Showing posts with label Why Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Why Islam. Show all posts
Monday, 13 November 2017
Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God
Video also uploaded here
Paul and the Synoptics had never regarded Jesus as God; the very idea would have horrified Paul who, before his conversion, had been an exceptionally punctilious Pharisee. They all used the term ‘Son of God’ in the conventional Jewish sense: Jesus had been an ordinary human being commissioned by God with a special task. Even in his exalted state, there was, for Paul, always a clear distinction between Jesus kyrios Christos and God, his Father. The author of the Fourth Gospel , however, depicted Jesus as a cosmic being, God’s eternal ‘Word’ (logos) who had existed with God before the beginning of time. This high Christology seems to have separated these congregations from other Jewish Christian communities. [Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood, Religion and the History of Violence, The Bodley Head, 2014 p129]
Tuesday, 26 September 2017
Geza Vermes on How Jesus Would Have Reacted to Trinitarian Christians
Geza Vermes speaks of Jesus as a ‘lover and worshipper of his Father in heaven’ , whose transformation into an object of worship ‘would have filled this Galilean Hasid with stupefaction, anger and deepest grief’ (Vermes 1983:13) [Cambridge Companion to Jesus Edited by Markus Bockmuehl – Cambridge University Press – 2001]
Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Monday, 20 February 2017
Christian Missionaries and Pakistan's Valentines Day Ban
A Christian missionary called Lizzie was talking about the Pakistani Valentines Day ban which has been reported in British news outlets recently.
She seems to be encouraging Pakistanis to celebrate Valentines Day. Lizzie begins by writing:
Don’t you love 14th February? The cheesy commercialism, the overpriced meals, the vast teddy bears exchanged by teenagers and re-patriated to the charity shop by the end of the week? I know, I’m such a romantic! In my house, you might get a homemade card and a nice gesture, like taking the rubbish out. Here’s the thing though: if you want to buy a dozen red roses and waste helium on a heart balloon, be my guest. You’re not prohibited from doing so. Unless… you live in Islamabad.
What else are these boys and girls buying aside from teddies and roses? Condoms. Condom sales increase around Valentines Day. Why do you think that is, Lizzie? You don't get a prize for guessing correctly, and nope, they aren't buying them because the balloons have sold out!
Don’t you love 14th February? The cheesy commercialism, the overpriced meals, the vast teddy bears exchanged by teenagers and re-patriated to the charity shop by the end of the week? I know, I’m such a romantic! In my house, you might get a homemade card and a nice gesture, like taking the rubbish out. Here’s the thing though: if you want to buy a dozen red roses and waste helium on a heart balloon, be my guest. You’re not prohibited from doing so. Unless… you live in Islamabad.
What else are these boys and girls buying aside from teddies and roses? Condoms. Condom sales increase around Valentines Day. Why do you think that is, Lizzie? You don't get a prize for guessing correctly, and nope, they aren't buying them because the balloons have sold out!
For those unaware, the modern phenomenon of Valentines Day is not some harmless, fun day where teenagers exchange cuddly toys.
It’s a day where society effectively encourages lust (well in the UK it is at least!). It encourages people to forget about sexual purity. To forget about the Islamic principle of modesty and lowering one’s gaze. To forget about the Matthew 5’s teaching of it being adultery to look at a woman lustfully.
It’s a day where society effectively encourages lust (well in the UK it is at least!). It encourages people to forget about sexual purity. To forget about the Islamic principle of modesty and lowering one’s gaze. To forget about the Matthew 5’s teaching of it being adultery to look at a woman lustfully.
Lizzie, the Christian missionary, goes on to encourage Pakistanis and others to get involved in Valentines Day (maybe she runs a stall selling Valentine Day cards or something!):
.. to all my readers, but especially in Islamabad – if I have any, I’d love to hear from you – Happy Valentine’s Day! I hope that this ban is widely ignored, and that you stay safe if you choose to defy it. And if you’re not in Islamabad – let’s not take our freedom to celebrate days like these for granted, however fluffy and pointless they might seem to us.
The question here is why is a British Christian woman promoting Valentines Day? She surely knows, through experiencing life in the UK, that Valentines Day comes rife with elements that are antithetical to religious values.
Well, considering the ban has popular support amongst the natives over there in Pakistan it seems even more strange for Lizzie to be encouraging the flaunting of the ban – over 80% of those polled agreed with Islamabad’s High Court ban on Valentines Day.
Why would a Christian missionary want to see societies that are purer sexually than ours become marred with the same problems that come with Valentines Day? Does the Bible not matter to these people anymore, is it more about cultural imperialism than religious values?
Why would a Christian missionary want to see societies that are purer sexually than ours become marred with the same problems that come with Valentines Day? Does the Bible not matter to these people anymore, is it more about cultural imperialism than religious values?
Has Lizzie, the Christian missionary forgot this verse is in the New Testament:
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
But there’s more. More in elephantine proportions. The elephant in the room.
Why do you think people in other cultures are against Valentines Day? It’s because they are against the enticement to have sex-before-marriage. That's the unpleasant baggage that comes with a society celebrating VD on mass. This Hindu spokesman for a group in India opposing Valentines Day says it as it is – premarital relations are the issue:
"If you are in love, you should get married," said Ashok Sharma, vice president of Hindu Mahasabha, a conservative Hindu religious organization with branches across the country. "Roaming around in public without marriage does not fit in Indian culture. If we find such young couples, we will get them married off." [Source]
Saudi Arabia, India and Indonesia (all countries which have been in the press for opposition to Valentines Day) have the lowest rates of children born out of wedlock (1% or less).
Now compare that to the Britain where it was reported in 2013 that over 50% of all babies will be born out of wedlock in less than 5 years time. That’s the “Christian” country of Britain. Yet you have British Christians telling Pakistanis that they should be celebrating Valentines Day in their country. Weird!
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
But there’s more. More in elephantine proportions. The elephant in the room.
Why do you think people in other cultures are against Valentines Day? It’s because they are against the enticement to have sex-before-marriage. That's the unpleasant baggage that comes with a society celebrating VD on mass. This Hindu spokesman for a group in India opposing Valentines Day says it as it is – premarital relations are the issue:
"If you are in love, you should get married," said Ashok Sharma, vice president of Hindu Mahasabha, a conservative Hindu religious organization with branches across the country. "Roaming around in public without marriage does not fit in Indian culture. If we find such young couples, we will get them married off." [Source]
Saudi Arabia, India and Indonesia (all countries which have been in the press for opposition to Valentines Day) have the lowest rates of children born out of wedlock (1% or less).
Now compare that to the Britain where it was reported in 2013 that over 50% of all babies will be born out of wedlock in less than 5 years time. That’s the “Christian” country of Britain. Yet you have British Christians telling Pakistanis that they should be celebrating Valentines Day in their country. Weird!
It gets odder still. The countries with the highest rates of children born out of wedlock are historically Christian countries:
The highest rates of non-marital childbearing occur in Latin America (55–74 percent). The only other countries to share these high rates are South Africa (59 percent) and Sweden (55 percent). The range within Europe is huge: from 18 percent (Italy) to 55 percent (Sweden). Those in North America and Oceania are also high and rising, though New Zealand (47 percent) and the United States (41 percent) stand out, with more than four out of ten births outside of marriage in these two countries. [Source]
Notice which countries have the highest rates of children born out wedlock? “CHRISTIAN” countries!.
I’d seriously encourage Hindus and Muslims in the East to carry on with the pushback against Valentines Day regardless of criticism from Christians and the press in the West. The fact is, they all know your societies are sexually purer and we are living in guilt and sin as our society has downgraded marriage and mocks sexual purity. We’re all suffering the consequences of our society's failings and our weaknesses.
And let’s talk about abortion. Inevitably all this sex outside marriage is going to have an impact on the abortion figures. I’m not going to be simplistic or insensitive here (Christian missionaries take note!), there are a number of reasons why women choose to have abortions however a lady is 17% more likely to have an abortion if she is not married.
We see some evangelical Christians posting memes on Facebook about abortion but if you really want to make inroads on the fight against abortion you should preach against sex-before-marriage.
The highest rates of non-marital childbearing occur in Latin America (55–74 percent). The only other countries to share these high rates are South Africa (59 percent) and Sweden (55 percent). The range within Europe is huge: from 18 percent (Italy) to 55 percent (Sweden). Those in North America and Oceania are also high and rising, though New Zealand (47 percent) and the United States (41 percent) stand out, with more than four out of ten births outside of marriage in these two countries. [Source]
Notice which countries have the highest rates of children born out wedlock? “CHRISTIAN” countries!.
I’d seriously encourage Hindus and Muslims in the East to carry on with the pushback against Valentines Day regardless of criticism from Christians and the press in the West. The fact is, they all know your societies are sexually purer and we are living in guilt and sin as our society has downgraded marriage and mocks sexual purity. We’re all suffering the consequences of our society's failings and our weaknesses.
And let’s talk about abortion. Inevitably all this sex outside marriage is going to have an impact on the abortion figures. I’m not going to be simplistic or insensitive here (Christian missionaries take note!), there are a number of reasons why women choose to have abortions however a lady is 17% more likely to have an abortion if she is not married.
We see some evangelical Christians posting memes on Facebook about abortion but if you really want to make inroads on the fight against abortion you should preach against sex-before-marriage.
Every year 200,000 Bible-believing Christian women have abortions. There’s going to be a number of reasons for these women making the decisions they do but if about 20% of these ladies are having abortions because they aren’t married then that is about 40,000 American Christian women annually having abortions simply because of the sexually impure culture we live in in the West.
Given the total number of abortions each year in the US is over a million that means the figure of ladies simply aborting their child due to them getting pregnant out of wedlock is 200,000. 200,000 American babies aborted simply because of sex outside of marriage!
In England and Wales, based on the 2014 figure of 185,824 abortions, that would mean more than 30,000 babies are aborted simply because of sex outside of marriage every year.
Now you do the maths for every “Christian” country in the West and its abortion figures based simply on getting pregnant outside of marriage.
Christian missionaries can try to mix Western cultural imperialism with evangelicalism but smart people will be able to spot it a mile off.
Western Christian missionaries really need to stop wasting their lives preaching what would be deemed immorality to people in sexually purer societies on the other side of the world. Lizzie, and other evangelicals, should be inviting those Pakistanis, Saudis, Indonesians and Indians over here to help improve "Christian" society!
Western Christian missionaries really need to stop wasting their lives preaching what would be deemed immorality to people in sexually purer societies on the other side of the world. Lizzie, and other evangelicals, should be inviting those Pakistanis, Saudis, Indonesians and Indians over here to help improve "Christian" society!
Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit working on Christians.The theological problem for Lizzie and her Christian missionary colleagues who try to convert Muslims and others to the ideology of Trinitarian Christianity is that these statistics prove to be a demonstration of the fact the Christians don't have the Holy Spirit guiding their societies. Why is it that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and pretty much every other religious community can behave better sexually than Christians who claim to have the Holy Spirit?
And considering a growing number of evangelical Christians are taking to the anti-Muslim propaganda game why is it that Muslims having the least sex outside of marriage according to this survey?
Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology by Ali Ataie
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
Quran’ic Exegesis of al-Ikhlas as a Corrective of Trinitarian Theo-Christology by Ali Ataie
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Wednesday, 11 January 2017
Christian Inconsistency Around Arguments for Prophet Muhammad in the Bible
Jonathan McLatchie makes a noteworthy admission and argument which Muslims who argue for Prophet Muhammad being in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible/Tanakh) will be interested in.
Jon acknowledges the Messianic prophecy claims conservative Christians preach are not direct prophecies but what he would consider allegorical, “foreshadows” or “typologies” (although he does think there are some direct prophecies). An example he cites is Hosea 11:1 which the author of Matthew 2:15 believed to be a prophecy of Jesus:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. [Hosea 11:1]
Jonathan recognises upon “inspection of the first two verses of Hosea 11, however, reveals that the context is not Messianic at all!”
Jonathan, however, does accept it as a prophecy. A typological prophecy:
What is going on here, one might ask? Is Matthew attempting to pull the wool over our eyes and dupe us into thinking that this is a prediction of the Messiah, earnestly hoping that his readers will not take the trouble to look up the text for themselves? Of course not. Rather, Matthew takes this text to be fulfilled typologically.
But, here’s the thing: if this is your standard and you accept this as a prophecy then you don’t have any reason to reject Zakir Hussain’s arguments for prophecies about Prophet Muhammad p in the Old Testament (and the New Testament) if your consistent. Really, just have a look at Zakir Hussain's arguments and you’ll notice that they are much more convincing than Matthew’s “prophecy” claim.
Based on a cumulative argument of “typological coincidences” of this nature, Jonathan argues it points to divine orchestration:
The numerous typological 'coincidences', of which but a few examples are briefly described above, militates strongly against hypothesis (2). The occurrence of so many correspondences between Jesus' life as reported by the gospels and the Hebrew Scriptures surely can only either be the product of divine orchestration, or human design in the telling of the stories
But hold on, a Muslim could make the same case for Zakir Hussain’s arguments!
Bart Ehrman sums up the situation around Messianic prophecy claims:
You can go through virtually all the alleged messianic prophecies that point to Jesus and show the same things: either the “prophecies” were not actually predictions of the future messiah (and were never taken that way before Christians came along) or the facts of Jesus’ life that are said to have fulfilled these predictions are not actually facts of Jesus’ life. [Bart Ehrman]
My point, thus far, is to highlight the manner in which Christians argue against proponents of prophecies for Prophet Muhammad in the OT is utterly inconsistent. If they were consistent in their rejection of those arguments for Prophet Muhammad in the OT they would reject the allegorical approach they accept for Messianic prophecies; that would be bye-bye to Matthew’s alleged Messianic prophecy leaning on Hosea 11:1.
Deliberate misdirection?
However, the elephant in the room is that of making up prophecies or being overly keen to find prophecies and ending up with claims that are just baffling. Firstly, we know the author/s of the Gospel of John changed stories for theological reasons (i.e. the day of the crucifixion story). We’ve also got the spear thrust story in John and the story of the guard in Matthew which aren’t considered to be historical – those narratives would have been added for theological/apologetical reasons.
But seen as Jonathan is solely focussing on prophecies let’s focus on Matthew's prophecy claims. Jonathan McLatchie doesn’t want people to believe “the gospel authors deliberately set out to deceive and mislead people into believing their accounts to be recalling real history” but the author/s of Matthew seem/s to be making up prophecies or at the very least being victim/s of some of the source material used to compose the Gospel.
One example would be the use of Zech 9:9 in Matthew 21 where the author depicts Jesus riding on a donkey and a colt:
The Hebrew text for this Old Testament prophecy talks about one animal which is described twice, but its Greek translation uses “and”, meaning two animals instead. Matthew relied on the Greek translation of the Old Testament so he made Jesus ride on two animals. He had to change the earlier part of the story to make Jesus order his two disciples to bring a donkey and a colt. The fact that Jesus could not have ridden on two animals at the same time did not bother Matthew! [Dr Loauy Fatoohi]
And the claim of a prophecy of one to be called a “Nazarene” in Matt 2:
Like other prophecies quoted by Mathew, there is a serious problem with this prophecy: it does not occur anywhere in the Old Testament! [Dr Louay Fatoohi]
Perhaps another example for the notion the Gospel authors were shaping their narratives on their interpretation of the Scriptures (the OT) would be the narrative of Jesus being born in Bethlehem:
But the authors of the Gospels were themselves influenced in their telling of Jesus’ story by the passages of Scripture that they took to be messianic predictions, and they told their stories in the light of those passages.
Take Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. A couple of times on the blog I’ve talked about how problematic it is to think that this is a historical datum. It’s true that both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in that small village. But Mark and John do not assume that this is true, but rather that he came from Galilee, from the village of Nazareth. Moreover, Matthew and Luke *get* Jesus born in Bethlehem in radically different and contradictory ways, so that for both of them he is born there even though he comes from Nazareth. Why don’t they have a consistent account of the matter?
It is almost certainly because they both want to be able to claim that his birth was in Bethlehem, even though both of them know for a fact he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth. Then why do Matthew and Luke want to argue (in different ways) that he was born in Bethlehem? It is because in their view — based on the Old Testament prophet Micah 5:2 — that’s where the messiah had to come from. And so for them, Jesus *had* to come from there. They aren’t recording a historical datum from Jesus’ life; they are writing accounts that are influenced by the Old Testament precisely to show that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. [Bart Ehrman]
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?
Jonathan McLatchie + Liz Mooney: Biblical Age of Consent
Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges
Debate Analysis: Abdurraheem Green and Jonathan McLatchie on Trinity and Tauhid - IERA and Apologetics Academy
The Laziest Debate Review of Inamullah Mumtaz - Jonathan McLatchie on "Is Jesus God"
Jonathan McLatchie Using Atheist Arguments to Attack Quran
Christian Polemicist Jay Smith and The Christian Apologetics Alliance Debunked Again
Jay Smith Disturbs Muslims, Honor Killings
Did Jonathan McLatchie Copy Nabeel Qureshi?
Hate Speech at St. Timothy's Parish Church, Middlesbrough (UK)
Christian Voice ‘Mosque Watch’
UK Church Hosts Speaker Inciting Hatred and Fear of Muslims!
Paul Williams Disapponted in Jonathan McLatchie
Does Jonathan McLatchie Believe the Bible Teaches a Flat Earth?
Jonathan McLatchie and Alexander the Great - Christian apologists take note!
Monday, 1 August 2016
A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK
The Pro-gay marriage movement is one of the biggest movements within what Christian theologians would call the "body of Christ" in the West. Ecumenism is up there too. In reality both ecumenism and the pro-gay marriage movement stem from liberal Christianity.
The sheer size of the Christian pro-gay marriage movement would mean Christians like Alisdair (Ally) Smith and David Robertson of Solas CPC believe the majority of the members of the "body of Christ" are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit nowadays as opposed to 30 years ago:
In others words, while clear majorities disapproved in 1983 (highest at 74.8 per cent for Catholics and 79.7 per cent for other Christians), in 2010 opposition had fallen to lower than 50 per cent in each group – lowest at 37.4 per cent for Anglicans and 20.4 per cent for those with no religion. Note that in all our tables given below, survey weights have been applied. [Dr Ben Celements, Leicester University]
One would expect this trend to continue, perhaps to the extent of virtually all Christians in the UK being pro-gay marriage or at the very least accepting of it in the coming years. Again, putting forth further questions on the beliefs the Christian community have concerning the Holy Spirt. As GotQuestions describes these beliefs:
Jesus gave the Spirit as a “compensation” for His absence, to perform the functions toward us which He would have done if He had remained personally with us....The Spirit’s presence within us enables us to understand and interpret God’s Word. Jesus told His disciples that “when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
What are David Robertson's Solas CPC and the other minority of Christian activists going to say here? Will they say, the majority of Christians in the UK aren't guided by the Holy Spirt and thus don't interpret the Scripture in a way that is acceptable?
And what of the flip side, the Christian pro-gay marriage side? The majority side may well just point at their numbers and use that to support the claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them to do what Christ would do today!
In fact, the Christian pro-gay marriage side may even say there have been historical precedents in the past concerning early Christians and their deliberations towards the Trinity belief and the NT canon.
Let's focus on the NT canon for a few moments. It was basically decided by a majority rule, early on there was disagreement as to which books to consider "inspired". Christian theology would teach the decisions on the inclusion/exclusion of any book was guided by the Holy Spirit. Yet in reality, it appears, it was just majority rule which won out in the end.
it is not quite accurate to say that there has never been any doubt in the Church of any of our New Testament books. A few of the shorter Epistles (e.g. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude) and the Revelation were much longer in being accepted in some parts than in others; while elsewhere books which we do not now include in the New Testament were received as canonical. Thus the Codex Sinaiticus included the 'Epistle of Barnabas' and the Shepherd of Hermas, a Roman work of about AD 110 or earlier, while the Codex Alexandrinus included the writings known as the First and Second Epistles of Clement; and the inclusion of these works alongside the biblical writings probably indicates that they were accorded some degree of canonical status. [FF Bruce]
The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the 'Epistle of Barnabas,' the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority. Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty-seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books. [FF Bruce]
Now, think about the parallels here between the gradual decision via majority-rule on what to call canon and the pro-gay marriage movement.
David Robertson and his colleagues at Solas CPC may state the glaring difference; homosexual unions have been outlawed Biblically (ref Leviticus 18:22, 1 Cor 6:9-11 and Romans 1:26-28)
There are two issues here for Solas CPC and other anti-gay marriage Christian activists:
1. The Bible is not a closed text. There has been relatively recent precedent of whole chunks of the NT being relegated to possible forgery status as per the findings of Dr Von Tischendorf in the 19th century. They are finding new manuscripts regularly. There is nothing to stop another find relegating other parts of the NT to possible forgery (scribal addition) status. What if that happens in 50 years time regarding 1 Cor 6:9-11 and Romans 1:26-28? All it would take would be a discovery of an early MSS of said texts omitting such verses or rendering different wording in those verses to the extent of changing the apparent meaning of the text.
It's clear Christians cannot have confidence in their NT texts.
2. The problem of interpretation. The pro-gay camp have their own interpretations of the relevant Bible texts. Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier, who has served the Presbyterian Church (USA) since 1984 as a minister, theology professor, and writer states there's an overwhelmingly positive case for gay marriage in the Bible:
Fortunately, the church across the centuries has developed guidelines for interpreting Scripture that help keep our use of particular passages in touch with the true portrait of God’s love in Christ. When we apply these guidelines, the Bible’s teaching about gay people and their relationships appears in a whole new light. In my book I show how the application of these time-tested principles of biblical interpretation produces an overwhelmingly positive biblical case in favor of gay marriage. I came to realize how my former reliance on fragmentary, out-of-context quotes from Scripture had led me to lose touch with the “big picture” of God’s love that lies at the heart of the Bible’s witness.
Fortunately, the church across the centuries has developed guidelines for interpreting Scripture that help keep our use of particular passages in touch with the true portrait of God’s love in Christ. When we apply these guidelines, the Bible’s teaching about gay people and their relationships appears in a whole new light. In my book I show how the application of these time-tested principles of biblical interpretation produces an overwhelmingly positive biblical case in favor of gay marriage. I came to realize how my former reliance on fragmentary, out-of-context quotes from Scripture had led me to lose touch with the “big picture” of God’s love that lies at the heart of the Bible’s witness.
The problem here is the Christian belief about the Holy Spirit and the way history played it self out previously with regards to the Trinity belief and the NT canon being formulated based on majority rule.
Consistency: Western incompatibility - Alisdair Smith's colleagues' inconsistent argumentation.
Alisdair Smith's colleagues in the mission fields (certainly Jonathan McLatchie's colleagues) argue on the lines of Islam not being compatible with Western values when constructing polemics against Islam yet if we are consistent Alisdair Smith, SOLAS and the rest of the anti-gay marriage Christian camp are promoting a Christianity which is incompatible with Western values.
Again, questions concerning the Christian belief of the Holy Spirit arise as surely the Holy Spirit wouldn't guide towards inconsistency..
Christian hypocrisy
This is a subtle one for the thinking Christian
Christianity is not monolithic. The Christian pro-gay marriage movement has wide spread and rapidly growing support (as seen above) yet colleagues of SOLAS' Alisdair in the Christian polemics business such as Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood and Jay Smith would say ISIS is true Islam despite being miniscule and having no scholarly Islamic body supporting ISIS (in fact all Muslim scholarship has denounced ISIS) yet at the same time this Christian camp claims the pro same sex marriage movement is not true Christianity despite it having much more support from recognised Christian bodies, authorities and a vast and ever-growing supporter base amongst Christian laity.
Thus hypocrisy is outlined in more detail in this response to a Christian apologist, Jonathan McLatchie. Jonathan Mclatchie: Gay Marriage is "Madness" but Terrorism is..
Let's discuss another example of what appears to be hypocrisy from the conservative Christian camp.
There are heterosexual dating prohibitions (Matt 5:28, 1 Cor 6) yet the campaigns against this are nowhere to be seen. Can SOLAS or any other Christian anti-gay marriage campaign group show me a track record of vociferous campaigning against this throughout the years?
In fact, one would expect there to be overwhelmingly more anti-heterosexual dating/sex-before-marriage activity than homosexual marriage as homosexual marriage is a relatively new phenomena.
Selective focus like this not only invites accusations of hypocrisy but it again leads to questions about the Christian belief in the Holy Spirit. If this camp seriously believes they are being guided by the Holy Spirit then why a selective focus? Why hasn't the Holy Spirit not guided them to campaign more strongly against the more widespread sin - heterosexual dating and unmarried heterosexual sex?
Conclusion
British Muslims should not solely rely on Christians in this endeavour of campaigning against gay-marriage. Muslims must go out and take a lead role in this effort. Sure, working alongside straggling Christians like SOLAS is encouraged but do not sit back and think this Christian minority are knights in shining armour. They're not. They could capitulate tomorrow just like Christians did by agreeing to majority rule on the Trinity belief and NT canon. Not to mention them pretty much giving up their efforts against heterosexual pre-marital sex (once again, I'd imagine this was due to the pressure of numbers against them).
As for the Christian soldiers who are currently admirably standing against the tide of the zeitgeist why not do it under the umbrella of Islam? Friends, look into Islam with an open heart.
Muslim Helps James White out: Why Bart Erhman Finds James White Offensive
The Lying Hand of the New Testament Scribe
Wednesday, 29 June 2016
Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea
The Nicene Council only concluded that the Father and Son are ontologically one: it did not include the Holy Spirit in the co-substantial relationship supposedly obtaining between the Father and Son. There was simply an implication that the Holy Spirit was in some way associated with the Godhead.
Yes there was an affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit, but the Nicene Creed did not put forth a triune statement about God. It would take another fifty-six years and more "heretical" developments, before the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was clarified.
Although activities were predicated of the Holy Spirit that can only be predicated of God, the Trinity was still not explicitly called God. Further addenda or adjustments would be made before the church would explicitly state that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son.
One early witness who testifies to these early developments regarding the Trinity doctrine is Gregory of Nazianzus. In the work _Epistles 58_ Gregory Nazianzus explained the absence of the Holy Spirit from the ancient discussions about the Godhead, by stating that "the Old Testament proclaimed the Father manifestly, and the Son more hiddenly. The New [Testament] manifested the Son and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself is resident among us, and provides a clearer explanation of himself." As late as 380, he wrote, "to be slightly in error [about the Holy Spirit] was to be orthodox." This statement too proves that the orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit was not "clear" until 381. As a matter of fact, this statement further demonstrates that the church neither subscribed to nor affirmed the teaching of the Trinity until 381 C.E. It is clear that the "details" of the Trinity still had to be worked out (The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. I, p.
213. Cf. also Gregory Nazianzus--Orations 31.5).
Yes there was an affirmation of belief in the Holy Spirit, but the Nicene Creed did not put forth a triune statement about God. It would take another fifty-six years and more "heretical" developments, before the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was clarified.
Although activities were predicated of the Holy Spirit that can only be predicated of God, the Trinity was still not explicitly called God. Further addenda or adjustments would be made before the church would explicitly state that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son.
One early witness who testifies to these early developments regarding the Trinity doctrine is Gregory of Nazianzus. In the work _Epistles 58_ Gregory Nazianzus explained the absence of the Holy Spirit from the ancient discussions about the Godhead, by stating that "the Old Testament proclaimed the Father manifestly, and the Son more hiddenly. The New [Testament] manifested the Son and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself is resident among us, and provides a clearer explanation of himself." As late as 380, he wrote, "to be slightly in error [about the Holy Spirit] was to be orthodox." This statement too proves that the orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit was not "clear" until 381. As a matter of fact, this statement further demonstrates that the church neither subscribed to nor affirmed the teaching of the Trinity until 381 C.E. It is clear that the "details" of the Trinity still had to be worked out (The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. I, p.
213. Cf. also Gregory Nazianzus--Orations 31.5).
From a brief look at these developments, it seems warranted to conclude that the NT does not present a clear expression of the Triune Godhead. Therefore, we could reasonably conclude that neither the primitive church nor the ante-Nicene fathers taught the Trinity. Gregory Nazianzus even proclaimed that Scripture did not, "very clearly or very often call him [the Holy Spirit] God in so many words, as it does the Father and later on the Son" (Gregory Nazianzus, Orations 31.12).
Gregory's testimony is so important because he lived at the time when the Trinity assimilated its way into Christian didache. Concerning this prominent Christian "father," Jaroslav Pelikan says: "In remarkable summary of the controversy within the orthodox camp, composed in the same year, he [Gregory Nazianzus] declared: "Of the wise men among ourselves, some have conceived of him
[the Holy spirit] as an activity, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call him . . . And therefore they neither worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position." He did add, however, that "of those who consider him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also."
Gregory's testimony is so important because he lived at the time when the Trinity assimilated its way into Christian didache. Concerning this prominent Christian "father," Jaroslav Pelikan says: "In remarkable summary of the controversy within the orthodox camp, composed in the same year, he [Gregory Nazianzus] declared: "Of the wise men among ourselves, some have conceived of him
[the Holy spirit] as an activity, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call him . . . And therefore they neither worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position." He did add, however, that "of those who consider him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also."
From: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/is-trinity-explicit-bible-teaching-some.html
Monday, 21 March 2016
Textual Criticism of 2 Corinthians By Bart Ehrman
What is the original of 2 Corinthians? We cannot say!
Notes from Prof. Bart Ehrman's analysis of 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians, is one of the Pauline epistles. It was
written to his congregation in the city of Corinth
The theoretical problems Dr Bart Ehrman outlines in
considering the original text of 2 Corinthians:
1. There's good evidence Paul dictated his letters to
scribes. Suppose Paul dictated 2 Corinthians and the scribe made mistakes in
rendering Paul's words into text.
Is the original text what the scribe wrote or what Paul
dictated?
This is not a big point of contention.
2. Paul did not write 2 Corinthians as it has come to us
today. Scholars have long recognised for over a century that 2 Corinthians is
made up of two different letters spliced together; chapters 10-13 do not come
from the same letter as chapters 1 to 9!
[This problem could be compounded as there's a large number
of scholars in Europe and the US
Whichever way you look at it 2 Corinthians we have is not
originally from Paul. It's from whoever amalgamated the different letters (2, 5
or however many letters were used to make up 2 Corinthians).
3. This gets messier still. The original letters from Paul
may have gone through scribal change prior to them being amalgamated by the
unknown person. This amalgam would then have gone through scribal change prior
to the earliest complete manuscript of 2 Corinthians c. 350CE.
How can somebody truly say 2 Corinthians is from Paul? They
cannot.
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Conversions to Islam
People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Conversions to Islam
People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine
Friday, 26 February 2016
Scandal: GotQuestions.org Promoting Adultery of the Heart
Look, I'm well aware of modern day society and the losing battle religiously-minded people are facing against sexual sin. It looks like GotQuestions.org are slowly giving up on that front as they are now seemingly allowing hugging and kissing between unmarried couples.
Many pastors and Christian counselors strongly advise a couple to not go beyond holding hands, hugging, and light kissing before marriage
I think this website, which is described as a conservative evangelical website, tinkered with their answer and the above quote is not the original wording - it appears it was originally advice given by the writer at GotQuestions.org. Have a look at the quote here in this forum in the OP:
I, personally, would strongly advise a couple to not go beyond holding hands, hugging, and light kissing before marriage.
It seems as though GotQuestions.org changed the wording. Either that or the forum user made a mistake (which strongly I doubt as he seems to have copied and pasted).
Whatever the case maybe, there are issues here for conservative Christians. If the author advised such then he/she is promoting adultery of the heart (Matt 5:28) and is going against the Bible verse mentioned in the beginning of the answer (Eph 5:3). If the author is suggesting the 'many pastors and Christian counselors' are offering advice which is edifying there's an issue - why else would the author mention 'their' advice if he did not believe it to be useful (which seems to have been his/her advice initially).
Are there any conservative Christians who disagree with this advice? If you are out there will you speak out against this?
We all struggle to resist sexual sin but this attitude from a supposedly conservative Christian organisation is perpetuating the problem of sexual immorality we are facing in the West (and increasingly in the East). Christians say they are guided by the Holy Spirit yet the answer provided by GotQuestions.org cannot be considered holy.
Muslims Have Least Sex Outside of Marriage (Least Fornication and Adultery By Muslims)
Why Islam
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Video can also be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afFB_6w-Jmc&feature=youtu.be
Study Notes
Protestants really believe they are free of Christian tradition. Catholics are more honest in that they recognise so much of what they believe has to do with Christian tradition rather than Christian Scripture. Protests claim to be sola sciptura but in reality their faith is full of tradition (such as the Trinity - they read it into the text)
Not one place in the New Testament did Jesus claim to be God. We find examples of Jesus rejecting the idea he was God in the NT.
In Mark 10, Jesus teaches only God is good after a rich man calls him good. This rich man learns and did not call Jesus good afterwards.
17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” 20And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.”
Not All-Knowing
In Mark 13 Jesus states he does not know that day or hour. How is it if Jesus was the same substance and co-equal to the Father that he did not have information the Father had?
32“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father
Also, what about the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit is person in the trinity, why does the Holy Spirit not know either? The Holy Spirit according to Judaism is the active force of God. It's not someone but something according to Judaism.
In Mark 20 we see the Father has the authority to do something that Jesus cannot
"What is it you want?" he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
Jesus prays to God in Matthew 26:39 so clearly it's ridiculous to believe Jesus is God. Also, why is he only praying to the Father and not to the Holy Spirit and himself?
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
If Jesus was God why does he have to call on the Father for support from angels? Why does he even need support?
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? [Matt 26:53]
John 14:28 teaches Jesus is lesser than the Father
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus denies he is God explicitly in John 17:3. The word only in Greek is monos. It clearly teaches there's no other.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
In John 20:17 Jesus affirms he has a God
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that Jesus is subordinate to God
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 8:6 teaches only the Father is God
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
John 10:30 is about being one in purpose not substance. In fact the idea of this verse teaching Jesus is one substance with the Father is refuted in John 17:11 where the disciples are taught they can be one in the same way as Jesus and the Father are one (clearly not teaching the Trinity!!)
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
Saturday, 21 November 2015
Christian Girls Asked To Be More Like Muslim Girls By A Christian School!
This is one for the Islamophobes and the anti-Muslim Christian bigots to think about. A Christian school is asking the girls at the school to dress more modestly according to a Raw Story report:
A new policy at a British Christian school is requiring girls to cover their legs with “opaque tights” and long skirts as a safety measure against sexual assault.
The Hartlepool Mail reported that parents of students at St. Hild’s Church of England School had received a letter informing them of the new policy.
The letter says that “in the interest of modesty and to ensure your child is properly safeguarded on their way to and from school, we ask that black tights be worn with skirts at all times”.
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine
Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage
Thursday, 15 October 2015
Child's Resemblance to Father/Mother Hadith Talking about Genes?
Yes this Hadith seems to be concerning genetics. The Arabic terms literally mean 'water/liquid/fluid of the father' and 'water/liquid/fluid of the mother'. The immediate audience was not familiar with the concept of genes. In 7th century Arabia, an over-arching term like that is understandable in that it carries the meaning of genes in everyday understandable language.
وَأَمَّا الْوَلَدُ، فَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَ الْوَلَدَ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الْمَرْأَةِ مَاءَ الرَّجُلِ نَزَعَتِ الْوَلَدَ
Above is the part of the Hadith we are focussing on, translated; as for the child, if the fluid of the man SABAQA (beats) the fluid of the woman then the child resembles the man. And if the woman's fluid SABAQA (beats) the man's fluid then the child resembles the mother.
If a child is to have a phenotype of one of his/her parents then it means the genes of that parent SABAQA (beat) the other parent as in a competition. Both parents have genes which compete against one another. Remarkably, the word SABAQA does have the connotation of winning a competition.
Gene versions can be dominant, recessive and co-dominant. We must also remember that for most observable physical characteristics there's more than one set of genes at play (multiple genes) - this is an area in which geneticists have little understanding (such as nose shape). So for a child to share a trait from the father or mother it's literally a case of whose genes beat the other.
One thing that is of interest for the seekers of truth, the Prophet (p) made a statement which is in conformity with our modern day understanding of genetics, namely if a child is to share a particular phenotype with the mother it means the mother's genes 'beat' the father's genes in that instance (the same applies vice versa). Looking at the overall picture, if the child resembles one parent more than the other it means that parent's genes won or beat the other parents genes.
When the news of the arrival of the Prophet at Medina reached `Abdullah bin Salam, he went to him to ask him about certain things, He said, "I am going to ask you about three things which only a Prophet can answer: What is the first sign of The Hour? What is the first food which the people of Paradise will eat? Why does a child attract the similarity to his father or to his mother?" The Prophet replied, "Gabriel has just now informed me of that." Ibn Salam said, "He (i.e. Gabriel) is the enemy of the Jews amongst the angels. The Prophet said, "As for the first sign of The Hour, it will be a fire that will collect the people from the East to the West. As for the first meal which the people of Paradise will eat, it will be the caudate (extra) lobe of the fish-liver. As for the child, if the man's discharge proceeds the woman's discharge, the child attracts the similarity to the man, and if the woman's discharge proceeds the man's, then the child attracts the similarity to the woman." On this, `Abdullah bin Salam said, "I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and that you are the Apostle of Allah." and added, "O Allah's Apostle! Jews invent such lies as make one astonished, so please ask them about me before they know about my conversion to I slam . " The Jews came, and the Prophet said, "What kind of man is `Abdullah bin Salam among you?" They replied, "The best of us and the son of the best of us and the most superior among us, and the son of the most superior among us. "The Prophet said, "What would you think if `Abdullah bin Salam should embrace Islam?" They said, "May Allah protect him from that." The Prophet repeated his question and they gave the same answer. Then `Abdullah came out to them and said, "I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah!" On this, the Jews said, "He is the most wicked among us and the son of the most wicked among us." So they degraded him. On this, he (i.e. `Abdullah bin Salam) said, "It is this that I was afraid of, O Allah's Apostle.
A response to 33 so called errors in the Quran
A refutation of 45 alleged historical/scientific errors in the Quran
Does the Quran say the Sun orbits the Earth?
AntiMuslim Sun Set Arguments Refuted by That Muslim Guy
Numerical miracle in Quran
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Conversions to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Monday, 11 May 2015
I'm Muslim and I've sinned and want forgiveness
Brothers and sisters, we all sin. Don't lose hope in the Mercy of Allah. Allah is the MOST Merciful.
No sin is 'major' after seeking forgiveness from Allah, and no sin is 'minor' when done continuously with headlessness of Allah.
The great Muslim jurist al-Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 544) said "The more insignificant you perceive a sin, the greater it will be in the eyes of Allah, and the greater you perceive a sin, the more insignificant it will be in the sight of Allah."
One of the greatest tricks of Shaytan is to make you trivialize your sins, and allow you to feel secure from the punishment of Allah. And Shaytan's greatest deception is to make you lose hope in the Mercy of Allah, even with the minor sins.
No matter what sin you're struggling with, expect Allah to forgive you if you turn to Him, even as you dread the possibility of His punishment. For it is between hope and fear that true iman lives.
Italic text from Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi's FB
Muslims give the most charity and have least sex outside of marriage!
British Atheist Becomes Muslim
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
Sunday, 10 May 2015
Monday, 20 April 2015
British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p
Christians may think, do Muslims protest when other Prophets are insulted in Western liberal societies? Yes, Muslims protest and are not happy when Prophets such as Jesus p are insulted.
[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?
People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine
Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage
Thursday, 2 April 2015
What Islam says about Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs in Islam
Dinosaurs, they capture the imagination, and have been creatures humans have always taken a great interest to. There seems to be something fascinating about dinosaurs, from their enormous sizes, and to their behaviour.
Now from an Islamic perspective, where do dinosaurs come in? The Quran and hadiths say nothing specifically about dinosaurs, but does that mean as Muslims we reject their creation or existence? Off course not, the fossil evidence for the existence of dinosaurs is undisputable, it’s as real as the sun’s existence.
Now even though the Quran does not specifically mention dinosaurs, it does talk about how God has created and scattered several creatures throughout the creation:
"Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. (The Noble Quran, 2:164)"
"He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. (The Noble Quran, 31:10)"
So in these verses the Quran talks about God creating beasts of all kinds, some have argued that these verses are in reference to dinosaurs, as the word that’s used in Arabic is ‘dabbah’ which is translated as beast, so some argue these beasts are dinosaurs. Now obviously in a general sense, dinosaurs would be among those beasts that were created, but whether the verse is specifically referencing dinosaurs alone, well that’s something we do not know.
So in light of these verses, the existence of dinosaurs is not something problematic for Muslims, as the Quran mentions, God has created beasts of all kinds, and dinosaurs are a fact of life discovered by experts, so therefore per Islam they would fall under the category of creatures created by God per the Quranic verses we have just mentioned.
Some might ask well why didn’t the Quran specifically mention dinosaurs by name? This is an unreasonable demand, as there are literally millions upon millions of different living organisms that have inhabited this planet, if the Quran was going to name every single living being that ever walked this earth, you wouldn’t be able to go through the whole book. So instead of naming every living creature, the Quran gets to the point and in a general statement says that God has created living creatures of all kinds, and this is sufficient for us.
Now in terms of dinosaurs and humans living together side by side, something like out of the Flintstones, we as Muslims do not believe in this either. This is a belief held by some Christian creationists, and so some might lump Muslims into the same group, but as Muslims we don’t believe in such a thing. We don’t believe humans hunted dinosaurs, or that dinosaurs were around during the time of Adam.
The science has shown that dinosaurs died well before the emergence of human beings, and this has no contradiction with Islam, as Islam says nothing about humans and dinosaurs living together.
One could even argue that had dinosaurs and men lived together, it would’ve been dinosaurs hunting men, and dinosaurs becoming the victors over men who were carrying sticks and stones. The mass extinction of dinosaurs has definitely facilitated the emergence of humans as the main dominant species on this planet.
Taken from: http://www.muslimdebate.org/theological-arguments/islam/320-dinosaurs-in-islam
ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?
People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine
Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)