The Revealed Revelations of God

[Fatihah]

So...
your argument is that the Quran is the true revelation by using the argument of numbers.
This is a poor argument and does little to prove your point.

Response: No where have I said that the qur'an is true based on numbers. Thus your whole point is irrelevant, and the challenge that proves the qur'an is the true word of Allah still valid.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: No where have I said that the qur'an is true based on numbers. Thus your whole point is irrelevant, and the challenge that proves the qur'an is the true word of Allah still valid.

No, it is not irrelevant. You claim the Quran must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation. And your challenge is based upon the same false logic.

This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same? Why don't you create your own religion and see how far you get? And when you do, you will fail. Not only will you will fail, you will fail miserably. Muhammad conquered Arabia. I guarantee you, you won't even be able to conquer your own neighborhood. And once you fail, you will be forced to ask yourself the question "why was it possible for Muhammad but impossible for me and anyone else?" That is when you will come to realize that it was the help of Allah that made it possible for Muhammad. Without Allah, even Muhammad would have failed. You disagree, the 1400+ year challenge still stands.

 

[Fatihah]

No, it is not irrelevant. You claim the Quran must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation. And your challenge is based upon the same false logic.

Response: You say that I claim that "the Quran must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation". Then my question to you is simple. Quote for me any of my post in which I say word for word, "the Quran must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation", if you are truthful.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: That is correct. According to the logic, one can point to the atrocities of muslims. But yet when we turn to the qur'an those atrocities are taught no where.

4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.
24:33 Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war,

Thus the atrocities are not the teachings of islam, which serves as further proof that islam is a religion of peace. As for the violent verses, no muslim has a problem accepting them.

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt-us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717

"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.

Nor does any non-muslim. Because there is nothing wrong when someone uses violence in an act of self-defense.

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

Self defense....

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: You say that I claim that "the Quran must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation". Then my question to you is simple. Quote for me any of my post in which I say word for word, "the Quran must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation", if you are truthful.

:areyoucra

Here we have two tests that proves that the qur'an is from Allah. For not only is it free of discrepancy, but it is impossible to produce a chapter like the qur'an because every chapter is miraculous. That miracle being, that it is absolutely impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

 

[Fatihah]

:areyoucra

Response: I ask you in post 123 to quote me word for word saying that "the qur'an must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation", if you are truthful. What do you do? You quote the following in post 125:

"that it is impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

I'm asking the question, is this:

"the qur'an must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation".

The same, word for word as this:

"that it is impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

No. It is not. The first example uses the word "sheer". Does the second example use the same word? No. So what makes you think you've quoted word for word?

Then in your alleged quote of me, you quote my words, but drop a few words in the quote. I said that the qur'an is true because no one can

"create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

Now here is your quote:

"the qur'an must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation".

I used the words, "create your own religion." Does your alleged quote have those words above? No. How about "inspire"? No.

Yet your alleged quote of me is missing those words. Had you quoted me correctly, you would have mentioned those words. But instead, you drop them. Why? The reason is obvious.

So we have a problem. Either you have difficulty understanding simple english, or this is a desperate attempt to play with words, in an effort to hide the fact that you can not produce any proof that the challenge of the qur'an does not prove that the qur'an is the word of Allah. Either or, we can use your own inability to prove the challenge invalid as a clear proof of your denial to the clear proof presented that the qur'an is in fact the word of Allah. Otherwise, you would have had know reason to play with words.

 

[Fatihah]

4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.
24:33 Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.
33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war,

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt-us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Bukhari yol 3,Book46, No. 717

"Narrated Ibn Aun:
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.

4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
4:91 Ye will find others who desire that they should have security from you, and security from their own folk. So often as they are returned to hostility they are plunged therein. If they keep not aloof from you nor offer you peace nor hold their hands, then take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant.

Self defense....

Response: Yes. Self-defense.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: I ask you to quote me word for word saying that "the qur'an must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation", if you are truthful. What do you do? You quote the following:

"that it is impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

You are the one being untruthful and dishonest, I quoted you saying this...

"Here we have two tests that proves that the qur'an is from Allah. For not only is it free of discrepancy, but it is impossible to produce a chapter like the qur'an because every chapter is miraculous. That miracle being, that it is absolutely impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

I'm asking the question, is this:

"the qur'an must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation".

The same, word for word as this:

"that it is impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation".

No. It is not. The first example uses the word "sheer". Does the second example use the same word? No. So what makes you think you've quoted word for word?

You challenge word for word? That is your argument? Are you not man enough to admit what you said?

Then in your alleged quote of me, you quote my words, but drop a few words in the quote. I said that the qur'an is true because no one can

"create their own religion and use the made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

Now here is your quote:

"the qur'an must be true based on the sheer number of followers needed to conquer a nation".

I used the words, "create your own religion." Does your alleged quote have those words above? No. How about "inspire"? No.

Yet your alleged quote of me is missing those words. Had you quoted me correctly, you would have mentioned those words. But instead, you drop them. Why? The reason is obvious.

So we have a problem. Either you have difficulty understanding simple english, or this is a desperate attempt to play with words, in an effort to hide the fact that you can not produce any proof that the challenge of the qur'an does not prove that the qur'an is the word of Allah. Either or, we can use your own inability to prove the challenge invalid as a clear proof of your denial to the fact that the qur'an is in fact the word of Allah which can be proven.

"This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

 

[YmirGF]

Response: Yes. Self-defense.

An interesting euphemism, to be sure.

No doubt Hitler could have made the same claim when the Allies attacked Germany.
​

 

[biomystic]

Response: Then according to your logic, christianity is by far the worse religion and most violent. For I can turn on the news and see time and time again that another preacher has raped a little boy, while crime after crime is being committed in the west by those who claim the christian religion. So you don't have the slightest chance in trying to make christianity sound loving and peaceful with your logic. Instead it only shows that it is by far the most degrading religion, according to your logic.

I don't know of many criminals and rapists who bother to claim to be followers of Christ as their religion. And if they do they are obviously liars because followers of Christ follow Jesus' non-violence instructions to the best of their abilities. I cannot speak the same for Pauline Christianity which follows the teachings of Paul and not necessarily those of Jesus Christ. It was Paul who taught Christians to obey their government leaders and that is why the history of Pauline Christians is filled with violence. I am not a Pauline Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian and we were the very first targets of Christian persecution so when I tell you I follow Jesus Christ and not Paul you will know that I am not condoning what Pauline Christians have done in the world which is typical of the Abrahamic religious warfare against non-Abrahamic and other Abrahamic believers.

But getting back to that parable that you Muslims so want to misinterpret so you won't fill guilty about your own religion's war instructions and lack of knowledge of why non-violence must be uppermost in anyone's religion who follows God and not man. A parable is a story and a story is not a set of commandments. Stories are told to either entertain an audience or to teach a lesson. Parables are stories told to make a moral point. When you take literally a character's words in a parable as commandment you are not understanding the point of using parables in the first place. Jesus Christ taught non-violence. He did not kill anyone or tell any of his followers to kill anyone. He told them to turn the other cheek. He told them not to follow the eye for an eye revenge commandment of Judaism which Islam has copied, neither one understanding why the meek must inherit the earth and both thoroughly mixing God with territorial conquest and control by men.

I judge any religion or philosophy not by the words of their doctrines but by the actions of their followers. Words are easy to write down but actions always speak louder than words. Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and not Paul are as non-violent as they are able to be. They don't start wars, they don't participate in wars if they can help it, and they don't kill people. For instance, I was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War because of my beliefs that killing my fellow man because his ideology was not America's idea of what it should be was not a moral act. True Christian men are like me and we don't believe there's any way war can be justified as a human community response. For Christians who follow Jesus Christ wars are the result of failures of societies to honor and share God's goodness and bounty.

And perhaps you need to read the bible a little slower. Parable or not, Jesus is still preaching violence and condoning it. But naturally, being use to the non-answer by christians concerning the verse, no worries, I have plenty more.

And you are free to make up any interpretation you want of the Gospels but it doesn't make it true. It's only your biased interpretation and without substantiation--e.g. trying to use a story's character as if the character was Jesus giving commandments. That's your fallacy in understanding the difference between storytelling and giving commandments for moral behavior. Personally, I wouldn't go around parading such ignorance of how to read literature let alone use misunderstandings of what literature says as defense of your reasoning.

"Think not that I came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword". (Matt. 10:34).

Yes, indeed, Jesus predicted that reality spot on. You follow the teachings of Jesus in this world and chances are very high that you will run into great opposition from men wanting to continue their animal life in human form, i.e. continue the male animal's territorial behavioral patterns which have brought warfare into human societies acting like wolf packs.

Jesus' "sword" were the words that came out of his mouth to rebuke those who would kill and rob. I too have brought a sword from God. It is the Sword of Peace, Saif Al Salam, and it was honored as a Sign of the Messiah by over 500 Israeli Arab Christians in Nazareth. Do you think anyone one of those who saw Saif Al Salam, believed I had brought it to wage war? You really need to stop and differentiate between metaphorical and symbolic meanings and literal interpretation.

Again, words of Jesus himself. Here, he is saying from his own mouth that he did not come to send peace. Yet you say he is peaceful? Even your bible disagrees with you.

Jesus taught peace. The world knows this even if the Christians they have been exposed to have not been peaceful. Most of the world knows Jesus stood for peace and not for violence. Even a great Hindu leader Mohatma Gandhi followed the non-violence teachings of Jesus. So does the Buddhist leader Ang San Su Kyi follow the non-violence teachings of Jesus. What a different world it would be if Muslim leaders could follow the non-violence teachings of Jesus Christ. You are free to make up anything you like about what you think Christianity is but that will never make it anything more than your opinion which can only be shared by fellow Muslims trying hard to remake Jesus into a Muslim like Muhammad attempted to do making his Issa-Jesus quite a ridiculous puppet in the eyes of most all Christian believers , this Muslim Jesus who mimics Islamic warfare doctrine.

 

[Fatihah]

You are the one being untruthful and dishonest, I quoted you saying this...

"Here we have two tests that proves that the qur'an is from Allah. For not only is it free of discrepancy, but it is impossible to produce a chapter like the qur'an because every chapter is miraculous. That miracle being, that it is absolutely impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."


You challenge word for word? That is your argument? Are you not man enough to admit what you said?


"This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation."

Response: Yes. The challenge is for one to show in fact that it is possible to create a religion and their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. You haven't met that challenge. No one has.

 

[Fatihah]

Response: Then according to your logic, christianity is by far the worse religion and most violent. For I can turn on the news and see time and time again that another preacher has raped a little boy, while crime after crime is being committed in the west by those who claim the christian religion. So you don't have the slightest chance in trying to make christianity sound loving and peaceful with your logic. Instead it only shows that it is by far the most degrading religion, according to your logic.

I don't know of many criminals and rapists who bother to claim to be followers of Christ as their religion. And if they do they are obviously liars because followers of Christ follow Jesus' non-violence instructions to the best of their abilities. I cannot speak the same for Pauline Christianity which follows the teachings of Paul and not necessarily those of Jesus Christ. It was Paul who taught Christians to obey their government leaders and that is why the history of Pauline Christians is filled with violence. I am not a Pauline Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian and we were the very first targets of Christian persecution so when I tell you I follow Jesus Christ and not Paul you will know that I am not condoning what Pauline Christians have done in the world which is typical of the Abrahamic religious warfare against non-Abrahamic and other Abrahamic believers.

But getting back to that parable that you Muslims so want to misinterpret so you won't fill guilty about your own religion's war instructions and lack of knowledge of why non-violence must be uppermost in anyone's religion who follows God and not man. A parable is a story and a story is not a set of commandments. Stories are told to either entertain an audience or to teach a lesson. Parables are stories told to make a moral point. When you take literally a character's words in a parable as commandment you are not understanding the point of using parables in the first place. Jesus Christ taught non-violence. He did not kill anyone or tell any of his followers to kill anyone. He told them to turn the other cheek. He told them not to follow the eye for an eye revenge commandment of Judaism which Islam has copied, neither one understanding why the meek must inherit the earth and both thoroughly mixing God with territorial conquest and control by men.

I judge any religion or philosophy not by the words of their doctrines but by the actions of their followers. Words are easy to write down but actions always speak louder than words. Those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and not Paul are as non-violent as they are able to be. They don't start wars, they don't participate in wars if they can help it, and they don't kill people. For instance, I was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War because of my beliefs that killing my fellow man because his ideology was not America's idea of what it should be was not a moral act. True Christian men are like me and we don't believe there's any way war can be justified as a human community response. For Christians who follow Jesus Christ wars are the result of failures of societies to honor and share God's goodness and bounty.

And perhaps you need to read the bible a little slower. Parable or not, Jesus is still preaching violence and condoning it. But naturally, being use to the non-answer by christians concerning the verse, no worries, I have plenty more.

And you are free to make up any interpretation you want of the Gospels but it doesn't make it true. It's only your biased interpretation and without substantiation--e.g. trying to use a story's character as if the character was Jesus giving commandments. That's your fallacy in understanding the difference between storytelling and giving commandments for moral behavior. Personally, I wouldn't go around parading such ignorance of how to read literature let alone use misunderstandings of what literature says as defense of your reasoning.

"Think not that I came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword". (Matt. 10:34).

Yes, indeed, Jesus predicted that reality spot on. You follow the teachings of Jesus in this world and chances are very high that you will run into great opposition from men wanting to continue their animal life in human form, i.e. continue the male animal's territorial behavioral patterns which have brought warfare into human societies acting like wolf packs.

Jesus' "sword" were the words that came out of his mouth to rebuke those who would kill and rob. I too have brought a sword from God. It is the Sword of Peace, Saif Al Salam, and it was honored as a Sign of the Messiah by over 500 Israeli Arab Christians in Nazareth. Do you think anyone one of those who saw Saif Al Salam, believed I had brought it to wage war? You really need to stop and differentiate between metaphorical and symbolic meanings and literal interpretation.

Again, words of Jesus himself. Here, he is saying from his own mouth that he did not come to send peace. Yet you say he is peaceful? Even your bible disagrees with you.

Jesus taught peace. The world knows this even if the Christians they have been exposed to have not been peaceful. Most of the world knows Jesus stood for peace and not for violence. Even a great Hindu leader Mohatma Gandhi followed the non-violence teachings of Jesus. So does the Buddhist leader Ang San Su Kyi follow the non-violence teachings of Jesus. What a different world it would be if Muslim leaders could follow the non-violence teachings of Jesus Christ. You are free to make up anything you like about what you think Christianity is but that will never make it anything more than your opinion which can only be shared by fellow Muslims trying hard to remake Jesus into a Muslim like Muhammad attempted to do making his Issa-Jesus quite a ridiculous puppet in the eyes of most all Christian believers , this Muslim Jesus who mimics Islamic warfare doctrine.

Response: Parables are stories to make a moral point. And according to Jesus, his point is to slay those who will not let him reign over them. As for your "by sword he means words claim", does Jesus say that? No. Thus you are interpolating words in the bible, giving a distortred interpretation of the verse.

 

[McBell]

Response: That is correct. According to the logic, one can point to the atrocities of muslims. But yet when we turn to the qur'an those atrocities are taught no where. Thus the atrocities are not the teachings of islam, which serves as further proof that islam is a religion of peace. As for the violent verses, no muslim has a problem accepting them. Nor does any non-muslim. Because there is nothing wrong when someone uses violence in an act of self-defense.

You really do need to look up the definition of the word 'conquer'.

Response: Yes. The challenge is for one to show in fact that it is possible to create a religion and their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. You haven't met that challenge. No one has.

What does conquering nations have to do with a religion being true or false?

 

[biomystic]

Response: Parables are stories to make a moral point. And according to Jesus, his point is to slay those who will not let him reign over them. As for your "by sword he means words claim", does Jesus say that? No. Thus you are interpolating words in the bible, giving a distortred interpretation of the verse.

Fatihah, either you're mentally challenged or deliberately misunderstanding the parable of the nobleman in the story. Read it again and this time try not make the same error of mistaking the storyteller Jesus for the "austere" nobleman in the story who is hated by his citizens. I know you are desperate to try to make Jesus look like a violent man giving violent instructions to ease your own Muslim mind's acceptance of Muhammad's violence and violent instructions but it won't work. Jesus is far too well known for being a model of non-violence for you or any Muslim to be able to rewrite him to fit Muslim expectations.

 

[biomystic]

You really do need to look up the definition of the word 'conquer'.


What does conquering nations have to do with a religion being true or false?

It's the standard by which Muslims are taught to judge the worth of religious leaders. How much land has been conquered and how many people have been converted. A standard by which Pauline Christians are the clear winners. Too bad, Muslims, if God really is on the side of fascism in religious form but we who follow Jesus Christ know that is not the case. Isn't it time all Muslims put down the sword and tried living non-violently like the Ahmadiyyah Muslims do? Isn't it time to stop Muslims from killing each other every day of the week, year in, year out? Killing each other is not a Sign of God's approval. Just the opposite.

 

[Fatihah]

You really do need to look up the definition of the word 'conquer'.


What does conquering nations have to do with a religion being true or false?

Response: Still trolling?

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, either you're mentally challenged or deliberately misunderstanding the parable of the nobleman in the story. Read it again and this time try not make the same error of mistaking the storyteller Jesus for the "austere" nobleman in the story who is hated by his citizens. I know you are desperate to try to make Jesus look like a violent man giving violent instructions to ease your own Muslim mind's acceptance of Muhammad's violence and violent instructions but it won't work. Jesus is far too well known for being a model of non-violence for you or any Muslim to be able to rewrite him to fit Muslim expectations.

Response: To the contrary, you are either incapable of understanding english, or you are in serious denial. I know you are desperate to portray Jesus as a peaceful person against violence, but your own bible says otherwise.

 

[Fatihah]

It's the standard by which Muslims are taught to judge the worth of religious leaders. How much land has been conquered and how many people have been converted. A standard by which Pauline Christians are the clear winners. Too bad, Muslims, if God really is on the side of fascism in religious form but we who follow Jesus Christ know that is not the case. Isn't it time all Muslims put down the sword and tried living non-violently like the Ahmadiyyah Muslims do? Isn't it time to stop Muslims from killing each other every day of the week, year in, year out? Killing each other is not a Sign of God's approval. Just the opposite.

Response: No Pauline christian has ever created a religion and used the religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So your alleged proof is no proof at all. Speaking of time, isn't it time for christians to stop killing each other? And to stop slandering Jesus and God, calling the bible his word, knowing it is full of derogatory ststements against God? Slandering Jesus and God is not a sign of God's approval. It's the opposite.

 

[biomystic]

Response: No Pauline christian has ever created a religion and used the religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So your alleged proof is no proof at all. Speaking of time, isn't it time for christians to stop killing each other? And to stop slandering Jesus and God, calling the bible his word, knowing it is full of derogatory ststements against God? Slandering Jesus and God is not a sign of God's approval. It's the opposite.

Absolutely wrong. You are forgetting all about Paul who took Christianity to Rome and within 300 years the pagan Roman Empire was converted to Paul's Christianity. Try another go at ignoring the historical facts. Maybe you can get Muslims to believe you but not this Christian.

Christians are only killing Christians in Ireland at this point in time and not many at that. But every day Muslims are killing Muslims and yet you won't respond to this fact and seek divert this ugly behavior pattern by attempting make all Christians into bad guys. And who here is slandering Jesus if not you yourself trying to make Jesus look like a violent bad guy. And I told you which you've apparently ignored that we Gnostic Christians do not, repeat, do not hold either the Old Testament or the New Testament as the final authoritative word of God. So I can and do find fault with the Bible at many places on both historical accuracy and moral grounds. And besides, Jesus taught that we Christians, unlike you Muslims, can criticize even Jesus and be forgiven because he knew what the most important part of following God is--"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come". Mt. 12:32. God is a Spirit and those who worship God worship God as the Great Spirit animating the lives and actions of good men and women who help their neighbors in need and do not kill them for their sins like those following the reasoning of men.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Show me the proof