kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 yes. killing is always wrong. Even in defense of your own life or others? What if a person threatens to kill millions, and the only way to stop him is to kill him, is it still wrong? And who are you to say that killing is wrong? On what basis do you claim that the act of killing is wrong? and please explain this one too: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Wanneer de heilige maanden voorbij zijn, doodt dan de afgodendienaren waar gij hen ook vindt en grijpt hen en belegert hen en loert op hen uit elke hinderlaag. Maar als zij berouw hebben en het gebed houden en de Zakaat betalen, laat hun weg dan vrij. Voorzeker, Allah is Vergevensgezind, Genadevol. " here is the translation of the text: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." - 9:5 quoted directly from an english koran to avoid wrong translations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- besides that i am pretty critical on the islam and muslims, i have to say you do your best and seem really interested in it all. If you are so intent on being critical, why do you even bother to quote this then? For instance this verse is clearly explained by referring to the surrounding verses (did you even bother to look at them?): 009.004 YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. PICKTHAL: Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). SHAKIR: Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). 009.005 YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. PICKTHAL: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. SHAKIR: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 009.006 YUSUFALI: If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. PICKTHAL: And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not. SHAKIR: And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know. Again, the Noble Qur'an stresses self-defense and never aggression. I'm hoping you are being sincere in your responses... :? i really don't think they meant it that way. is there any proof that they didn't mean it that way? I'm not sure how to answer this. The onus isn't on me. It is on you, you need to provide some evidence to show if Muhammad (pbuh) has ever actually cut anyone's hand off using this verse. The Noble Qur'an says numerous times it is revealed "in a language that you may understand". So that is the reason why it uses the common sayings of the time period and location. And, as explained in 003.007, some verses are allegorical, this happens to be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 I do have one question, I suppose. According to you, not being muslim makes 'the way to the top of the mountain' or 'the way to heaven' if you prefer, harder. I'm going out on a limb here and assume that Islam's criterion for whether or not you'll be admitted to heaven is the subjective 'lead a good life' idea? (eg be good to others, don't kill, don't steal, etc. etc.) If so, I'd assume that Islam also requires its followers to follow the same rules (don't kill, don't steal, etc. etc.). So what makes it harder to reach heaven without being a muslim? Well, one of the criterion for entering heaven is being a Muslim. :D That's what, in my analogy, is the escalator. Praying five times a day, fasting, giving charity, not drinking alcohol or using any bad drugs, and doing all these things takes more effort and God sees that as more favorable. Being a good person... even without being a Muslim or knowing about Islam, it is easy to be. Follow universal axioms, which never go wrong. So then, why did you say: 20. Do Muslims believe that all non-believers go to "hell" when they die regardless of how good they where in life? Humans are judged based on rather or not they are good. Non-Muslims can go to hell, but they can also get into heaven and unlike Christian hell, the Muslim concept of hell is temporary. You seem to me as if you have literally said you can get into heaven being a non-believer, hence, not a muslim? Also, I find it hard to believe muslims do not drink alcohol at all? Is that still the case in current times, or are there exceptions of some sort? And why is smoking pipe allowed but not drinking alcohol? Both are 'drugs' in a sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Even in defense of your own life or others? What if a person threatens to kill millions, and the only way to stop him is to kill him, is it still wrong? And who are you to say that killing is wrong? On what basis do you claim that the act of killing is wrong? i am myself to say that killing is wrong. and yes then it is still wrong. on what basis i say that? what about humanity? those surrounding verses don't explain me anything. and yes i looked at them before. don't put me off as if i'm asking all those questions to attack you or your believes. I'm not sure how to answer this. The onus isn't on me. It is on you, you need to provide some evidence to show if Muhammad (pbuh) has ever actually cut anyone's hand off using this verse. The Noble Qur'an says numerous times it is revealed "in a language that you may understand". So that is the reason why it uses the common sayings of the time period and location. why should i put evidence of muhamet cutting of someone's hand??? i don't have to put any proof in. the texts says wath it says. if it should be interperd diffrently, then you are the one who has to come up with evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 You seem to me as if you have literally said you can get into heaven being a non-believer, hence, not a muslim? Yes. That is correct. Also, I find it hard to believe muslims do not drink alcohol at all? Yep. Alcohol is forbidden for all Muslims. What's so hard to believe? The Noble Qur'an states that while there may be some good in alcohol, the evil far outweighs the good, and that is why it is forbidden. Is that still the case in current times, or are there exceptions of some sort? No exceptions. And why is smoking pipe allowed but not drinking alcohol? Both are 'drugs' in a sense. Smoking pipe isn't allowed, because it is harmful to the body. i am myself to say that killing is wrong. and yes then it is still wrong. on what basis i say that? what about humanity? What about humanity? Since when has humanity ever stated that killing is wrong? It is not illegal to kill someone anywhere in the world. Here in the United States, it is legal to kill someone in self-defense. The Geneva Conventions agreed that killing during a time of war is justified. Can you show me an example of any country, from any time period, completely outlawed all killing of any kind? Because as far as I know, there has not. why should i put evidence of muhamet cutting of someone's hand??? i don't have to put any proof in. the texts says wath it says. if it should be interperd diffrently, then you are the one who has to come up with evidence. I already showed you, 003.007 states that some of the verses are allegorical, and 005.038 is an allegorical verse. Show me your evidence as to why it should be taken literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 And alright, you say killing is wrong. You are entitled to your opinion. Don't become a Muslim then. Nobody is forcing you. :roll: The problem is, you don't have any basis for saying that all killing is wrong. All you did was give a vague response, "humanity", as if that was easily understood as an explanation. See, this is often a problem when discussing religion, because people start on different grounds. The way to solve this dispute is the Socratic Method, here we go! 1. Why is killing wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Yes, but they knew enough to ask about Elijah, the Christ, and the Prophet. From what I understand it was an entire group of priests that came up to John the Baptist and asked these questions, they could hardly be considered to have no idea about what they were talking about. I've read the verse you provided and also the original prophecy for this prophet in Deuteronomy. It looks to me (from a Christian perspective) that Christ and the Prophet are one and the same. That the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy is Christ. The same name is not always ascribed to him in the old testament prophecies (at least in English) - (look at Isaiah 53, Micah 5:2, etc). But of course there's no point in discussing this right now, as this discussion is on the validity of Islam, and not an Islam vs. Christian debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bas Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 to your first post: my own country, The Netherlands, it is illegal to kill anyone under ANY circumstances. and i find it very hard to believe that in every american state it is legal to kill for self defence. my evidence as for hand chopping thing? if i read something, im not going to think, hey, they could've meant it this way, this and this way. what you read is what you get. second post: you know, you really sound like a 3 year old child asking such a question. it is SO obvious that killing is wrong. you got to be one sick phsycho if you think killing is good. if i'd go out on the street and ask 100 people if killing i wrong yes/no, im sure they'll all say it's wrong. some may ask under which circumstances, sure they will. well, maybe there are circumstances where you must kill someone, but that does not mean it is good! if someone with a decent pair of brains had to shoot someone because of wathever circumstance and you ask him after he murdered the other guy if it felt good, i bet he says it didn't. it's so obvious that killing is wrong. // off to bed by the way, And alright, you say killing is wrong. You are entitled to your opinion. Don't become a Muslim then. Nobody is forcing you. so, because of my opinion that killing is wrong, i shouldn't become muslim. so your opinion should be that killing is good, to become muslim, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Thanks for answering my question, kirby! :D This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 I've read the verse you provided and also the original prophecy for this prophet in Deuteronomy. Are you referring to Deuteronomy 18:18? If you are, then I understand what you mean. It looks to me (from a Christian perspective) that Christ and the Prophet are one and the same. That the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy is Christ. The same name is not always ascribed to him in the old testament prophecies (at least in English) - (look at Isaiah 53, Micah 5:2, etc). But of course there's no point in discussing this right now, as this discussion is on the validity of Islam, and not an Islam vs. Christian debate. Yes, I know of the Christian opinion on who that prophet is, and I'm not here to argue which opinion is the right one, I'm here to merely inform what Muslims believe about the prophecies of the Bible. to your first post: my own country, The Netherlands, it is illegal to kill anyone under ANY circumstances. and i find it very hard to believe that in every american state it is legal to kill for self defence. I find this highly unlikely; can you show me where in the Dutch Constution it says that no killing is ever allowed? my evidence as for hand chopping thing? if i read something, im not going to think, hey, they could've meant it this way, this and this way. what you read is what you get. Then I cannot discuss this further with you. The Noble Qur'an clearly states that some parts are not to be taken literally. If you take them literally anyway, then that's your problem, not mine. second post: you know, you really sound like a 3 year old child asking such a question. it is SO obvious that killing is wrong. you got to be one sick phsycho if you think killing is good. if i'd go out on the street and ask 100 people if killing i wrong yes/no, im sure they'll all say it's wrong. some may ask under which circumstances, sure they will. well, maybe there are circumstances where you must kill someone, but that does not mean it is good! if someone with a decent pair of brains had to shoot someone because of wathever circumstance and you ask him after he murdered the other guy if it felt good, i bet he says it didn't. it's so obvious that killing is wrong. This is ripe with so many fallacies: 1. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) Just because you ask 100 people if killing is wrong and they say yes doesn't mean that killing is wrong. 2. argumentum ad hominem (personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) You called me a three year old for asking such a question, when in fact it is something that three year olds would never be able to grasp. 3. argumentum ad nauseam (repitition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam) Saying over and over that killing is wrong doesn't make it wrong. And no, it isn't so obvious that killing is wrong. I understand that you may have never had thought to question this and that is what makes you think it is such a stupid question, but there is no room for that here. so, because of my opinion that killing is wrong, i shouldn't become muslim. so your opinion should be that killing is good, to become muslim, right? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is good or right, ever thought about that? And vice versa... Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is bad or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necromagus Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Alright, I have a question now. It's been pretty clearly stated that non-Muslims can also go to heaven, if they have led 'good' lives. Is there any clear definition of what 'good' is? Is it just living by the rules stated by the Qu'ran without actually declaring the Shahadah, or is Allah more lenient towards non-Muslims in subjects like alcohol because of their 'ignorance'? My Tip.It Times Articles (10 and counting) || The Varrock Library Author Index projectDo you dare to dream? - Part 19 added. || The Hospital (WIP) - New story!Necromagus looks like a viking ... with glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 Alright, I have a question now. It's been pretty clearly stated that non-Muslims can also go to heaven, if they have led 'good' lives. Is there any clear definition of what 'good' is? Is it just living by the rules stated by the Qu'ran without actually declaring the Shahadah, or is Allah more lenient towards non-Muslims in subjects like alcohol because of their 'ignorance'? It is really the matter of ignorance. If you know something to be wrong and do it anyway, that's different than if you don't know and you do it anyway. Most of the people that would be in hell would be in there because they knew exactly what the law says and deliberately did otherwise. But really, God in Islam is much more of a forgiver than a punisher. Each chapter of the Noble Qur'an starts with "In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Would a Most Merciful Being put you in hell for petty sins like stealing or lying? And the thing is, these sorts of matters are personal. God doesn't go by what you say or do. God goes by what your innermost thoughts are. When you steal something, if your innermost thought is "That jerk! He'll be so angry when he found out I stole this from him! :twisted: " , that makes a difference, compared to "I hope he will forgive me for stealing this, I needed it to save my life [food]". You just have to believe in yourself. Everyone sins, not everyone repents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurl Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 You're doing a great job, I myself am Islamic too. :) 123 Combat / 1900 Skill Total / 99 HP / 7x 99 Stats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 Hey insane, do you remember me from a while ago? Remember giving me a private message like this? insane edit: personal message :P I just thought I would like to say thanks. Yeah I know, its been 11 months, but better late than never. :mrgreen: *POST EDIT* btw, I am taking Speech&Debate at a class at my high school this year :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 You seem to me as if you have literally said you can get into heaven being a non-believer, hence, not a muslim? Yes. That is correct. Forgive me for carrying through on this, but I'm confused. On the one end, you say non-believers can go to heaven. On the other hand you said that for going to heaven, it is a requirement to be a muslim. How do these two play together? Do we have to go to hell first, temporarily, become a muslim and then go to heaven or something? ---- As for your socratic debate, it's interesting that you propose that. I think you stated your first question wrongly, though. You probably meant, why killing is never right (or always wrong. So let me give it a shot, we'll start simple (these discussions tend to become complicated soon enough, without trying): Killing is wrong because the person whom you are killing will have had people caring for him or her. You are causing these people immense grief by depriving them of their loved one. Furthermore, the victim of your killing could have done so many good things for society, and you deprived him of every possibility to do so. This is why killing is wrong. ---- As for dutch law, it does forbid killing, but not under every circumstance, from what I know (I'm Dutch too). IIRC, it makes exceptions for soldiers in war and in self defence situations where your own life is threatened directly. However, the justice systems here are very strict about these conditions; a soldier in Iraq got charged with first-degree murder when he killed someone looting a building (arguably in a wartime situation). ---- In other news, bas, please moderate your comments. It looks to me as if you are being very hostile towards something just because you don't know it very well. The quotes you made were selective and unfair, and have been validly disproved. There is no need to flame people because they have a different opinion, and frankly said, going mad because they do a better job at defending their opinion than you do attacking it only makes matters worse. We definitely do not want this topic locked; For once, let's actually try and have a sensible debate about religion on these forums? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 23, 2005 Author Share Posted November 23, 2005 Forgive me for carrying through on this, but I'm confused. On the one end, you say non-believers can go to heaven. On the other hand you said that for going to heaven, it is a requirement to be a muslim. How do these two play together? Do we have to go to hell first, temporarily, become a muslim and then go to heaven or something? I think I may have made a mistake. In any case, what I meant to say was, being a Muslim is a requirement for a guaranteed spot in heaven. I'll say the escalator analogy again: The bottom of the mountain is here. You want to get to the top. There are many different ways to the top, some are more dangerous than others. Being a Muslim is like getting an escalator ride to the top. You don't need an escalator to get to the top of the mountain, but without it, it is much harder. Hell is temporary, and is only reserved for the worst. But it will be filled with people, and the worse their sins, the longer it lasts. Killing is wrong because the person whom you are killing will have had people caring for him or her. You are causing these people immense grief by depriving them of their loved one. Furthermore, the victim of your killing could have done so many good things for society, and you deprived him of every possibility to do so. This is why killing is wrong. alright, building on this: 2. Why should a person care that he is causing other people grief, and why should a person care that society have good things done for it? :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeeeediot Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Wa'alaikum As-salams Kirby :) (forums rules require translation: peace be upon you) You seem to me as if you have literally said you can get into heaven being a non-believer, hence, not a muslim? Yes. That is correct. Forgive me for carrying through on this, but I'm confused. On the one end, you say non-believers can go to heaven. On the other hand you said that for going to heaven, it is a requirement to be a muslim. How do these two play together? Do we have to go to hell first, temporarily, become a muslim and then go to heaven or something? As far as I know, there is the necessity to believe in the five basic pillars of Islam and hence be a Muslim to go to heaven, although the main point is not to do good actions to go there but rather for the fact that they are the right things to do. The original wording in the first post regarding the mountain and escalator analogy was unclear and perhaps gave rise to some confusion. If however, you happen to live in a remote part of the world and never come across Islam during your life time (very unlikely nowadays), then it would not be just for God to send you to Hell and the person is judged differently - I don't much about this though, I just know that there is this exception. As a further point, not all Muslims go to heaven simply because they are Muslims. As kirby said, God judges people based on their inner most thoughts (i.e. intentions motivating their actions). There will even be cases where people will be sent to hell for a certain period of time to serve out their punishment for the sins they have committed and then go to heaven. There will also be people in Hell forever because of the severity of their sins. Hope that clarifys some things Hannibal :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Killing is wrong because the person whom you are killing will have had people caring for him or her. You are causing these people immense grief by depriving them of their loved one. Furthermore, the victim of your killing could have done so many good things for society, and you deprived him of every possibility to do so. This is why killing is wrong. alright, building on this: 2. Why should a person care that he is causing other people grief, and why should a person care that society have good things done for it? :wink: (Heaven thing clarified, thanks both you and Eeeeediot) A person should care about causing other people grief because he would not want other people causing him grief. If he were not to care about causing others grief, others would not care about causing him grief. This is not what one wants. A person should care about good things happening for society because a good society (a society to which good things are done) is a benifit for his personal life; his/her life is enriched by having a better society. ==== Back on the Heaven/Hell thing. I haven't mentioned this yet (though you may have inferred at a certain point, or read some of my older posts), but I am a Christian, though a liberal one at that. I just read the following, which may be an interesting comparison with the Islamic view of heaven/hell: http://www.taize.fr/en_article2896.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 A person should care about causing other people grief because he would not want other people causing him grief. If he were not to care about causing others grief, others would not care about causing him grief. This is not what one wants. Exactly. This is why you should always do the greater good. Killing 1 person to save the lives of 10 people would be an example of this. A person should care about good things happening for society because a good society (a society to which good things are done) is a benifit for his personal life; his/her life is enriched by having a better society. I have to disagree with this. Stalin lived pleasant life, but he totally ruined his society with the Great Purges that killed tens of millions by starving them to death. Hitler lived a comfortable life while thousands of Jews were killed each day at Treblinka. So, just because your society isn't made better does not necessarily correlate with your own life being better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThousandLies Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 Thank you for your replies...let me begin: As much as I dislike organized religion ... that was a mighty fine post. I don't have the time or focus to read it all and to absorb it properly, but there are some things I'd like to ask ... Tell me: What are the Islamic standings towards: -Homosexuality -Contraception -Disease (by which I mean: are they believed to be caused by divine entities or have relation to divinity?) Thanks in advance. Homosexuality - Homosexuality is natural, and it is not sinful for members of the same sex to lust for one another. However, because members of the same sex cannot marry, all sexual activity amongst same sex members is forbidden. The rules stay the same, marriage is a requirement for sex. God said that those who can control their urges are more favorable. Contraception - Contraception is not forbidden in Islam. Disease - Disease is disease... nothing special about it. Excellent ... thanks for clearing that up. Much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannibal Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 A person should care about causing other people grief because he would not want other people causing him grief. If he were not to care about causing others grief, others would not care about causing him grief. This is not what one wants. Exactly. This is why you should always do the greater good. Killing 1 person to save the lives of 10 people would be an example of this. A person should care about good things happening for society because a good society (a society to which good things are done) is a benifit for his personal life; his/her life is enriched by having a better society. I have to disagree with this. Stalin lived pleasant life, but he totally ruined his society with the Great Purges that killed tens of millions by starving them to death. Hitler lived a comfortable life while thousands of Jews were killed each day at Treblinka. So, just because your society isn't made better does not necessarily correlate with your own life being better. Hrm. So how about relating that through? Meaning, if society gets better, *someone* will notice it. That's a given (ie, in the examples you gave, the Jews and the rebellious Russians noticed the society gets worse). This is not what you want, because if they assume that society getting worse is okay, they may do the same to you (so see the point you agreed with). In this case, it's still bad that Stalin and Hitler did what they did because the Jews and Russians suffered from what they did. As for the one vs. 10 debate... yes and no. No because there is no way for us to know whether the lives of 10 of them were worth more than that of the 1 person we're about to kill, but this may be the case (which means we wouldn't want to kill that one person. Eg. choice between killing Mahatma Gandhi or 10 of the 9/11 hijackers, or something like that). Yes because since there is no way for us to judge this, the decision should be left up to God / Allah. I think it's hard to decide what the 'right' thing is in situations like that, perhaps impossible. It's a decision that no human should be confronted with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 24, 2005 Author Share Posted November 24, 2005 Hrm. So how about relating that through? Meaning, if society gets better, *someone* will notice it. That's a given (ie, in the examples you gave, the Jews and the rebellious Russians noticed the society gets worse). This is not what you want, because if they assume that society getting worse is okay, they may do the same to you (so see the point you agreed with). In this case, it's still bad that Stalin and Hitler did what they did because the Jews and Russians suffered from what they did. But the thing is, they didn't do the same thing. I don't see any Jews oppressing Russians and Germans. What I was trying to point out is, some people don't care about society getting better if it means that their status gets worse. Take Al Capone. Why should he want to better society? He was making millions off gambling, prostitution, and bootlegging. As for the one vs. 10 debate... yes and no. No because there is no way for us to know whether the lives of 10 of them were worth more than that of the 1 person we're about to kill, but this may be the case (which means we wouldn't want to kill that one person. Eg. choice between killing Mahatma Gandhi or 10 of the 9/11 hijackers, or something like that). Yes because since there is no way for us to judge this, the decision should be left up to God / Allah. I think it's hard to decide what the 'right' thing is in situations like that, perhaps impossible. It's a decision that no human should be confronted with. I agree with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubsa Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 I wish most preachers were like you Kirby :P This is how much you all raised for charity. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expertgamer Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 if you are to stop a man from killing millions, he must be killed, i don't agree with that. if you are to arrest him, lock him up for life, there's not much he can do. if you end up in the situation where you could kill a man, you could very well disable him for that time, and let him live his life. i don't want to argue, but i'm saying killing isn't the only way out. but i wanna know how scriptures were viewed wrong/corrupted to show Jesus differently? and were these scriptures misinterpreted, who fulfilled them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbybeam Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 but i wanna know how scriptures were viewed wrong/corrupted to show Jesus differently? Matthew claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils the prophecy in Micah 5:2. But this is unlikely for two reasons. "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4). The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. 2:5-6 "Out of Egypt I have called my son," Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus' family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, as is clear when the entire verse is quoted ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."). It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse. 2:15 Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. 2:17-18 "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. 2:23 The devil correctly quotes scripture (Ps.91:11-12), while Jesus misquotes Deuteronomy by adding "only" to Dt.6:13. 4:6, 10 Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21 Jesus tells his disciples that he will return before they can "go over the cities of Israel." Later (24:14) he says he will not come until the gospel is preached throughout the world. Well, his disciples went over the cities of Israel and then died waiting for the "return of the Lord." Now, nearly 2000 years later, and long after the gospel had been preached throughout the world, his followers still wait. 10:23 When Jesus and his disciples are accused of breaking the Sabbath, he excuses himself by referring to a scripture in which priests who "profaned the Sabbath" were blameless. But there is no such passage in the Old Testament. 12:5 Misquote of Ps.78:2-3 13:35 Jesus visits Tyre which according to Ezekiel (26:14, 21; 27:36, 28:19) was not supposed to exist. 15:21 Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. 16:28 This verse claims that Jesus fulfils the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. 21:4 Jesus predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners. 23:36 Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come. Well according to Paul the gospel has been preached to everyone (Rom.10:18) yet the end hasn't come. 24:14 Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. The world of course didn't end then, and according to Ec.1:4 it never will end. 24:34 "But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." What scriptures? What prophets? There is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. 26:54-46 Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 26:64 This is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah (11:12-13). 27:9 and were these scriptures misinterpreted, who fulfilled them? I think this is answered above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4). What do you make of 1 Samuel 17:12 then? The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. I believe Micah has already changed topics by v6. Bible prophecy (imo) often changes pace - for instance one sentence will be fulfilled, and then the next sentence will be fulfilled hundreds of years later. This is even a paragraph apart. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. 2:5-6 Your reasoning is circular. You're assuming you've already proven the Micah passage to not refer to a place (read the Samuel verse) - if Matthew honestly thought (and your judging his intentions is irrational and pointless) that it referred to a place, the paraphrase doesn't seem so guilty anymore, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now