgium joined the crusade, and papal legates
were put at the head of the expedition, Arnold, Abbot of
Citeaux, and two bishops. Raymond VI, still under the ban of
excommunication pronounced against him by Peter of
Castelnau, now offered to submit, was reconciled with the
Church, and took the field against his former friends."
...
May God bless you, soon,
Mr Mahdi
>you LIE and say I did not.
You gave a response on the issue but you never admitted that the devils killed
not only Muslims but Christians and Jews. I never said you refused to comment
on the Reconquista, I said that you did not address the fact that Christians
killed not only Muslims but other Christians and Jews. That is why they fled
to the Ottoman Islamic state where they were able to freely practice their
faith. Under Muslim rule, the Jews had their best years, and even anti Muslim
scholars admit this fact. Furthermore, I urge you to study the history of how
the Muslims came to Spain in the first place.
It was an invitation from a Christian in Spain to help end Christian oppression
in Spain that first lead the Muslims in Spain. In other words, it was the plea
from a Christian to rescue Christians who were being persecuted by Christians.
The thing is that Christians had called upon Muslims to establish justice and
rescue them from a tyrant.
This is a fact that filthy, hypocritcal racist devils such as yourself hide,
since it is one of the many things that show the wicked and pure evil nature
that is rife throughout Christian history. And you devils could only hate
those who help you guys so much.
I am still waiting for the verse in the Bible where the "Father" calls Jesus
Lord. It is funny, that according to your own Bible, Jesus said "My God
(Lord), My God, why have you forsaken me"? If Jesus was Lord let alone God,
why on earth would he say that? Another heresy that even the Bible does not
support?
Mahdi Muhammad
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote in message
> > You refused to comment on the Reconquista that the devils waged against not
> > only the Muslims but Jews and Christians, putting a hole in your argument that
> > it was a war to end Muslim oppression.
>
> I did provide a lengthy comment on the Reconsquista, Mr. M. and now
> you LIE and say I did not.
Well, now you can empathize w/ those bahaists.
> The facts speak for themselves: the
> mahometans were colonialists who enslaved and oppressed Catholic Spain
Oh that is just hysterical! Can anyone _really_ believe that? Try this version:
The Visigothic state which the Muslims found such an easy victim was an ethnically
stratified society, with a fragmented
political structure, a depressed and unbalanced rural economy, and a town life which
was rudimentary at best. These Goths
(who also called themselves Thervings, or [28] "People of the Woods") were a herding
people who, entering the peninsula in
the early sixth century, tended to settle in areas ecologically suited to their
traditional economic pursuits. Thus the greatest
concentration of Visigoths settled in a triangle traced by Palencia, Toledo, and
Calatayud, with the densest settlement in the
present province of Segovia, the Campi Goticl, or present-day Tierra de Campos.
About 200,000 Goths ruled an indigenous
population of about eight million Hispano-Romans as a military elite. The ethnic
cleavage between German-speaking rulers
and Latin-speaking subjects was heightened by religious difference; the Goths were
Arian Christians who denied the divinity
of Christ, while the Hispano-Roman majority was Catholic.
...
The conquest of 711, staged in Morocco and carried out mainly by Berber horse
cavalry under Arab command, is, for a
phenomenon of such transcendence, poorly understood. Its most salient actors,
half-legendary, half-real, conquered nearly
the entire peninsula and subjugated its massive population in a matter of five years
and without much resistance. The old
legend has it that the last Visigothic king, Roderick, had forced the daughter of
Count Julian, Byzantine governor of Ceuta, a
casus belli which led to Julian's asking for Muslim help in coming to the aid of
Roderick's domestic enemies. It was
relatively common, of course, for medieval people to explain social and political
phenomena whose motives [32] were
incomprehensible to them by imputing events to the personal quirks of one leader or
another. In any case, according to
Arabic and Christian sources alike, after a small reconnoitering expedition led by
Tarīf in the summer of 710, a party of
7,000 Berbers under the command of Tāriq ibn Ziyād landed near Gibraltar (Jabal
Tāriq, "Tāriq's mountain") on or about
April 28, 711. Tāriq then occupied the area around Algeciras, sent a request for
5,000 additional troops to the governor of
Islamic North Africa, Mūsa ibn Nusayr, and proceeded along the Roman road towards
Seville. Meanwhile Roderick, away in
the north fighting Basque rebels, hastened southward, gathering a host of "100,000"
men. The two armies did battle on the
banks of the Guadalete between July 19 and 23, resulting in an Islamic victory and
the rout of the Visigothic army, capped
by the death of Roderick.
http://libro.uca.edu/ics/ics1.htm
>
> and were rightfully driven out - just as they have been from Austria
> and Greece and every land with a Christian majority.
They were not driven out of Palestine, which had a Christian majority. Nor were the
driven out of the eastern half of Greece, which is now called Turkey. Nor were they
driven out of Iran, nor Albania.
> Those are the
> facts, it is not my problem if they do not fit the lies and
> fabrications that you are taught by the fanatical mullas of your
> madrassas.
>
You are selective of some facts, and oblivious to others. Likely your education is
partly to blame.
>
> Obviously I am wasting my time in discussing with you.
>
> There is nothing further to say.
>
One more thing.
>
> I bid you adieu I pray The Lord Jesus Christ open your eyes to the
> Truth.
God bless you, too
- Pat
QisQos
> Once again, either you have your own idea of what extreme measures, or,
> you simply refuse to see that even the Roman Catholic encyclopedia
> acknowledges the role of the Church in instigating this violent
> oppression of a community based solely on their religion.
>
Dear Patrick:
you are judging using post-60's peacenik standards that all was is bad
and cannot be used in any form. Even Bahullah writes that an aggressor
must be stopped by the combined force of arms of the collective
society.
First, th Church was right to excommunicate ad order the confiscation
of properties of those aiding and abetting the social enemy, in this
case tha cathars. Why? because it has the right to do so in a Catholic
society. The Church, not man and not democracy and not the plebiscite
has the right to do so if a society which functions according to the
will of the Church.
the entire purpose of the Church is first to promote the
sanctifgication of souls and then to promote the social order to
achieve those ends.
The secular order itself nevertheless is in this case in the hands of
the nibility but through the suffrance of the Church/
That is the way medieval society was structured.
So when the Count of Toulouse was excommunicated for refusing to obey
and force of arms was used to remove him from power, it was the
Church's wish to restore social order in the face of the ongoing
threat to morals and the peace being caused by the Cathars.
Now, you are using post-French Revolution thinking to judge a
situation in which civilization was structured according to th laws of
the Church, not the laws of man - so while your argument appears to be
reasonable, it is not because no society in Europe at that time
funmctioned according to the way you are thinking.
By extremes I mean the wholesale slaughter of the town of Beziers, the
Church condemned that. The Church never advocated wholesale warfar on
the populace; this was done by those armies who acted during the fog
of war. At th time they did not have precision guided missles and the
military conventions of today. It is an interesting study in military
history should one decide to proceed further.
But this military action only took place after a long period of
diplomatic measures and profgressive discipline leading up to the
assassination of Pierre de Castelnau at which point it was decided
that military force was necessary.
Of course you are not going to agree, but that is because you are
using modernist standards to judge, which I hve pointed out to you is
an erroneus starting assumption.
About slavery: I could quote the entire texts of the aspostolic
letters which forbade the trade in slaves but here are the pertinent
excerpts:
."It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul
III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and
addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another
Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to
the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the
latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare
'to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,'
to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from
their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties,
conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of
liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend
counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no
matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way
of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the
practices indicated.
Benedict XIV confirmed and renewed the penalties of the Popes above
mentioned in a new Apostolic Letter addressed on December 20, 1741, to
the Bishops of Brazil and some other regions, in which he stimulated,
to the same end, the solicitude of the Governors themselves. Another
of Our Predecessors, anterior to Benedict XIV, Pius II, as during his
life the power of the Portuguese was extending itself over New Guinea,
sent on October 7, 1462, to a Bishop who was leaving for that country,
a Letter in which he not only gives the Bishop himself the means of
exercising there the sacred ministry with more fruit, but on the same
occasion, addresses grave warnings with regard to Christians who
should reduce neophytes to slavery. "
Now you may argue that these do not specifically meanion "Africa" but
suffice that th term "Indies" is broad enough to cover and t hat the
prohibition was against all slavery.
Nevertheless it stands that the Church did have in place the
restrictins and prohibitions in slavery and that these prohibitions
were developed over a period from 1462 to 1839, almost 400 years
policy coming from the Vatican.
Now, once again, we have to distinguish modern times from the
renaissance, and you appear to be judging using modern civil rights
rhetoric.
The standards of civil enforcement were different from our
contemporary police state methodologies and there were no armies of
liberal lobbyists petitioning every dead horse cause before a
legislator - crowds running up and down the street with placards led
by an angry butch man-hating with a megaphone, which is more the case
today.
But here , from Pope Paul III 1537
"The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to
bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means
never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's
word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to
please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of
the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent
knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service,
pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. "
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pa03sd.htm
I think that it is pretty clear that the chattel slavery based upon
kidnapping and forced enslavement was prohibited. This was far in
advance of the standards of the time when slavery was fairly universal
outside of Europe.
QQ
QisQos
> 4) Then Pope Innocent III decided to go medievel!
>
This was too cute to pass up, Patrick.
Pope Innocent III did not "go medieval" he WAS medieval. I hope that
you meant this as a joke, but the point is precisely that: medieval
law was much more authoritarian and enforced in a more capital and
corporal way than our modern times allow.
So yes, heresy was treason against the state and punished
accordingly.
Just like 50 years ago, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - whether innocent
or guilty - were found guilty of treason and executed in our own
United States. In fact treason is still punishable by execution in
America.
Just like today under the Patriot Act mahometans suspected of
terrorist affiliation can be detained without charges.
Now one can properly say that after 9-11 President Bush decided yo "go
medieval" but strictly speaking you cannot say that about Pope
Innocent III.
But do try and understand this point - the idea of "religious liberty"
is a modern concept only a couple of hundred years old . In the old
state, religious rebellion against the Crown was TREASON by definition
and punishable by execution, confiscation of property, imprisonment,
etc. as the State saw fit.
And tweren't only the Catholic Church which did so; look at King Henry
VIII and Good Queen Bess and their prohibition against the Catholic
Church and their execution of priests and lay Catholics as well as
confiscation of properties, etc.
Queen Bess decided she would "go renaissance" on her subjects and even
had her dear cousin executed under pretext of treason.
"The political revolution, the vast appropriations of church property,
and the frenzied hatred of Knox's followers for Catholicism made any
restoration of the old order impossible. Mary contented herself with
the new and, by her moderation and management, left time for a gradual
return of loyalty. But though she ruled, she did not yet govern. She
issued, and frequently repeated, a proclamation accepting religion as
she had found it -- the first edict of toleration in Great Britain. A
slow but steady amelioration of the lot of Catholics took place. At
the end of her reign there were no fewer than 12,600 Easter communions
at Edinburgh. " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09764a.htm
Another example: Saint Thomas More, executed for treason because he
would not sign zee papers which acknowledged Henry VIII as head of the
Church of England.
Not because St. Thomas More plotted against the throne or sought to
overturn Henry's reign, but simply because he would not recognize the
authority of a secular King as the head of the Church.
To go medieval again: society was structured to recognize that all
power came from God" through The Church, the Pope, the Bishops and
then the King - in that order.
Any action which threatened the social order was treasonous - hence to
get back to your Cathar example, Raymond of Toulouse, being head of
state was removed from power through the order of the Pope who had
granted that power in the first place.
It is quite simple if you understand that the world back then
functioned in a very different manner than today's chaotic mess of
democracy - i.e. mob rule, a thin veneer over the real Synarchy which
exists pulling the levers of the great and powerful Oz behind the
curtain. By contrast, the Kings and Princes of Europe were left
largely free to rule their domains as they saw fit with only minimal
interference from the Church, UNLESS the State saw fit to take the
authority of religion from its rightful executor, the Church, in which
case said ruler would be subject to ecclesiastical proceedings as in
the case of the afore mentioned Henry VIII.
And was Henry's cause over the idea of religious freedom? Nope, the
Church would not grant a bill of nullity to his marriage to Catherine
of Aragon. It was over his concupiscential lust for Anne Boleyn and
his uxurious desire for male heirs that the English Church was
founded, and for no loftier goal than that. In the end the birth of
Bess caused Henry to "go medieval" and Ann Boleyn lost her head over
the matter. But what one CANNOT say is that the English reformation
started as an exercise in freedom of conscience and religious liberty
- it was an exercise in establishing the King as the head of the
Church and those who exercised their freedom of conscience to stick
with the Pope lost their heads too, aforementioned St. Thomas More.
There is a lot more that could be said about the revolutionary ideas
of religious liberty, suffice to say that it is the revealed Truth of
the Catholic Church, not man's conscience which is the authority over
such.
Qis
Randy Burns
separation Church and State. That made Augustine popular with the leaders
of the Reformation.
Cheers, Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.0305...@posting.google.com...
> But do try and understand this point - the idea of "religious liberty"
> is a modern concept only a couple of hundred years old . In the old
> state, religious rebellion against the Crown was TREASON by definition
> and punishable by execution, confiscation of property, imprisonment,
> etc. as the State saw fit.
> Qis
QisQos
> Lord. It is funny, that according to your own Bible, Jesus said "My God
> (Lord), My God, why have you forsaken me"? If Jesus was Lord let alone God,
> why on earth would he say that? Another heresy that even the Bible does not
> support?
>
> Mahdi Muhammad
>
> http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/index.html
Psalm 110:1 -
The LORD said to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your
enemies a footstool for Your feet."
Who is the Lord speaking to who is also The Lord?
Matthew 22:41-46
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a
question:
42 "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to
Him, "The son of David."
43 He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him
`Lord,' saying,
44 `THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR
ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?
45 "If David then calls Him `Lord,' how is He his son?"
46 No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that
day on to ask Him another question.
I think this fairly well answers from Jesus recorded words in the
Gospel of Matthew who the Lord is and what he says to The Lord, Jesus
Christ:
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to
Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You
are the Christ, the Son of God."
64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell
you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND
OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has
blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you
have now heard the blasphemy;
Jesus himself calls himself the Son of God, whom the Lord (God the
Father) calls "Lord" as recorded in the Psalm. This very Psalm is used
in the New Testament by Jesus Himself to refer to Himself.
Mark 16:19 -
So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up
into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
I think this is pretty clear and the answer to your question. Of
course like the High Priest who accuses Jesus of blasphemy and then
takes him to Pilate to demand his crucifixion, you likewise accuse
Jesus of blasphemy because he does not meet the erroneous man made
definitions of God given by Mahomet.
I pray God forgives you and saves you from the enslavement to the
doctrines of Mahomet.
QisQos
Mr Mahdi
Christianity and the evil history of Christians, you went straight to the easy
stuff:
> Of
>course like the High Priest who accuses Jesus of blasphemy and then
>takes him to Pilate to demand his crucifixion, you likewise accuse
>Jesus of blasphemy
I never accused of Jesus (as) of blasphemy. I accused the devils who invented
Christian doctrine of heresy like Paul and the christian clegy. Furthermore,
the book called the NT was never written let alone compiled during the lifetime
of Jesus. It was 300 years later during the Nicene Creed where "scholars" of
the had to "determine" which book were part of "God's" or Jesus' words. The
Gospels according to Mark, Luke, John, etc., were written long after Jesus, and
these "Gospels" have contradictory accounts of the very same incidents all
throughout them. There are websites all over the Internet that shows
contradiction after contradiction and mistake after mistake in the Bible. And
you have yet to answer my question, which "version" (not translation" of the
Bible is more accurate, since they are many versions, many of them having more
or less books than the others.
In the very Bible you claim to believe in, Jesus *worshipped* God, putting
another hole in your theory that Jesus is God, since God doesn't worship
Himself. To say that God worships Himself is a heresy and it more pantheistic
and paganistic than monotheistic. God gave us the teachings of true monotheism
and yet Christians turned its around, lied about Jesus and then created a
paganistic doctrine of 3 gods into 1, which other polytheistic religions also
believe in as their doctrine.
Finally, you always use circular reasoning. You use the premise as your
conclusion. In other words, you use the Bible as proof when the Bible has not
been proven to be evidence that cannot be refuted. You haven't proved that the
Bible is from God let alone WHICH version of the Bible if from God. You
haven't explain how can a book of God have so much contradictions and mistakes
that are not only textual but historic and scientific.
Mahdi Muhammad
QisQos
> Lord. It is funny, that according to your own Bible, Jesus said "My God
> (Lord), My God, why have you forsaken me"? If Jesus was Lord let alone God,
> why on earth would he say that? Another heresy that even the Bible does not
> support?
>
> Mahdi Muhammad
>
> http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/index.html
Something they did not teach you in koran school Mr. Mahdi is that
these words on the Cross were spoken in fulfillment of Psalm 22, the
prophesy of the Suffering Messiah, they are to draw our attention
primarily to the fact that this is the redemptive event foretold in
the Psalms:
Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD ;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him." [Matthew. 27:42]
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [3] my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me. [Matthew. 27:40]
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing. [Mark 15.22-24]
19 But you, O LORD , be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD , praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you [5] will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him-
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD ,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him-
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn-
for he has done it.
Saint Augustine says: This is the case also with that Psalm, the first
verse of which the Lord Himself uttered on the Cross: "My God, My God,
look upon Me; why hast Thou forsaken Me?" For "transferring us in a
figure" to what He was saying, and to His own Body (for we are also
"His Body," and He is our "Head"), He uttered from the Cross not His
own cry, but ours. For God never "forsook" Him: nor did He Himself
ever depart from the Father; but it was in behalf of us that He spake
this: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?" For there follows,
"Far from My health are the words of My offences:" and it shows in
whose person He said this; for sin could not be found in Him . . . .
I also add that the words were not spoken from despair but from the
fulfillment of prophecy for as True God Jesus was not abandoned
Psalm22: 24), in the end of the Psalm that Jesus refers to the cross
you find the expected victory over his enemies and victory over death.
So in order to UNDERSTAND jesus' words on the Cross, you have to see
the entire context, not merely speculate out of hand as you have done.
The entire Psalm must be read whole and understood as a prophesy to
which Jesus called our minds from the Cross.
In the Psalm are also prophesied the Gospel witness of the casting of
lots for His clothes and the piercing his hands and feet with the
nails of crucifixion: "And they crucified him. Dividing up his
clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get." Mark 15.22-24
There are other parallels between the Psalm and the Gospel narrative
of crucifixion:
Matthew. 27:40. And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of
God and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self. If thou be
the Son of God, come down from the cross.
27:41. In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and
ancients, mocking said:
27:42. He saved others: himself he cannot save. If he be the king of
Israel, let him now come down from the cross: and we will believe him.
27:43. He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him.
For he said: I am the Son of God.
So I hope that this answers your question Mr. Mahdi, will you not then
accept the sacrifice of the Cross and repent of your sins, reform your
life and live forever with Christ?
QisQos
Dermod Ryder
> Finally, you always use circular reasoning. You use the premise as
your
> conclusion. In other words, you use the Bible as proof when the
Bible has not
> been proven to be evidence that cannot be refuted. You haven't
proved that the
> Bible is from God let alone WHICH version of the Bible if from God.
You
> haven't explain how can a book of God have so much contradictions
and mistakes
> that are not only textual but historic and scientific.
Hey Maddy!
Can you prove the divine provenance of the Quran?