Saturday, April 07, 2012

The Death of God


Jesus died the death of Israel’s messiah at the hands of the Romans, just as had many false claimants before Him. He died the death of God’s child: the cry of ‘Abba’ from the profound depths of his suffering was a yearning to feel the love once again of His dear Father. Jesus died the death of a Jew, nailed to a cross between two Jewish rebels; persecuted, tortured and murdered like millions of Jews throughout history. He died the death of a poor man and a slave, sharing the fate of those 7,000 who were pinned to crosses along the Via Appia after the Spartacus revolt. He died the death of the living: He was mortal man, and would one day have tasted death even if He had not been executed. Mortality belongs to creaturely finitude.

Lying in His tomb, he participated in the inescapable fate of all of us, and of every living thing: ‘all that lives must die, / Passing through nature to eternity.’ But death is the wages of sin, so how can the sinless Son of God die? Was he immortal, both in His divinity and His humanity? If so, in what sense was he ‘fully man’? Or is it that He came to die our death, the death of sinners, out of compassion? Was He buried vicariously for us all because He was sinless and mortal at the same time? Was His death not only ours, but His own natural death also? Did He die in solidarity with the whole of sighing creation, because this is ‘natural’, if not the inescapably tragic consequence of sin and fallenness?

The suffering, death and burial of Christ are the sufferings of this present time (Rom 8:18), which are endured by everything that lives. Creation is transient, and God seems distant, lying in a tomb. In our trauma, grief and tears it is sometimes damned hard to believe, to hope, to trust. Today is dark because God is dead, and we are abandoned, bereft, destitute, alone.

102 Comments:

Blogger FitzA said...

Wonderful

7 April 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger Katie said...

Your Grace has not a few Catholic (Papist) readers both at home and abroad. May I wish you a blessed Easter from Italy.

7 April 2012 at 10:35  
Blogger len said...

The Death of God.
God is Eternal and cannot die.

Christ' s spirit was surrendered back to God on the cross of Calvary.The Bible never says that God died. It was the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Of course, He is both God and man in one person. The Son of God became a human being so that He could die. But the Holy Spirit and the Father are also God, and they did not die on the cross, only the Son.

What does the Bible teach that death is? It is not annihilation; it is separation. So when Christ died, He did not cease existing.
Christ's death was more than a physical death. From the cross He cried out, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" As Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree, He came under the judgment of God. He was forsaken by God. This was more than physical death. There on the cross, He experienced spiritual separation.

This spiritual separation from God is the condition of all those who have not accepted Christ as their Saviour.

It is sin that separates us from God and the remedy is only to be found in the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary.
God`s acceptance of the atonement of Jesus Christ is proven through the consequent resurrection.

7 April 2012 at 10:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"Mishilam"

7 April 2012 at 11:07  
Blogger starcourse said...

A wonderful post.

Yet "My God, My God why have you forsaken me" is of course the beginning of Psalm 22 which ends (in your Grace's translation)

"They shall come, and the heavens shall declare his righteousness: unto a people that shall be born, whom the Lord hath made."

7 April 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger PJ said...

"What is happening? Today there is a great silence over the earth, a great silence, and stillness, a great silence because the King sleeps; the earth was in terror and was still, because God slept in the flesh and raised up those who were sleeping from the ages. God has died in the flesh, and the underworld has trembled.

Truly he goes to seek out our first parent like a lost sheep; he wishes to visit those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death. He goes to free the prisoner Adam and his fellow-prisoner Eve from their pains, he who is God, and Adam's son.

The Lord goes in to them holding his victorious weapon, his cross. When Adam, the first created man, sees him, he strikes his breast in terror and calls out to all: 'My Lord be with you all.' And Christ in reply says to Adam: ‘And with your spirit.’ And grasping his hand he raises him up, saying: ‘Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.

Taken from the Ancient Homily for Holy Saturday

7 April 2012 at 12:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Christ was not crucified between two rebels, but two thieves. One can appreciate this was another part of the overall humiliation arranged by the administration...

7 April 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 April 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jesus was both fully God and fully man. When the second person of the Trinity was incarnated, He emptied Himself of his divine prerogatives for a time, and lived life as an ordinary man. He did not however cease to be God. He became One Person with two natures. This is all bound up in the mystery of the hypostatic union which is simply beyond our comprehension. How does the Infinite intersect with the finite?

After Jesus the man had lived the life of obedience we were supposed to lived, He suffered the death we were supposed to die. He takes from us our sin, and returns in its place His righteousness. It was the man who did this. He was made exactly like His brothers so that He might be a fit High priest. It's important that we not confound the persons in Christ. It was Jesus the man who suffered and died, because only a man could suffer and die. God cannot die.

carl

7 April 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger srizals said...

Thank God my God never died and never will. My God! Who would take care of the whole wide universe if He, the sustainer of life dies? Sorry, can't help it. Carry on...

7 April 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 April 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger srizals said...

A comparison between the created beings. The puny and the not so puny.

7 April 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you Your Grace for your sustained excellence - not least in giving us each the opportunity to expound a hermenueutic! Today we respond by interpreting the Divine Mystery of the Crucifixion.

My own thoughts extend via the genius of the Old English poem we call "The Dream of the Rood," which treats all the points we are considering here. As Len and Mr. Jacobs indicate: Almighty and Eternal God cannot die. Thus the poem images the fall of a king ... but one for whom death means only sleep or rest (cf PJ).

At this stage of the poem, men mimic their creator by creating an "earth-urn"(65b) for the Word--unwittingly echoing and contributing to the creation of life for themselves. As St. Augustine said of the Crucifixion: "there he healed you of eternal death."** That is what we remember His doing today, when He even extended from the Light of the Father to harrow the darkness of Hell.

Of course the sublime image also contains a paradox. For while the Crucifixion demonstrates the vileness of mankind, the acts of Christ and the Cross exceed heroism or fairness: because the resolution of the paradox -Redemption– epitomizes Grace.

In the vision presented, gems flash sporadically, alternating with the nails on the cross. Therefore they also analogize the Christian paradox that contains its own solution: Redemption.

There evil is transmuted to good, and Death becomes Eternal Life. The gems represent points where a thesis of spiritual glory (gold and jewels (7) meets an antithesis of wounds caused by nails (46a) and arrows (62b) and there -through the synthesis of sacrifice and Grace- the Son/Word redeems mankind.

Indeed He did not die: however, part of Him expanded into the universe from the confinement of His human frame: when He gave up his GHOST. How much clearer our English concept is... than its posturing modern Latin translation!

**Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. Tractates on the Gospel of John. Trans. John W. Rettig.
Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, c198. Tr. 3: 77.
Also referenced: Swanton, M. ed. The Dream of the Rood. New ed. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996; 93-101.

7 April 2012 at 17:32  
Blogger srizals said...

Hmm, deja vu.

7 April 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry Srizals! 'Twas I, not thee. Couldn't stand the typos :)

7 April 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Kinderling said...

"death is the wages of sin"
Yep, everyone who died and did not resurrect is now in Hell.
http://bible.cc/matthew/27-52.htm

"Today is dark because God is dead, and we are abandoned, bereft, destitute, alone".
Yep, God does not work on the Sabbath either.
http://bible.cc/mark/2-27.htm

Oh, hum, it will all come around next year when the Roman Constantinians come out again and scare the crap out of children in this End Of Days cult.

8 April 2012 at 04:09  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Oh what unutterable twaddle

"god" iss NOT dead, because he/she/it/they didn't exist in the first place, then or now.
It's a product of your diseased imaginations.

8 April 2012 at 07:45  
Blogger len said...

There were those who stood around the Cross and mocked the suffering Saviour(time has not changed the capacity of the fallen mind to understand salvation) and those who mocked could equally have been saved by Christ.
It is a feature of the fallen mind to reject the Light because it cannot understand it and because the Light exposes the darkness within them.
But Jesus paid for the sins of the entire World and it is the misfortune of those who cannot gain revelation of this fact.The 'mockers 'are to be pitied above all else for the darkness has blinded them to the Truth.
The Love of God was revealed even unto those who crucified and mocked the dying Christ 'Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." '(Luke 23)

8 April 2012 at 08:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, Easter day greetings from the Inspector...

God has offered us salvation. Follow Jesus and be saved, your soul lives on. Reject Him and when you die, you rot." heh heh

God loves you all, even if the inspector doesn’t think too highly of some of you...

Blessings, the rest. Now go in peace before the Inspector changes his mind...

8 April 2012 at 09:23  
Blogger srizals said...

G. Tingey,

How can you proof that you're writing on this blog, for all I know, the writings may have been writing itself in a non-random systematic chronological order without any percentages of chance it was written by itself. Not unless you believe in David Copperfield of course.

8 April 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Kinderling said...

"But Jesus paid for the sins of the entire World..."
Matthew 15:24 “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

8 April 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

Why, Kinderling @ 13:24! Are you quoting from some modern translation? You're certainly quoting out of context!

The disciples ask Christ to "send away" a Cananaanite woman who asks for His help. KJV says: 24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Note here both the negative particle and the placement of but - next to the verb, which it modifies. So He says that He is NOT sent only to Israel. NOT sent to Israel alone, do you see?

The rest of the story confirms that reading. The woman worships Him; nevertheless, He calls her people "dogs." 27 And she said Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Interesting, too. If He'd called foreigners 'dogs' in your advanced society, Good Friday would have come much quicker!!

8 April 2012 at 14:26  
Blogger non mouse said...

Re Tingey.

There's another thing about "The Dream of the Rood" - it represents people as sleeping "speechbearers." That is, as the spiritually dead who carry Cross and Word to the fate they all share. In their ignorance, the speaking, strutting, entities think they can destroy God... but of course they can't. Tingey can't either.

The problem is that all wordbearers have limited perceptions. Even dreamers like Tingey, striving towards Truth in their own willful ways, can discern only some of it.

That's why this poet's image flashes between glorious truth and very evil. The fault is in the eyes of the beholder-- From Original Sin to the present, sins darken and obscure the view even as the Cross and crucifixion reveal the consequences of those transgressions.

The poem therefore argues that the the Word-Cross works as a
beacon that helps the Dreamer and his audience clear their perceptions. St. Augustine had said similarly: "[...] by the nativity itself he made a salve by which the eyes of our heart may be wiped clean and we may be able to see his majesty through his lowliness."**

Tingey's sense of superiority may get in the way here, though. It would be a great feat to see anything at all: "coming at 'em" from such a monumental height, focussed on heckling and abuse, and all the while trespassing.

**Augustine Tr 2:73.16. Rettig f/n 41 observes that many codices read 'through his humanity.'

8 April 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

non mouse

What insightful commentaries to both Tingey and Kinderling.

The 'Dream of the Rood' is an exceptional piece. I thank God that the Cross of Ruthwell, surely one of early European Christianity's greatest achievements, situated near to where I live, survived the 1664 attacks. It is what led me to this wonderful poem and to a reawakening of my Christian faith some years ago.

Thank you.

8 April 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger David B said...

Does the readership think that it is necessary to believe in a literal resurrection to be a Christian?

It all seems a little far fetched to me.

David B

8 April 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger Oswin said...

David B: that's a very interesting question indeed; but perhaps best kept for another time.


non mouse: excellent posts all!

8 April 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 April 2012 at 17:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

Greg: relax, and have a Happy Easter; and may it be so for everyone!

8 April 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

David
Without qualification, without further debate or discussion today of all days, to be a Christian one must believe in the physical death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. End of ...

Far fetched? To one who wants absolute prove, maybe. That's what Doubting Thomas, the skeptic, said; he became Thomas the Believer after seeing the evidence.

We have faith!

Happy Easter.

8 April 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger len said...

Dodo ..

Agreement! (at last )

A Blessed Easter.

8 April 2012 at 18:34  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Len ... we agree on more than you think.

Happy Easter.

8 April 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ps
Scoundrel!

8 April 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Preacher said...

David B.
IMO Paul answers this point in his letter to the Church in Corinth, see 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. Here the Apostle endeavours to clarify the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, having unexpectedly being confronted by the living Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, with the intention of persecuting the followers of what he considered a dangerous & heretical cult.
Paul was not following a religious teaching or an idea after that meeting, he KNEW Jesus was alive. A knowledge that changed him from persecutor to follower for the rest of his life, even eventually being martyred for his belief.
Knowing & proving something can be difficult, even when one is certain of it, but if it is sufficiently important to others & one cares, then it must be attempted.
Many of us who now are committed followers of Jesus Christ came from disbelief & cynicism to a sure & certain faith in Him & His promises of everlasting life after similar 'Damascus Road' experiences.

Blessings. Preacher.

8 April 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DavidB

It all seems a little far fetched to me.

Why does it seem far-fetched?

carl

8 April 2012 at 20:40  
Blogger David B said...

Why does it not make sense to me?

A lot of reasons all pointing in the same direction.

The main one, I suppose, being that once people are really dead they don't come back to life as a general rule, and there are all sorts of physical/chemical/biological reasons why they don't.

One could always postulate a scenario like the one I read a long time ago in a book called, IIRC, the Passover Plot, and then again there are, I understand, some gnostic texts that claim there was a substitution, though I find them far fetched as well, if not quite as far fetched.

Then, looking at the crucifixion accounts, I think I would expect non Biblical confirmation about some of the claims, particularly the claims of Matt 27 51-53.

There are the internal inconsistencies regarding last words, who discovered the lack of body and things like that. And I am not impressed by claims that run along the lines of 'There are alternative accounts, so that adds credibility to them', especially in a book claimed to be accurate by divine fiat, by some at least.

There is the total absence of anything that can be claimed to be either an eye witness or contemporary account, as far as I can tell.

And then I look at the careers of cult leaders such as Wayne Bent aka Michael Trevasser, who claimed that a transformation would happen, which didn't fit his prophesies at all, but did manage to persuade his cultists that it had so happened.

A few years ago, on a message board I frequented at the time, I had some conversation with Bent, some of his followers, and some escapees from the cult.

From those interactions, other readings about other cults like Heaven's Gate, the Koresh one, Sai Baba...I have become to, I believe, gain some understanding of the effect of expectation, suggestibility and positive reinforcement on cultists, along with my own cultic experience.

The idea that runs along the lines of 'it must be true, else people would never have died for it' doesn't cut a lot of ice with me, since there are so many examples in history of people both dying for and killing for things that aren't true.

There is a start, off the top of my head.

So far the comments here have said that one must believe in a literal resurrection to be a Christian, but are there not some self proclaimed Christians who either doubt or actually do not believe this?

David B

8 April 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger non mouse said...

"are there not some self proclaimed Christians who either doubt or actually do not believe this?" Are there? Do tell.

Most Christians are pretty busy at Easter, mind. You might prefer to spread your AntiChrist-ism when we have to read it.

8 April 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger Preacher said...

David B.
But what if it is true? How would YOU convince a sceptical & cynical world of the veracity of what you know to be a fact, even if it was contrary to all accepted current knowledge? Once it was believed that the World was flat & those that said it wasn't were ridiculed as credulous morons.
Would you be content to adopt an "I'm all right Jack" attitude or would you stand up for what you knew was true?.

8 April 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Gavid B

Oh do put a sock in it! It's Easter Sunday. You've raised all these points before and you always sneak the cults in as if they are representative of the true faith.

So you went to an ashram and lost your faith. No wonder! Maybe a Benedictine Monastry would have been better.

8 April 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger David B said...

@ Preacher, who said

'But what if it is true? How would YOU convince a sceptical & cynical world of the veracity of what you know to be a fact, even if it was contrary to all accepted current knowledge?'

I have some experience of trying this, though what maintained at the time that I knew I now freely acknowledge was mistaken.

There was a time when I mistakenly knew that Transcendental Meditation did what Maharishi said it did, on the basis of my experiences in meditation, and on receiving his darshan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar%C5%9Bana

Which is why I am unimpressed by the arguments that people feel God's Grace, or words to that effect.

It is not that I don't believe that people have what may be called religious experiences, it is that I know that they do, and how deceiving they can be.

Nonetheless, a genuine belief in such phenomena, and a reputation for honesty, can be effective in persuading people to take one's accounts of Grace, or unity experiences, however one wants to put it, can be an effective tool in getting others to believe, and at least try the the meditation/prayer/baptism/coming forward at a revivalist meeting, and hope, expectation and positive reinforcement are powerful tools to help persuade people of....all sorts of nonsense, as I know to my cost.

' Once it was believed that the World was flat & those that said it wasn't were ridiculed as credulous morons.'

So it is said, though I am far from convinced of that. Theologians and philosophers may have thought the earth flat, but I'd suggest that mariners never did.

'Would you be content to adopt an "I'm all right Jack" attitude or would you stand up for what you knew was true?.'

I stood up for what I believed to be true then, and I stand up against superstition and belief in the supernatural now.

I'm not just an anti-Christian, you know, I am also anti Muslim, anti astrology, anti clairvoyance, anti fringe medicine.... insofar as they all demand belief in the supernatural, and the evidence for them does not stand up to sceptical analysis.

Should I be presented with evidence that passes sceptical analysis that anything supernatural is true, then I would have to re-assess, but so far nothing has.

Induction (non mathematical) is not proof, but is not without its virtues.

Let's look at the power of prayer, for which there are, I seem to recall, biblical verses that don't match up with reality. Faith does not move mountains. Nor does it, as far as I know, regrow limbs of amputees, which is something that science might accomplish sometime, and perhaps sooner if some powerful religious lobbies were not so set against stem cell research.

Compelling evidence of a case of prayer leading to regrowth of an arm that was missing would do it for me.

David B

8 April 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger David B said...

@ Preacher's earlier post.

Many committed atheists were formerly committed Christians, in some cases having been clergymen and/or seminary graduates.

That proves nothing.

The evidence for Paul's historicity is stronger, I think, than the evidence for the historicity of Christ. I am not a Jesus mythicist, but the historical evidence for his existing at all is not overwhelming.

That Paul had some sort of religious experience on the road to Damascus I can certainly believe.

That his experience mapped well onto reality is another matter.

Plenty of people have religious experiences that don't map onto reality.

Are you familiar with the term 'Jerusalem Syndrome'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome

David B

8 April 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger Oswin said...

David B: bad timing or deliberate? You just couldn't resist eh? Clearly you prefer distraction to discussion. A wee wagging finger, poking where it oughtn't; just like a naughty child trying out a swear word or two. You must be hugging yourself in delight.

8 April 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger David B said...

Just one other little point. Maybe a couple.

I've seen criticism of 'gnu atheists' based on the grounds that we think we are cleverer than others, while not understanding religion at all, and, if I remember correctly, G Tingey has come into particular has suffered from this. More than I have, anyway.

That sort of criticism is ill-founded, I think, when you consider that both he and I freely admit having, for long periods of our lives, having bought into the same sort of supernatural beliefs that we argue against now, but which we previously argued for.

I have also seen claims that the Christian tradition of Britain has had a major effect on the lives British people.

In searcher after truth mode, I have become aware that people are not expert witnesses on their own motivations, since most brain processing is unconscious, and there is a tendency for the conscious mind to confabulate rationalisations for behaviours.

In speculative mode, though, I wonder if my upbringing within a Christianish culture has led me to seek some sort of atonement for attempting to lead people into the the TM cult, and, though it might seem on the surface somewhat perverse, if a similar sort of putative subconscious desire for atonement leads G Tingey to be so outspoken here.

I'd be interested to see what he might say about this speculation, for that is all it is, for all that I find it sort of intuitively attractive.

David B

8 April 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger David B said...

Oswin, I prefer discussion to ad homs,

David

8 April 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...
"In searcher after truth mode"

In lets take the p**s mode more like. Scurry off back to your website and have fun with all your anti-theistic pals. You've revealed your hand too many times on here to be taken seriously as a seeker of Truth.

9 April 2012 at 00:50  
Blogger David B said...

You scoundrel, Dodo.

Faith, especially an unexamined faith, is the enemy of truth.

So many faiths, so many contradicting each other.

I have always been a seeker after truth, a position I commendto you.

David B

9 April 2012 at 01:37  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

David B
You assume I'm not?

You've drunk sour milk, my friend. It can cause an aversion to ever drinking it again. I know about Hinduism and you did well to free yourself from it. One bad book, or even several, does not mean the library is completely empty of a good read.

9 April 2012 at 02:17  
Blogger outsider said...

Dear David B
A long time back you asked whether it is necessary to believe in the literal resurrection to be a Christian.
1) The Nicene Creed is, I believe, the formal test in the RC, Anglican/Episcopal and Methodist Churches. This certainly requires belief in the resurrection, among many other rather specific and detailed things about the theological status of Jesus. And it appears to be perfectly clear and literal. However, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, as usual playing both ends against the middle, says that the writers of the Creed "knew that they were using a metaphor" with "vivid mythological language". This is a get-out clause for many priests.
2)There are prominent church leaders who not believe in the literal resurrection, most flatly and openly the Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose alternative view is, in my opinion, less coherent than some.
3)You can be a follower/ disciple of Jesus without holding to much, if any of the test of faith for being a Christian, but it is perhaps courteous not to call oneself a Christian for fear of offending those who do.

9 April 2012 at 02:33  
Blogger Kinderling said...

David B,

It should not troubled you to find there are Christians who follow Jesus' teachings and those who follow St Paul's version of Churchianity.

Follower's of The Way as the early disciples called themselves, taught the truth sets you free.

St Paul taught that faith in the Redeeming Blood of The Christ got them into Heaven.

The first protects children, (who already have the kingdom of god); the latter tells them they were born in Original Sin and God will cast them in everlasting Hell unless they submit to the Golden Calf.

You were trying to reason how the Virgin Birth, Miracles, Redemption and Ressurection had anything to do with how Jesus lived and taught; pointing out a whole world of civilizations without ever knowing Jesus, all benefit from the principles of non-judgement and forgiveness in a person's heart.

Truth shared sharpens and makes you a friend of Jesus, faith shared dulls and makes you a submitting slave.

The difference between light and dark. The truthful will bathe in new revelations, the faithful will die.

9 April 2012 at 07:18  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@non mouse

The disciples ask Christ to "send away" a Cananaanite woman who asks for His help. KJV says: 24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Note here both the negative particle and the placement of but - next to the verb, which it modifies. So He says that He is NOT sent only to Israel. NOT sent to Israel alone, do you see?


The sentence means "I am not sent (anywhere else) but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
You don't appear to know the vanacular of Shakespeare.

But, as you are an honest man looking for truth and not hiding behind the garments of faith lets see if your particualr text-translation was selective or not:
New International Version (©1984)
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

New Living Translation (©2007)
Then Jesus said to the woman, "I was sent only to help God's lost sheep--the people of Israel."

English Standard Version (©2001)
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

International Standard Version (©2008)
But he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But he answered and said to them, “I am not sent except to the sheep that have strayed from the house of Israel.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

American King James Version
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

American Standard Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.

Darby Bible Translation
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house.

English Revised Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Webster's Bible Translation
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Weymouth New Testament
"I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He replied.

World English Bible
But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Young's Literal Translation
and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

When you only have Faith, you are no greater than a Mohammadan.

9 April 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

The dream of the rood is evil claptrap

The Catholic church the communiost party(erm religion) and currently the is;amists are the 3 most evil organisations on the face of the planet

9 April 2012 at 08:01  
Blogger len said...

Kinderling,(Not quite sure what point you are trying to make but hope this helps your 'apparent' confusion)
Jesus knew that he would be rejected by the lost sheep of Israel.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited weren't worthy. Go therefore to the intersections of the highways, and as many as you may find, invite to the marriage feast.' Those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together as many as they found, both bad and good. The wedding was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who didn't have on wedding clothing, and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here not wearing wedding clothing?' He was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into the outer darkness; there is where the weeping and grinding of teeth will be.' For many are called, but few chosen."

The eschatological image of a wedding also occurs in the parable of the Faithful Servant and the parable of the Ten Virgins. Here it includes the extension of the original invitation (to Jews) to also include Gentiles.[2] In Luke, the invitation is extended particularly to the "poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame" (14:21), evidencing explicit concern for the "poor and the outcasts."[2]

(You could have found this yourself on good old wikipedia!)

9 April 2012 at 08:38  
Blogger len said...

Mr Tingey,

Your appearance (spitting fire and brimstone)is a welcome one, you too can be saved by Christ if you stay long enough to' soak up' a few scriptures(and lose the attitude)

Bless you.

9 April 2012 at 08:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It will help communicants who have noticed that David B’s arguments are cult weighted at times because of his involvement with the site Secular Cafe. Having visited the site himself, the Inspector notes that he has been in direct contact with souls who have escaped and indeed have been injured by these cults. His concern is admirable. He himself goes onto say...

I'm not just an anti-Christian, you know, I am also anti Muslim, anti astrology, anti clairvoyance, anti fringe medicine.... .

Now, that is the Inspector’s stance, with the exception of (mainstream) Christianity. Whether we like it or not, man seems programmed to appreciate a higher state of being, beyond himself. In the Inspector’s opinion, the most ridiculous of man’s attempt at worship is the football club. He has drunk with leading lights of the nearby league team’s fan club. These people entirely fill the requirement of priest and high priest.

David B. Our culture owes so much to religion. Consider this, is it not better to go along with it than reject it. Christianity itself has given us an acceptable moral code. Non belief opens the door to all sorts of nightmare possibilities. The recent debate of the killing of the unwanted old slipped so easily into our increasingly secular direction. One can appreciate the beauty of a cathedral, or even a culture, without needing to adhere to the belief it was built around...

9 April 2012 at 12:45  
Blogger Oswin said...

kinderling 07:46 :

''You don't appear to understand the vanacular of Shakespeare''


Unfortutnate that.

9 April 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger David B said...

Thank you for that, Inspector.

First to correct a couple of errors, one yours and one mine.

My involvement with Secular Cafe follows from my own experience of cults, and researches into them, rather than being the cause of my interest in cults.

And I misspoke myself in saying that I am anti-Christian and ani-Muslim. I should have said anti-Christianity and ant-Islam. I am against the religions not the people.

Even there my position is more nuanced than what I said for reasons of economy.

I retain a certain affection for the writings of the Sufi Idries Shah. Though I would deny any supernatural element, there is, I think some wisdom in his anecdotes and parables.

And of course not all shades of Christianity deserve the sort of opprobium that those who seek to indoctrinate children into an anti-scientific world view depending on the literal creation and flood stories, for they are demonstrably wrong, nor are all shades of Christianity cultic as I understand the word.

The Quakers, for instance - I never met a Quaker I didn't like. And most mainstream followers of the mainstream religions seem to avoid the excesses of cultism, and no doubt gain comfort from a belief that there is an afterlife, and that they will be fine in the hands of a putative merciful God.

The Opus Dei people, though, belong to a mainstream religion, and they look pretty cultic to me.

However, I'm not sure that our current moral code is a result of, rather than in spite of, the Christian roots of our culture. No doubt a bit of both - as I said in a post above I wonder if my anti-supernatural activism, such as it is, is an attempt at some sort of atonement for my previus attempts to proselytise for my cult.

I do understand that the people who proselytise for the various schools of Christianity and other religions are as well meaning is I was, back in the day, when I thought I had found something important that I both wished to, and felt it my duty, to share.

As well meaning, and as misguided, both, though, I think.

I think it a little disingenuous of you to characterise the debate on euthanasia as 'killing of the unwanted'. I understand concerns about that, but it is also about what people would want for their very much wanted loved ones, and for themselves.

And yes, I can appreciate the architecture of buildings, stately homes and museums and galleries, and Bach and Faure among others.

But in the end I can conclude that what is good about the various religions is best preserved in a secular world, and, as an atheist secularist, my further opinion is that what has been good that has come from religion can be, and should be, preserved in a world without supernatural and superstitious beliefs.

Not that there is a guarantee that it would be. I also deplore Ayn Rand and her ilk, and the totalitarian quasi-religious movements around the world over the past century.

But I would still maintain what is bad about the various religions is best placed in the dustbin of history.

David B

9 April 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger srizals said...

Excuse me if I may, Mr. David B, you seem to hold religion/the belief of supernaturals as the culprit of human's self-inflicting error/errors.

I wonder if you have ever considered whether religion played any role in the devastation of the lives and livelihood of so many in Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao's ideas of how people should behave and what to believe or not to believe in.

The world wars were not motivated by religion and most of the bloody conflicts we had experienced and witnessed throughout the ages for that matter. Even in the 'ignored' issue of slaughtering unborn babies in the millions were not motivated by religion or the belief in the unseen. So how could you justify your belief or faith as an atheist?

9 April 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Oswin,

"vernacular"

It is so easy for the subtle ideas to get discarded just for a spelling mistake. I apologise to the millions that returned to their dictionaries.

@len
Thank you len for advancing the discussion.

When a man raised in a cult realizes the truth about his nature, by fasting for forty days and nights and looking within himself, he first wants to tell his family and those influenced by the cruel deceit of the priesthood. Then he realizes many just pay lipservice and counterfeit to gain approval and entry to the benefits of his fellowship, seeking high places of apostleship. So Jesus described a wedding feast, that man of parables, describing only the narrow way, unburdened of their yoke and taking his path "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls", can enter.

The look alike and sound alike zombies. They have a place in their hearts where non-conformists go to Hell.

9 April 2012 at 17:04  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@david B

But in the end I can conclude that what is good about the various religions is best preserved in a secular world,... in a world without supernatural and superstitious beliefs.

If the truth sets you free, the world is rational. If the faith sets you free, the world is irrational. Equal faiths competing to be the most twisted, meanspirited and ruthless on children's souls, to have them worshipping Communism, Monotheism and Sexualism.

A world where the truth is a criminal offence.

9 April 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger David B said...

srizals and Kinderling - enlightenment values,secularism, and a distrust of ideologies.

Have to dash

David B

9 April 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thank you for the clarification David B. The Inspector didn’t realise you yourself had proselytised. At least your attitude in your post cult self is balanced, and compares favourably with the spirituality dead, empty shelled Greg Tingey, whose palpable anger makes his contributions astonishing. His grief cannot surely be the result of just being involved with Christianity as an adolescent. Something far deeper and sinister hidden away there. The law of Cause and Effect tells us that...

Regarding Opus Dei, the Catholic church is full of similar organisations which might fall under the term cult. Not episcopal Catholicism, but the religious orders. Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites etc. You can be assured though that members of these organisations are free to leave at any time. Perhaps it would be better to reserve the term cult for organisations that put barriers in the way of the exit sign. The most devastating of course is denial of access to one’s family, and being cold shouldered in the community. You can be assured that you will not find this behaviour in the mainstream Christian churches. With the UK’s reputation of investigative journalism, examples would have come to light before now.

Why do these extreme cults survive ? In the Inspector’s opinion, there are always going to be people who need their thinking done for them. So, rather than fade out, as existing members do a runner, they are refreshed with new intake. Finding yourself alone in the world, and feeling unable to cope is another reason. Inability to cope is possibly the biggest reason out there to abdicate your free will. After the Branch Davidian incident in Waco, research found exactly that. And when the call for mass suicide came, it was obeyed to the letter.

Must disagree with you on whether Christianity shaped our moral code. Most of what we have in place today was in place 500 years ago. Everybody sang from the same Christian hymn sheet then. If you didn’t agree with the establishment, you kept quiet about it – could get somewhat hot if you didn’t. Do agree with you that a secular government is preferable to a religious one. But a secular country ?

No apologies about the “killing of the unwanted” sentiment. If David Steele was asked when putting forward abortion if the conditions required would be abused, he would have been a fool to say no. But if he was asked back for a number, he would surely have called his interrogators fools if they said almost a couple of hundred thousand per annum. EVERYBODY knows what’s going to happen with government approved old age euthanasia: “Nan, if you want to continue living, nod your head”...

9 April 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Oswin said...

Kinderling @ 17:04 - righty-ho, er what ''subtle ideas'' were they then?

9 April 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Oswin

"righty-ho, er what ''subtle ideas'' were they then?"

That Jesus fasted before he gained any insights about himself and others.

He did not go to the Mayans, not to the Chinese or Indians, not to The World, but he went to the lost sheep of Israel, the ones who had an 'Atonement of Sin' by buying and selling sacrificial doves. That, beyond everything, really made his blood boil. Because no one would ever become conscious. Letting the death of some innocent creature become your innoculation to truth. 'The Saved' would in fact be 'The Damned'speaking a double-speak that only one with a college degree could nod and pretend to understand.

9 April 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. David B.

I don't blame you for having such attitude towards religion. Any Europeans, if not Asians, would dread in reading about the dark ages that engulfed almost the whole of Europe for a thousand years. Some tried to ignore this fact of their historical heritage and culture with their recent achievement that hasn't even outlast even a quarter of their known history, if I may say so.

But if you noticed, not all religion is the same. Even though some still retain a slight of the message of the one unseen God, being modest, honest and kind towards oneself and all that is around him or her, as you have noticed, human tends to corrupt things that were handed to him and fancy his own whims.

And if you are not a believer of the unseen, do remember the air that you breathe on daily basis is also unseen. The largest known star that made us much smaller than a speck of dust when compared to it is also unseen to our naked eyes.

I hope as an admirer of the truth, you would keep on your course and journey of personal conquest of the ultimate truth. And you won't find it in others but in your own self. Provided you have opened yourself to all the options and knowledge of what there is to know. Only then you can decide unbiasedly. Only then you can decide with eyes wide open.

Hope to see you at the end of your journey.

Kinderling,

How do you know for sure that you're following Jesus? I mean, everyone knows that a large portion of Christianity was founded by Paul.

Do you believe that he's human or god incarnate?

Have you ever find somewhere in history, outside of hellenistic values, had been written that God had to preach to His creation or He had been sending messengers to His creation, or specifically man?

Do you believe that the Creator has to undergo His own creation in order to comprehend and be comprehended?

Await patiently for your response. Thanks.

10 April 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@srizals
Kinderling,

How do you know for sure that you're following Jesus? I mean, everyone knows that a large portion of Christianity was founded by Paul.


I reject St Paul only because as he did not enter by the Narrow Way. If Jesus had not fasted 40 days and nights and faced his resentments, (with it's assocated demons of pride and temptations), he would have not found his sanity.
If he had just masturbated in a cave sulking, his message would have been that of a Mohammad, a bloodthirsty and lustful Warlord with his heel on the necks of his people. Rather than love Jesus, would be preaching hate for the unbeliever. Rather than forgiveness would be vengence.

St Paul claimed for himself to be The 13th Apostle. Mohammad, (peace be upon those who suffered), The Last Prophet. Only Asses see angels and speak about it. (Numbers Chapter 22:22).

Jesus

Do you believe that he's human or god incarnate?


All teachings come from human sources. Did you not know this?

Have you ever find somewhere in history, outside of hellenistic values, had been written that God had to preach to His creation or He had been sending messengers to His creation, or specifically man?

All who believe in Reincarnation, Angels, Demons, Jinns, Prophets, Messiahs and Mahdis are open to Sai Babas and other preachers to fleece them and crush their bodies into dust. The deceiver despises the fool.

Jesus opened Jewish scripture and gave it life. "He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” Matthew 13:52

His words shine. They make you smile. Don't you find that?

A Jewish boy who made it, and because of him many make more it today.

Jesus came only for the sick, the mentally-ill trapped and bound by religion.

Do you believe that the Creator has to undergo His own creation in order to comprehend and be comprehended?

How many trillions of trillions of trillions of earth orbits do you want to go back? Or would you rather be in the moment, the 'now' where we, and everything exists?

The kingdom is in your midst.

10 April 2012 at 01:45  
Blogger IanCad said...

O.I.G. @ 18:33 wrote--

"And when the call for mass suicide came, it was obeyed to the letter."

The Jonestown incident was an example of the above quote but the Waco outrage was, pure and simply murder; By the state, of eighty seven men women and children.

10 April 2012 at 08:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Kinderling @ 22:45 : yep, you were right, ''subtle'' is indeed the word; so ''subtle'' that you didn't actually mention any of it beforehand; at least not in the post I referred to. :o)

However, jesting aside, you make many interesting points, difficult though they are to define, at times. You know, your style rather reminds me of a 'tricksy' muslim approach. I say, you aren't flying under 'false colours' are you? Or are you perhaps an apostate muslim? My apologies for the seemingly contradictory questioning, but you are a tad hard to fathom.

10 April 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IanCad. The Inspector thanks you for putting his faulty memory right. He now recalls it was the ‘fear’ that they would commit mass suicide which was pre-eminent at the time. Not quite sure how said fear of that particular form of tragedy developed into the ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ re-enactment by the authorities. But there you go. Americans, eh - what are they like ! Hard to believe it was as long ago as 19 years, don’t you think ?

10 April 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger IanCad said...

O.I.G.

Nineteen years already! I wonder how many are left.
It has helped me over the years to remind myself that the Americans (Bless 'em) are, after all, generally of German stock. Wholly alien to the flexible, undisciplined and laid back British. We can pull ourselves up when we have to though. The time is coming.

10 April 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IanCad. A bit of reliable information from the Inspector this time. 100 million Americans can claim Germanic descent. For Irish descent it’s 60 million. Never came across anything for Anglo, but in 1776, there were 2 million in new England. Remarkably, there were only 8 million in old England at the time....

10 April 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger IanCad said...

O.I.G.
This is interesting stuff.
The remarkable U.S. Constitution could in no way be written today. The Common Law precepts so fundamental to the liberties of that great nation could be never be upheld in these troublous times.
The debt that the USA owes to the UK has not been fully acknowledged.
In addition to the huge number of those of Irish stock should be added the Scots, the French and the Italians, all, I believe, outnumbering those whose roots are primarily English.

10 April 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Hi Oswin,

"However, jesting aside, you make many interesting points, difficult though they are to define, at times. You know, your style rather reminds me of a 'tricksy' muslim approach. I say, you aren't flying under 'false colours' are you? Or are you perhaps an apostate muslim? ...you are a tad hard to fathom."

Christian: Jesus is God.
Mohammadan: Jesus is a Muslim Prophet sent by Allah.
Me: Jesus was a normal guy in abnormal circumstances.

When you start giving God a Name you get into Theology and then their priests crawl right inside your head.

Jesus was a man. Period. So obvious really. The second point is that anyone attached to the world, is loyal to that world-view and would rather kill you than give it up.

So anyone you meet who identifies with their skin color, religion, gender, sexuality, race, country... is one pre-programmed screwed-up limpet. And as the State empowers them with Affirmative Action, the masses will be begging to be conquered to escape these loons.

So to save the country, you have to save the individual in it, the American born to be free. And that means going back to the time to re-live when they first gave themselves up for a promise... to remember it shamefully. Jesus went up a mountain and faced his fears of temptation too.

This is the start of healing. This is the truth about yourself that sets you free. Not The Truth that God's Name is Ira, Hindra, or whatever it was, and the sacred word is "Duuummmmmmb".

In other words: You're a fat ego, you judged those who hurt you and those you thought beneath you, and now you're sorry for carrying this increasing baggage that's weighing you down like a ton of bricks all your life and you're becoming ill with cancer and your kids can't stand you. You repent, forgive and let go. And your sicknesses goes away. Simples. No Therapist/Preacher required.

But they made Jesus a religion, stuck new wine into old wineskins, added a few unique rituals and said: "'you don't have to weep' here's the painless way: say three Hail Marys and take one Jesus a week."

You'll be surprised how mad that makes some people feel, who like their routine and Sunday Newpapers to get completely distracted and and forget.
Chinese restaurant customer: "why are there so many courses?"
"because you look forward to next one". Hence there are so many magazines in the newspaper.

Because they had invested their whole lives into the pychopolitics of Communism, the taqiyya of Islam, the intolerance of the sexually-identified, the salvation of religion; attaching themselves when they were at their most demoralized, most desolate and lost, they had opened themselves to into a wonderous guilt-free kingdom. They now rejected everything that secular society stands for: freedom to offend. The Stockhold Syndrome, where the intimidator applied so much pressure of their assured birthright to be cruel, they submited and became their friends, and everyone else is the enemy.

When babies are born, they immediate snatch them away to indoctrinate them into their approval. Socrates realized the brain is a machine to solve problems, never one to destroy into memorizing.

The religious memorize their bibles, and get very hurt when faults and errors, books that are missing, texts added are pointed out to them.

To see any child rocking back and forth memorizing what they are told is God's Word is a travesty, a child abuse.

Which brings me back to these Pagans who pray copiously to their Gods awaiting the Day of Redemption when it is already here, which the chidren have... and they can't see it.

Is that clarification enough Oswin?

11 April 2012 at 02:43  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, I would appreciate it if you are intellectual enough to avoid using offensive words when expressing your thoughts. I wonder if you interact with people in the real world with insults or only this pompous behind a silver screen. If you have problems with him, know that at his time, people were obsessed (as they are now) with sex and fathers killed their own daughters in order to avoid them being sexual slaves to others by burying them alive. People were constantly in wars and blood feud. With his arrival, women ceased to be toys and man ceased to be beast. His legacy can be seen in the difference of women’s dress. Those who dress in dignity and those who dress like a sexual slave.

And if you had issue with him, please state it here. I don't remember the Prophet ever insulted or harmed you in any way. So please show some respect to at least yourself. Don't you know that hate consumed a person from the inside? How long would you last?

False prophets are many. The true prophets can be identified with their virtues and teachings, then and now. Their teachings manifest themselves in the majority of their true followers.
The false ones offered no proof. The true prophets came with truth. The followers of the true prophets are not obsessed with sex and freedom without rules and regulations regulating them. The followers of whims are obsessed with unlimited and undefined freedom. They are overwhelmed with endless fun in which would later on haunts them back. Current examples, economic manipulation, abortion, sexual diseases and same sex marriages which of course, could only find haven in countries not adhering to the true teaching of the true prophets of the true God.

You seemed a unique person believed in freedom. I think your religion is freedom. So you're not a Christian then?

11 April 2012 at 04:54  
Blogger Kinderling said...

"Kinderling, ... avoid using offensive words when expressing your thoughts."
How amazing, you were actually offended on someone else’s behalf. The UK Government’s Equality Act 2010 for Socialist dhimmis, is therefore right up your street: A Charter for the bully who claims to be the victim.
"I don't remember the Prophet ever insulted or harmed you in any way."
“A woman named Asma (who had five sons) was appalled at the murder of Abu Afak, so she wrote a poem against the Muslims in retaliation. Ibn Ishaq relates the account of what followed:
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,” so Umayr went back to his people.[29]”
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-infidels/answering-muslims/murdered-by-muhammad.html

”False prophets are many.“
I don’t disagree with this at all.
"The true prophets can be identified with their virtues and teachings, then and now. Their teachings manifest themselves in the majority of their true followers."
There are no ‘true prophets’ sent by God, ever….only dissidents shining the light in the dark. Jesus did not change the law but recognized it could only work if written in your heart. Laws only turn societies into conformists.

"The false ones offered no proof. The true prophets came with truth. The followers of the true prophets are not obsessed with sex and freedom without rules and regulations regulating them."
“Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He married a 9-year-old girl and even his adopted son's wife. On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army.”
So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history.”
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm

To be continued....

11 April 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger Kinderling said...

.....

"The followers of whims are obsessed with unlimited and undefined freedom."
You have a problem with that, I don’t. The path to pain and destruction leads to self-enlightenment. People have the right to be wrong. Take that away and you have totalitarianism. There are many ex-Homosexuals, ex-Communists, ex-Muslims, ex-Catholics who have by sheer insight to their nature become such brilliant people. For they know what they once were, and do not judge a person who submitted to holding a worldly identity to hide from their inner conscience. “Father, forgive them” Jesus said, “for they do not know what they do”. Without people free to go different ways, they could never find the way for themselves. Unless they lose their life, they will not find it.
“….could only find haven in countries not adhering to the true teaching of the true prophets of the true God.”
All countries that claim “true teaching of the true prophets” are basket cases. Because they are one man’s opinion of one man’s interpretation.
”You seemed a unique person believed in freedom. I think your religion is freedom. So you're not a Christian then?”
I am a temple of one. How then can I propagate a religion to billions of temples? Only the truth can be passed on, not my desires. Jesus passed on to me his truths while Mohammud(pbutws) tried to pass on to me his hidden desires his carrot and stick, halal and haram, that I should leave my heart and enter his prison.
”I wonder if you interact with people in the real world with insults or only this pompous behind a silver screen.”
If said openly in Iran I would be killed by the Ayatollah thought-police, in the UK imprisoned by the Communist thought-police. Dissent, ever thus, is dangerous to those who drug you to cream off their wealth as the nation dies.
“Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.” Because then you really know you have your conscience.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:22&version=NIV

I think your religion is freedom.

No. I am not a free man. I live by the laws of a free conscience. I love the unNamed God with all my heart mind and soul, and love my neigbour as myself.

I want the freedom that you can too.

11 April 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Forgive me, srizals, I did not ask you what you did in your temple. Are their any affirmations you have to perform?

When a government does not give each person 'one-man one-god,' (by not interferring in any way with religion or their riddicule), but chooses instead to promote the religions of those who wear their identities on their sleeve, they turned 'one-man one-vote' into 'one-union one-vote.' No longer a democracy of eccentrics and inventors, but submmiters who all look and sound alike. The voice of conscience is no more and the people will decay and eventually perish with a new population to replace them. A very few hiding their books saved from public-burnings, will marvel at the writings and wonder who these people were.

11 April 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

srizals

Yje considered view in the West is that Muhammad was a crazy warlord suffering some from of brain disorder that triggered delusions. He was a dishonest brute and a sexual deviant. He didn't understand the Old or the New Testament - not literate enough,you see.

How on earth can you follow the 'teachings' of such a person?

12 April 2012 at 01:06  
Blogger srizals said...

Because as I do not accept the anonymous writers of the New Testament collected by Saint Paul and his followers, the writers of the so-called early history of Islam, do not also quote the resources they had relied on to write such historical events un-witnessed by their eyes over such distant lapse of time of more than a hundred years.

Kinderling and Dodo, you've relied on anonymous sources with no credible and reliable proof. You should have used only the authentic hadiths and the unchanged verses of the Koran to debunk Islam.

The collections of events by Ibn Ishaq were based on oral reports/writings of unidentified person/s. Some are true while some are so contradicting to the authentic teachings and sayings of the Prophet and in the Koran. So the barometer of the truth of the said events would be the authentic hadiths and the verses of the Koran.

Sure it does contain remnants of the truth as the Old and the New Testaments, but because it has human's error/errors in it, it had lost reliability as an absolute, authentic reliable text for Muslims to rely 100% of their faith on.

The Problems with early writers

Ibn Ishaq

A quote on its reliability,

"Ibn Ishaq reports miracles but he also often adds, “that only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not.” or says that “it was alleged” (Guillaume, xic).

Ibn Ishaq2


So in conclusion,

1. Ibn Ishaq's original work was never found.

2. He based his writings more than a hundred years of the said events based on oral traditions/writings without bibliography.

3. His said writing was actually written by the students of his students which later on add on/omit certain parts.

4. His sources varied, some were true, some were not reliable. As he himself had emphasised. Muslims compared them with other reliable sources to check their consistency and truthfulness.

5. If you believed in all Ibn Ishaq's writings, then you have to accept that Muhammad s.a.w. is the last Prophet of God, ending the linage of the Prophets sent by God to mankind. Or would you rather believed in only some of it?

I end my comment with a quote said by him,

"“it was alleged”

“that only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not.”

So how could you, Kinderling and Dodo, believed those stories as the ultimate truth when he himself was unsure when telling about some of the events?

About the Prophet and his wives,

wives

Please do not assume something that isn't there, it is so unbecoming.

If there is still misunderstanding about any issue, do let me know. Thanks.

PS - It's quite sad for someone who knows that there's a God but do not know His name or the purpose of his creation in the first place. Only the animals are free to do whatever they want to in this world without any responsibilities, laws and judgements. Man is not animal. Even dangerous animals that harm humans have to pay the price for doing so. Don't you agree?

My question to you, Dodo and Kinderling is, who wrote the Bible? Was it Ibn Ishaq?

My second question or request would be, you have claimed that he had raped women after immediately killing their husbands, may I have the said proof?

If you fail to present the proof here, would you consider of reading more about Islam from unbiased sources/Islam sources instead of written by enemies of Islam?

Thanks. Take your time.

12 April 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

Kinderling @ 02:43 : ''Is that clarification enough Oswin?'' - well a simple 'yes' or 'no' might not have satisfied entirely, but at least it would have had the virtue of brevity.

Besides which, your ''clarification'' is far from being 'clear' - you have an unfortunate style, to say nothing of a tendency to answer, as yet unasked, questions. I'm a very simple soul you know.

It may be that English is not your first language; therefore I would advise a more conventional syntax as a vehicle for expressing potentially complex ideas/themes in a more lucid manner. It might further serve to alleviate the 'smug/smart-arse' timbre of some of your comments/responses.

Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong in being a 'smart-arse' - heaven forfend! Although I suspect that it is best kept short and pithy.

You recall the old military adage, of the 'KISS' principle?

Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with you kicking Srizals arse; but must you be quite so 'delphic'? ;o)


Srizals @ various: nice to see you back again old chap; been busy?

13 April 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger srizals said...

A pending election and Cameron is here, but as always Oswin, not that busy.

14 April 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

srizals: any chance of keeping Cameron there? Really, you can have him free/gratis. ;o)

14 April 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Oswin,

Ah, I see the problem now. "You live by "Keep it Simple Stupid", and I by, "Keep It Simple Smart". KISS.

One led by external affirmations, the other by internal cognition.

The first is: "Jesus Died to carry your Sins and therefore tricked Satan by going to Hell where He did not belong" the second: "Jesus died so you would see religion as a destructive force upon the innocent." Know them by their fruit. One worships the Named God of The Dead, the other the unamed god of the living.

Receive Holy Water; or be taught to make your own.

Oswin, I do not us a KISS to pass on memes. Go to any local church you will find them all 99.9% NIV positive.

@srizals,

I like your style: Strain a knat through your teeth while missing that donkey smashing up the home.

who wrote the Bible?

Many authors. Roman Christians stole the Torah from the Jews, (as they 'borrowed' from the Egyptian's Book of The Dead), just like Mohammad stole Jesus to his own ends. The Romans destroyed most of the gospels circulating like my favorite that was attributed to Mary Magdalene; and put in their preferred versions, including St Paul's teachings.

New wine into old wineskins is that method of totalitarianism: "it's business as usual".

In psychology the maxim 'what you get into you have to get out of'applies. Otherwise you live by a list of instructions depending on circumstance of birth. They made the outer the inner; when you should have made the inner the outer.

Only those who stand in Jesus's shoes will see this: "blessed are those who are poor..." "Foxes have holes..." Yet you have 72 virgins awaiting you who "will not urinate, relieve nature, spit, or have any nasal secretions", and whose "sweat will smell like musk". They are so beautiful, pure and transparent that "the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh", and that "the believers will visit and enjoy them". How can you then see, why should you see?

My second question or request would be, you have claimed that he had raped women after immediately killing their husbands, may I have the said proof?

Please research this website: http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge/rapist.htm
It is more powerful to hear it from the hearts of real people whose bravery and courage I am unworthy to compare. I only have limp-wristed Christians to deal with.

If a Sexual-Erotocist entered your house would you leave them alone with your children? Of course not for they would say they were tempted.

Likewise Mohammad (pbutws) declared women were a temptation. Where I would see a lost person indulging in whoredom as being a victim, Mohammad (pbutws) would see temptation. One man lives with conscience the other like a bull up led against a cheap wooden post.

If you fail to present the proof here, would you consider of reading more about Islam from unbiased sources/Islam sources instead of written by enemies of Islam?

That would be like asking a Socialist if robbing the wealthy was wrong, or a Homosexual if 'sex' in a consenting anonymous gang-bang party was wrong, or a Christian that sucking the Holy Spirit in every Sunday in at Church was wrong. If something distracts you from finding yourself to make you feel estatic to escape the hollow emptiness, like a Buddhist cuts of his arm so it doesn't hurt any more, how am I bringing the pain of realization that life is only what you make it, ever going to be welcomed?

16 April 2012 at 02:31  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling,

So many bold assertions without giving any proof, I guess you are only able to rewrite others' thoughts and opinions. Some people think for themselves, some let others do the thinking for them.

Why are you afraid to read sources of Islam from Islamic perspective itself? You’re a smart and wise person, right? Or are you afraid of the truth?

Interestingly, do you know that fasting two days in a week would shield yourself from most degenerative diseases incurable by science?

Do you know which religion that practises fasting two days in a week? Do you know that brushing your teeth twice a day would save you from illness related to the heart? Which prophet emphasis brushing the teeth among his people?

Kinderling, please define yourself. Are you an agnostic? Or are you an outcast of Christianity?

You said that you don't believe in St. Paul, but you chose to believe in the gospels delivered by him and his disciples or anonymous writers who had written the gospels using his name?

Don't you find it odd?

You chose to listen from just one side of the story. You are not a just person. So I guess you'll remained understanding only the half of the story told by a storyteller without any veracity. I hope you won't believe anyone telling you that I'm actually your neighbour.

You kept on referring the Prophet as a sexual deviant. I wonder in comparison to whom? If you're in trouble to comprehend his young bride, know that in Romania, women are still being wed young. Maybe they realize that girls are women once they became women. Are you a woman, Kinderling? Do you know the historical marriages of the Byzantium royals, one King of England in the hundred year war with France and people of the ancients? Could you please quote the sayings of the Prophet or the Koran to back your accusations instead of just giving hyperlinks? If you are unable to do so, could you please desist in your attack against him?

If the youngsters nowadays indulge themselves in sex as young as 9, would you say that they are being childish or acting like adults?

How do you differentiate a woman from a girl, Kinderling?

How do you differentiate sex inside marital bond and sex outside of marriage? How do you define consensual and legalized acceptable sexual behaviours with other oddities? What is your basis of comparison? Is it the norms of the society, science, moral or whims?

You said Muhammad stole something from Jesus. Give the proof instead of boldly accusing like a child without any backings. The Malays say that the tongue is without any bones. It can say anything it wants to. The problem is the proving part. That is when you bit your tongue from time to time.
Thanks.

Oswin, I would have, but I have a very dangerous and cunning man vying the throne of democracy in Malaysia at the moment. I can't deal with both at the same time. I’m only human. He’s all yours.

16 April 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Oswin said...

kinderling @ 02:31 :

Speaking 'in tongues' again, I see. You make/suggest some interesting points, but you do them little justice, hidden amongst the 'jibber-jabber' as they are.

Srizals @ 16:44: Shucks, please reconsider. You could use him as a 'pig warden' - no more rooting-up your garden! ;o)

16 April 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@srizals

Why are you afraid to read sources of Islam...?

Let's look:

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Qur'an 86:5-7).

I never knew this. Can you enlighten me?

Do you know which religion that practises fasting two days in a week? ... Which prophet emphasis brushing the teeth among his people?

This one:
Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 1, Number 0067:
Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/IslamicVoodoos/Part9.htm

I never knew this. Can you enlighten me?

Kinderling, please define yourself.

If I know you, how can you say you not know me?

You said that you don't believe in St. Paul...

You take the best of whatever you discover.

...I hope you won't believe anyone telling you that I'm actually your neighbour.

The beggar is my neigbor too. But some use their ugliness to blame others for their poverty, when it was they themselves that caused it.

When the UK was once a Christian country it had the 'Deserving Poor' and the 'Undeserving Poor'. They discerned the fakes, those wolves in sheeps clothing.

Modern Christianity has made them blind. So Islam has a completely free pass to trample their populations.

16 April 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger Kinderling said...

You kept on referring the Prophet as a sexual deviant. I wonder in comparison to whom?

To me. I am the better person.

...know that in Romania, women are still being wed young.

Romania is a backward country.

Are you a woman, Kinderling?

Every male who submits has been made female. I have been made a man.

Do you know the historical marriages of the Byzantium royals, ... and people of the ancients?

Sure I do. It's called 'marriages of convenience' today used to get passports into The West.

Could you please quote the sayings of the Prophet...?

"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." ...A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you."

Some women are able to turn weak men around. Why would I want a religion full of weak men? There is already St Paul's Christianity for a shadow of a man to believe in.

If you are unable to do so, could you please desist in your attack against him?

Why would I not shout out there was a thief in the night? Does this change of tone mean you are now under instructions to kill me, having tried to be reasonable?

If the youngsters nowadays indulge themselves in sex as young as 9, would you say that they are being childish or acting like adults?

I would be horrified, but The West would send out Social Workers to teach them to wear condoms, and Mohammad's paedophile rings inform their brothers.

How do you differentiate a woman from a girl, Kinderling?

When her mind had matured. Not checking her menses as a Mohammadan.

How do you differentiate sex inside marital bond and sex outside of marriage?

Marriage is to suffer in intense fire. The woman refines the man, as the man refines the woman.

When marriage is just seen as procreation or the escape into sex, then they have many wives and many husbands. Passionlessness is replaced by fondling and orgies.

How do you define consensual and legalized acceptable sexual behaviours with other oddities?
What is your basis of comparison?

The difference between wine with a meal and alcoholics in a doorway.

You said Muhammad stole something from Jesus.

Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim. This is character defamation. When did Jesus start thighing six year olds? "That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER(Aisha) THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY"
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Aisha

16 April 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Oswin
Are you a clown?

16 April 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Oswin said...

kinderling: I'd rather be a coherent ''clown'' than be resident of my own fundament.

I repeat: whilst agreeing with much you say, I abhor both your delivery, and your imperious swagger.

I can easily remove my 'red nose' whereas you have a more difficult task.

17 April 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger Kinderling said...

"I abhor both your delivery, and your imperious swagger."

srizals, do what you want with him, he's of no use to me.

17 April 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger Oswin said...

kinderling : as nonsensical as per usual.

17 April 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, water is pure and it does not defiled by anything. It shows that the Prophet knew what the Singaporeans knew when in the year of 2000, about 12 years ago, they came out with NEWater.

Surely you know that ultra violet radiation especially in the ‘desert’ would toast any harmful viruses and the osmosis process of water evaporating and coming down again from the sky surely eliminates most of the harmful viruses in the water, not to mention the vastness amount of the water in the well. It was used to irrigate the fields of the people there. No puny well can be used to support an irrigation system, Kinderling.

Even your municipal/water company that provides you with tap water knows this fact, the fact that water is pure and it does not defiled by anything. You should go to the water treatment centre at your hometown from time to time. When it is processed in a huge amount, treated, and all the impurities are sunk into the bottom, you'll use them for your daily usage in practically everything. The hadith implies this. Where does it say they saw floating used pads, dead dogs and etcetera in the well?

Kinderling, water is precious in the desert. Unlike your dwelling, the Arabs, some 1,400 years ago had a very limited option. So they had to use all the little water that they have.
One more thing, where does the word ‘ drink’ found in the hadith, you forgot to relate it with another hadith that comes before it,

Book 1, Number 0066:
Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:
The people asked the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Can we perform
ablution out of the well of Buda'ah, which is a well into which menstrual
clothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown? He replied: Water is pure
and is not defiled by anything.

Book 1, Number 0067:
Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:
I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water
is brought for you from the well of Buda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs,
menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by
anything.

Notice the word ‘ablution’. If you need to know more about the word, do check your dictionary, you haven’t paid your tuition fees to me yet.

Now, my question to you is, how did the Prophet knew about the fact that water can be separated from impurities 1,400 years ago, something the advanced Singaporeans had only been practising beginning some 12 years ago?

18 April 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger srizals said...

A present from me to you, Kinderling,

If I were you by Hoobastank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5kTkzK4B-4

18 April 2012 at 19:02  
Blogger srizals said...

So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)

This is the correct translation, Kinderling,

And I quote “The word ‘tarai’b’—according to the Arabic—is actually referring to a female body part. Much like the English word ‘penis’ can only be ascribed to a male, the word ‘tara’ib’ can only be applied to a female. In other words, the sulb belongs to the male, and the tara’ib belongs to the female. This is the view of the Muslims since the last fourteen hundred years, and there is consensus (ijma) on this matter, since the time of the Sahabah (the Prophet’s disciples) until today.”

Kinderling, muslims have the original Koran as reference when translation comes in question. It is still intact.
You can read more here,

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=2602

The ‘tarai’b can be seen here, if you’re a woman, you know where it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs_LAxZVj-c

About this issue,

"O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." ...A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you."

Remember President Bill Clinton and the Prime Minister of Italy? Who led them astray from their prestigious ranks? Man or his opposite sex? So the Prophet ask women to give alms instead of using their beauty to distract men, is it wrong?

Have to sleep, catch you tomorrow.

Reposted, hope it won't dissapear again. I would have to repost it again and again.

18 April 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger srizals said...

About Aishah, Kinderling, she consummated the marriage with the Prophet when she was 9, she grew up much older than. The time didn't stop after they got married. She wasn't nine all the time. People grow up with the passing of time, Kinderling. Look at you.

And you've lied about what the Prophet did to her when she was 6. Apologise for lying to all of us. And where on earth did you ever get such quotation/information in the first place? Blatant liars?

Could you please be specific on which book of Islam/sources are you referring to? Who would ever dare to lie to that extent? Give the proof to me. Kinderling, what if your conviction was only based on a lie? Would you read about Islam other from liars?

18 April 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger Kinderling said...

The people asked the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Can we perform ablution out of the well of Buda'ah, which is a well into which menstrual clothes, dead dogs and stinking things were thrown? He replied: Water is pure
and is not defiled by anything.

And Mohammad (pbutws)built a Sewage Plant to extract the clean water? No, he just used contaminated water.

So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)

"And I quote “The word ‘tarai’b’—according to the Arabic—is actually referring to a female body part."

“After reading the Question and the Answer, two doctors from two different places have provided some medical information which is given below:" http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?8913-What-is-%93sulb%94-and-%93tara%92ib%94

“According to modern Embryology, it is an established fact that the testes in the foetus, the glands which produce seminal fluid, are located close to the kidneys between the backbone and the breast*bones, from where they gradually descend into the scrotum later. This happens before birth and sometimes a little after it. But even then the source of their nerves and veins remains the same, i.e. between the backbone and the breast-bones. Even their artery shoots out from the aorta located close to the backbone and travers*ing the whole stomach, supplies them with blood.
Thus, in fact, the testes are a part of the back, which on account of their inability to endure the high temperature of the body, have been transferred to the scrotum. Furthermore, although the seminal fluid is produced by the testes and stored in seminal vesicles, yet its emissiom is motivated from between the backbone and the breast-bones. On stimulation from the brain the trigger action causes seminal vesicles to contract and this causes ejaculation of the seminal fluid.
Thus, it will be seen that the Quranic statement conforms to modern research of medical science on the subject.”
Aw, someone’s making up stories again.

Remember President Bill Clinton and the Prime Minister of Italy? Who led them astray from their prestigious ranks?
If they had desired little boys, who then would you then say led them astray from their prestigious ranks? You want little boys in burkhas too? They only led themselves by filling themselves with darkness. I now realize you do not have any ownership of personal morality.

And you've lied about what the Prophet did to her when she was 6.
"That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER(Aisha) THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY" http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Aisha
Mohammad (pbutws) would not resort to thighing a little girl unless he could not fully penetrate her.

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?' Sahih Bukhari 7:62:17
Putting Mohammad (pbutws) in the ranks of Clinton and Berlusconi, he would have tempted them to try out little girls too.

That is why I am handing Oswin over to you, as he too has tried something and liked it and will defend it by any means.

Be kind when you meet the other half of yourself.

18 April 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, make up your mind, what has the hadith have anything to do with 'thighing' said were done by the Prophet to the 6 year old Aishah!? Focus now, Kinderling on what you have brought up here on yourself.

It is about how Muslim men should treat his wife. Thank you for highlighting this. Most only know about Muslim and wife beating. Now they know the intimacy between a husband and a wife.

Kinderling, he said a young girl, not little girls or toddlers. Are you trying to make up stories like the 'thighing' story? Do you know the definition of a virgin or a young girl?

WikiIslam is not a historical and authoritative source of Islam. No Muslims have any faith in it. Only the Non Muslims, some I hope.

Unless you can produce the proof here, apologise and redeem yourself.

The new opinion opined by the two doctors are their own personal opinion. Let's stick to historical Islamic sources, shall we?

Lane’s Lexicon says:

Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)

So how could you say that Muslims cooked up a story to explain the verse?

All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women. Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:

It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer) Ibn Katherr was born in 1302 AD.

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:

Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

For your information,

Tafsir al-Jalalayn is one of the most significant tafsirs for the study of the Qur’an. Composed by the two “Jalals” -- Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli (d. 864 ah / 1459 ce) and his pupil Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 ah / 1505 ce)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:

That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.
(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)

For your information, Tafsir Ibn-'Abbas is attributed variously to the Companion Abdullah Ibn Abbas (d. 68/687) and to Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Firuzabadi (d. 817/1414)

Now, my question to you is, when did the anti Muslim and Islam first cooked up this story? In what year? In the year of the Norway 'civilised' shooter?

Please state in here in what Islamic religious book does these vile quotes were written, by whom and of what year. Anyway, what is your opinion on that Norway guy? A Christian of an unnamed god or a deluded fanatic? Thanks.

19 April 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, you mentioned about the narrow path that Jesus had to endure, do you know about this incident,

Once, when they were assembled at the Ka`bah, the Prophet arrived. The Qurayshites assailed him in unison. While they mobbed him thus, one of them pulled the sheet of cloth hanging round his neck, which nearly choked his throat.

Abu Bakr, who happened to be present at that time, separated them from the Prophet by
thrusting himself in between them. And with tears in his
eyes he cried, ‚Would you kill a man simply because he
acknowledges that Allah is his Lord?‛ Hearing this, they
shunned the Prophet but fell upon Abu Bakr dragging him by his hair and beard.

At another time, the Prophet even had to face a worse ordeal throughout the whole day. Whomsoever he met, whether freeman or slave, cursed or vilified, or tried to hurt him in any way. He returned to his house and wrapped himself up because of the torments he had to endure that day.

Then it was that God revealed to him the opening verse of the Chapter ‚The Enshrouded One‛ - ‘O
You wrapped up in Your cloak, arise and warn.‛

(Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, pp. 289-91 and Al-Bukhaari).

Before this, he was a successful and respected merchant of the Quraish. He left it all to uphold his duty as the messenger of God.

19 April 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger srizals said...

And they did offer him the world for him to abandon his mission.

The Quraysh felt that it was a workable proposition and allowed 'Utba to negotiate with the Prophet on their behalf.

‘Utbah went to the Prophet () and sat by his side. Then he said, ‚O my nephew, you know the worthy position you enjoy among us. But you have created a rift in your people by ridiculing them, insulting their gods as well as their religion, declaring their forefathers as heathens and denying their customs.

Now, listen to me, I will offer you some proposals that will hopefully include one which will
merit your acceptability.‛
‚O Abu Walid,‛ replied the Prophet, ‚Go on, I am listening.‛

‘Utbah continued, ‚My Nephew, if you want to have wealth by what you preach, we will collect enough of it that you will be the richest of us. If you desire honor, we will make you our chief and leave every decision to your choice.

If you aspire for kingship, we will recognize you as our monarch. And if you are possessed of a ghost or a jinn for which you have no remedy, we will find a competent
physician for you and spend our wealth lavishly until your health is completely restored.

The Prophet listened patiently. When ‘Utbah had finished talking, he asked him, ‚Is it all that you have to say?" to which ‘Utba replied ‚Yes‛.
‚Now listen to me,‛ said the Prophet. ‚In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, and he continued to recite Soorah Fussilat, (Soorah 41, Chap. ‘They are expounded’) ending the recitation at prostration, (Verse 37) putting his hands behind him and leaning on them. The recitation ended, the Prophet prostrated and then said to ‘Utbah, ‚Abul Walid, you have heard everything, now it is for you to decide.‛
As the Quraysh saw ‘Utbah returning, they commented; ‚Honestly, he comes with an altered expression of his face.‛ And, when he finally came, they asked him what had happened.
‚I have heard a discourse the like of which I had never heard before. I’ll swear to God, O Quraysh, that it is neither poetry, nor spell, nor witchcraft. Take my advice and leave this man alone.‛ The Quraysh berated ‘Utba. He said, ‚Now you may do whatever you think fit.‛ (Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, pp. 293-94)

19 April 2012 at 15:46  
Blogger srizals said...

Some of the verses that he read as a reply for the Quraish offers,

[41:26]
And those who disbelieve say, ‘Do not listen to this Qur’ān and hoot it down that perhaps you might prevail’.

[41:27]
But verily We will make those who disbelieve taste a severe chastisement, and We will verily requite them the worst of what they used to do.

[41:28]
That is the requital of God’s enemies — the Fire! Therein will be their everlasting abode as a requital for their denial of Our signs.

[41:29]
And those who disbelieve will say: ‘Our Lord, show us those who led us astray from among the jinn and mankind so that we may have them underneath our feet [to trample them], that they may be among the lowermost’.

[41:30]
Truly those who say, ‘Our Lord is God!’ and then remain upright, the angels descend upon them, [saying to them], ‘Do not fear, nor grieve, and rejoice in the good tidings of the paradise which you were promised.

[41:31]
We are your friends in the life of this world, and in the Hereafter, and therein you will have whatever your souls desire, and therein you will have whatever you request,

[41:32]
as a hospitality from One Forgiving, Merciful’.

[41:33]
And who speaks better [words] than him who summons [others] to God, and acts righteously and says, ‘Indeed I am one of those who submit [to God]’?

[41:34]
And they are not equal, the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is better then, behold, he between whom and you there was enmity will be as though he were a dear friend.

[41:35]
But none is granted it, except those who are steadfast; and none is granted it except one [deserving] of a great reward.

[41:36]
And if some temptation from Satan should provoke you, then seek refuge in God. Truly He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[41:37]
And among His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and moon, but prostrate to God Who created them, if it is Him Whom you worship.

19 April 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger Kinderling said...

srizals, it is not unsurprising you did not deny the harm you intended towards me, and your Quraish quotes confirm the severe punishment for denial of "Our signs"

Mohammadans are a blood thirsty murderous lot - it cannot be denied because evidence is across the planet. Islam considers non-believers as inhuman.

Muslims must be only be kind to Muslims - of their sect.

Does Allah Commit Shirk? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yz7QwOAf4Ww

In Islam sins are balanced against good deeds. They are not. Fresh water does not flow from a salty spring. A twisted root must be pulled out and a new soil laid for a seed to sprout and produce good harvest.

Mohammad (pbutws) has hardened your heart, and you print his justifications for murder.

This is all I can give you, (it will confuse Oswin I know, and that is why I said he had to be around you for a time, for a deeper darkness than his will reveal the light):

If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you; if you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you. Gospel of Thomas verse 70.

19 April 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, on the contrary, I'm not trying to harm you, I'm trying to save you from yourself.

You're a gnostic then?

So what are the practical aspects of your faith? Does it cover food and drinks consumption and daily interactions with all that exist around us? Do any of your daily practises influence your well-being and health, both spiritually and physically? How many times do you interact with your unnamed god, in a specific time and manner? How many time do you reflect your own conduct?

Do you consume the swine, intoxicating drinks and have sex with anyone whom pleased you? Do you manipulate the weak and cheat the innocents?

Do you pray to your unnamed god in a formal and informal manner? Do you have daily tasks as a code which requires you to discipline and put yourself under control from never ending craving of self importance, needs and lust?

Do you believe that man should be free to do whatever he wills?

That video/topic is ridiculous, and you know it. Allah has forbid us taking others as His partner by swearing on them as if they are as an equal of Him, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, the Giver of life and death, when in fact, they are only puny, helpless perishable creations. It is to affirm our faith that there is no God but Him.

That video tries to make fun of the Creator in which He is as the same of the creations in which He is also bound to eat, drink and die and raised alive again for judgement. It is trying to equate God with His creations in which He had to behave like His weak creations, limited and have to answer for all their actions and conduct.

It is like saying that He would have to be judged by another god?

What twisted mind he has! But everyone is entitled to make a fool of himself. The length some people would go to deny the truth. How sad.

All pure is He from the conjectures of men.
David Wood

Where’s the proof, Kinderling. Please admit that you’re lying.

You're unwilling to comment about the Norway shooter? Was he a 'Mohammadan'?

20 April 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, how did you come to conclusion about sins and good deeds in Islam? Have you read this hadith to be so well versed with Islam?

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), from among the things he reports from his Lord (mighty and sublime be He), is that he said:

A servant [of Allah's] committed a sin and said: O Allah, forgive me my sin. And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them. Then he sinned again and said: O Lord, forgive me my sin. And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them. Then he sinned again and said: O Lord, forgive me my sin. And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for sins. Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you. It was related by Muslim (also by al-Bukhari).

Hadith Qudsi no. 33.

On the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said:
I heard the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) say: Allah the Almighty said: O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it. It was related by at-Tirmidhi (also by Ahmad ibn Hanbal). Its chain of authorities is sound.

Hadith Qudsi no. 34.

Kinderling, is there any concept of sins and forgiveness in gnostic?

Could you give any html that I can read about the unnamed god of gnostic? Thanks. Still waiting for the proof, Kinderling.

20 April 2012 at 05:37  
Blogger srizals said...

Kinderling, what is the meaning in this verse,

118. Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mariam go out from us, for women are not worthy of The Life!" Jesus said this: "Behold, I will lead her so that I might make her male, so she might also be a living spirit like you males. For any woman making herself male will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."

The Gospel of Thomas, page 17.

I leave the explanation to you. Thanks.

20 April 2012 at 05:58  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older