What is Islam?

Agee

Well-Known Member
itsbob said:
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. .

How ironic, Jesus was Jewish...
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Airgasm said:
How ironic, Jesus was Jewish...
In NO way am I saying Hitler was right, just that blaming the Muslim religion for our troubles today, would be the same as blaming Christianity and the Catholics for WWII.

It's individuals USING their religion to get followers to do their will.
 

Agee

Well-Known Member
itsbob said:
In NO way am I saying Hitler was right, just that blaming the Muslim religion for our troubles today, would be the same as blaming Christianity and the Catholics for WWII.

It's individuals USING their religion to get followers to do their will.

Not the intent of my comment, more a reflection on how whacked Hitlers' philosophies were.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
itsbob said:
In NO way am I saying Hitler was right, just that blaming the Muslim religion for our troubles today, would be the same as blaming Christianity and the Catholics for WWII.

It's individuals USING their religion to get followers to do their will.

Isn't that what I said, Bob? I guess you missed the summation at the end.

Hitler preached and wrote on thing, but to his close followers and friends, he despised Christianity. He used it as a tool. He was also quoted as stating that he had to be careful and use subterfuge with the Church in his use for it.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
abdulhaqq said:
Dear 2ndAmendment,

First, your claim that Christianity espouses the doctrine of monothiesm. I wanted to remind you that a critical view of the trinity has been adopted not only by the predecessor of Christianity, namely Judaism, and the antecedor to Christianity, namely Islam, but there are a plethora of sects within Christianity from its early age until the modern era that have rejected the Trinity as well. This is a point that you ignored. When you are discussing "Christian beliefs" please state which sectarian perspective you are adopting and on what grounds. There are something like 200 sects within Christianity that differ on important theological questions. In Islam, there are only a handful of sects, none of which differ greatly over the nature of God or the textual integrity of the Qur'an. Christianity, on the other hand, possesses no such uniformity. To me, this doesn't seem to be an illustration of a 'divinely revealed religion', does it?
Do you accept the miracles of Jesus? His diciples also did miracles. There are miracles in the Christians church today. Therfore Christianity and the New Testemant is devine.

There may be many denominations of Christians, but by and large, the Christian denominations don't go around killing other Christians like the Sunnis and Shia do.

abdulhaqq said:
Secondly, with regards to your continued claim that you believe that the trinity is a manifestation of monotheism, this is patently absurd. In order to reference the Bible as an authentic narration from God, you have to first establish its textual integrity and some sort of proof that it is from God. In Islam, we believe that God not only sent His prophets (upon them be peace) who were of the utmost character, truthful, noble, eloquent, and free from sin, but he sent with them miracles as proofs that they were true representatives from God. The miracle of the Prophet MUhammad (peace be upon him) is the Qur'an which is a book that has been unchanged for 1400 years and challenges all of humanity to produce a piece of literature that is capable of breaking the laws of language, but still remaining coherent.
I believe in one God. Period. End of discussion.

The Qur'an was written by multiple people from notes from Mohamed years after his death. It has changed substantially over the years. Your contention that it is unchanged over 1400 years is a lie. Mohamed, by today's' standards in the U.S., would be a child molester at best since he had 12 year olds as wives, so I don't see where Mohamed would be free from sin.


abdulhaqq said:
Thirdly, and this is the most pertinent point. You claim that God is not divided into parts, but it is merely possible for God to divide into parts if he wanted to.

This is a cop-out on your part. Just because the bible claims to believe in one god doesn't mean this is so. If something looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, in all likelihood, it is a duck. With regards to the trinity, the division of Godhood can mean one of two things: Either these parts are unified through substance or they are separate.
Yep. I agree. Mohamed looks like a child molester, walked like a child molester, in all likelihood, Mohamed must have been a child molester.

You, again, impose your human rules on God who is omnipotent and beyond your control.

abdulhaqq said:
You asserted that God cannot be limited and Muslims agree with this assertion. You claimed that you God isn't divided into parts and the trinity isn't a division of being, but of attributes. Lets assume arguendo that godhood is shared by a tripartite being. Previously, I argued that the parts define the whole. It is logically absurd to assume that if the parts of a being possess a certain characteristic, that the whole lacks it. You have not responded sufficiently to this claim except by muttering 'Its in the Bible' which is a form of blind faith and not a form of rational proof. If God is not three separate entities, but is divided into three separate parts, than according to Christians, he possesses contradictory elements. If God as a whole is unlimited and eternal, than his parts must be unlimited and eternal. If the parts of God are limited and temporal, than are his parts unlimited and eternal? If God is unlimited and eternal, than surely, his parts must be unlimited and eternal. Since you claim that Jesus is an integral of Godhood, this would mean that god is limited since an integral of him was born, died, and suffered in hell. You have failed to respond to this claim except based on blind faith by referring to the Bible. If you say 'the integral of god that existed in his creation was god' then you've placed god in his creation and have adopted a belief that is more similar to hinduism and other pagan religions than other monothiestic religions such as judaism and Islam.
You don't understand God. Neither do I. I don't pretend to like you do. You say I have blind faith because I quote the Bible. What of your blind faith when you quote the koran (since you insist on disrespecting the Bible)? You really don't understand the Bible at all, do you?
John 1:14-18

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
This is one testimony that proclaims Jesus is the "the only begotten God."

Luke 10:22 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
This is a quote of Jesus. You, maybe all Muslims, have no idea who Jesus really is.
John 5:22 "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
Look out. Jesus will be your judge.
John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
So Jesus says He will raise all that believe in Him including me from the dead. Back to the duck. Looks like God, acts like God, talks like God. Yep. Must be God.
John 17:1-3

1Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.

3"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Jesus still looks like God to me.
abdulhaqq said:
Either God is made up of parts that are not eternal and limited in which the law of non-contradiction negates his existence, or he is divided into three separate entities in which case Trinitarians are not worshipping one God, but three.
No one, certainly not I said that God has any parts that are not eternal. Jesus lives. Islam keeps missing the resurrection of Jesus.

Sorry about Mohamed. No resurrection there, huh?

abdulhaqq said:
My point in this exercise was to illustrate that the claim that Muslims do not worship the God of Jews and Christians is absurd because of the glaring differences between Jewish theology and Christian theology. From the perspective of a purely neutral observe, trinitarians would be the odd one out of the three abrahamic faiths, not Islam. Islam is more cogently affiliated with the predecessor judaism in its theology. So if anything, the question should be "Do Christians worship the god of judaism and islam?"

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq
Again, you don't have the foggiest idea.
Genesis 1:26-27

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Notice this is the Old Testament; Jewish book of the Bible. God refers to Himself in the plural. One God, as many forms as He chooses.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'd like to ask some questions...

...


If the US were ruled by Sharia, what would happen to;


Abortion rights

Campaign finance reform

Illegal drug use

Gay rights

Illegal immigration

Seperation of church and state (I guess this is a trick question)

Pop culture (gangster rap, movies, dress)

Minimum wage

Energy policy

2nd amendment rights

federal tax policy




I'm interested.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
2ndAmendment said:
Do you accept the miracles of Jesus? His diciples also did miracles. There are miracles in the Christians church today. Therfore Christianity and the New Testemant is devine.

There may be many denominations of Christians, but by and large, the Christian denominations don't go around killing other Christians like the Sunnis and Shia do.

I believe in one God. Period. End of discussion.

The Qur'an was written by multiple people from notes from Mohamed years after his death. It has changed substantially over the years. Your contention that it is unchanged over 1400 years is a lie. Mohamed, by today's' standards in the U.S., would be a child molester at best since he had 12 year olds as wives, so I don't see where Mohamed would be free from sin.


Yep. I agree. Mohamed looks like a child molester, walked like a child molester, in all likelihood, Mohamed must have been a child molester.

You, again, impose your human rules on God who is omnipotent and beyond your control.

You don't understand God. Neither do I. I don't pretend to like you do. You say I have blind faith because I quote the Bible. What of your blind faith when you quote the koran (since you insist on disrespecting the Bible)? You really don't understand the Bible at all, do you? This is one testimony that proclaims Jesus is the "the only begotten God."


This is a quote of Jesus. You, maybe all Muslims, have no idea who Jesus really is.
Look out. Jesus will be your judge.So Jesus says He will raise all that believe in Him including me from the dead. Back to the duck. Looks like God, acts like God, talks like God. Yep. Must be God. Jesus still looks like God to me.
No one, certainly not I said that God has any parts that are not eternal. Jesus lives. Islam keeps missing the resurrection of Jesus.

Sorry about Mohamed. No resurrection there, huh?

Again, you don't have the foggiest idea. Notice this is the Old Testament; Jewish book of the Bible. God refers to Himself in the plural. One God, as many forms as He chooses.
WOW, you are one ARROGANT Christian.. all the arguments you use against Islam, the same could be said about the Bible and Christianity.. but I guess THOSE arguments aren't valid becasue you didn't think of them, or that they are used to deride YOUR religion.


And back to the "OUR saviour was resurrected, your's wasn't!!"

But I think the whole point to the Muslim side (shich is actually more believable) was that Muhamed was not a superbeing, he was not the son of God, he was a mortal man... no super powers..

So should we convert ALL the Muslims to your truth, or should we convert all the Christians to their Truth??
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
abdulhaqq said:
Dear 2ndAmendment,

A lot of your claims about God, His nature and attributes, are not derived from reason (some are plainly absurd and utilise weak argument to justify that which is inherently and apparently contradictory), but through blind faith in a text whose integrity you believe to be impeccable.

In your post, you claimed that the Bible was a reliable document and cited to some statistics that might impress a novice student of theology, but won't impress minds with more capable powers of perception.

In your previous post, you made the following claims:


Firstly, the relevant question isn't when the copies were made, but when the originals were made.


The earliest available manuscripts, known as P64, P67, P104 were written around 200 years after the purported death of christ. Even if we assume the textual integrity of the this manuscript, it was merely fragments and covered little of the New Testament.

P4 was made of Luke 1:58-59; 1:62-2:1, 6-7; 3:8-4:2, 29-32, 34-35; 5:3-8; 5:30-6:16.

P64 was made of Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33.

P67 was made of Matthew 3:9, 15; 5:20-22, 25-28.

If the earliest biblical manuscripts were written 200 years after the death of christ and were mere fragments, than what does that say about the textual integrity of the Bible as a whole?

Secondly, the relevant question isn't how many copies exist, but the reliability of the originals existed. If the originals were defective, then obviously, the copies will be defective as well.

If the original manuscripts were written hundreds of years after the existence of Christ, how could they possibly be construed as being 'reliable' and 'authentic'? Furthermore, the earliest manuscripts weren't even discovered until the 19th and 20th centuries which means that for the overwhelming majority of Christianity's history, the supposed word of God was being defectively circulated!!!! If God is so powerful, why couldn't He preserve His own book? Why did He allow 2000 years to pass before the "comprehensive" version of His book was revealed?

Furthermore, you've exaggerated the relevance of these ancient manuscripts.

For example, only 8% of the Greek manuscripts cover most of the new testament. The remaining 92% of the Greek manuscripts are only fragments.
(Source: L. M. McDonald and S. E. Porter, Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: Peabody (MA), p. 27.)

Thus, it doesn't matter if there are 25,000 manuscripts if the overwhelming majority of them were copies whose originals are lost and are comprised of fragments.

Lastly, the primary method of textual reconstruction of these fragments was done through from the perspective of the Latin manuscripts which we all know weren't even in existence until the 4th century, casting doubt as to the authenticity of the earlier texts as being a reliable interpretation.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq
Islamic :bs:
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
meelak said:
Did Mohammed do that?

That is exactly the point. If he did that, people will again make the same mistake and start worshiping him as god.

When you are going in the right direction, you don't need to make any turns. Only when you are going in the wrong direction that you need to change the course. Since people mistakenly beleived the messayah to be the god, god had to send another messayah - the last and final messenger to the whole humanity.

Read John chapter 14 again and you see will see that jesus is foretelling the people of the coming of mohammed who will confirm what jesus preached and show them the new signs/message (which according to jesus the people did not have the comprehension to understand those at that time). Some christians believe this to be the holy spirit. If it is infact the holy spirit what new signs/messages did the holy spirit give which jesus did not give in his time?

1) When jesus was on the cross, what did he say

Matthew chap 27 verse[46] "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Eli, Eli when translated to Arabic Alah, Alah!! Jesus cried to god. If he is god, why would he have to cry to god and ask god why god has forsaken him. What does this prove? Verse 47 says, people heard him calling to god.

2) What about John Chap 20 and verse
[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Here jesus is saying my god and your god. If he was god, why would he say my god and your god. This means his god and other people's god are the same and he is not the god.

3) Here is yet another proof that Jesus did not pay for everybody's sins.

Look into Matthew Chap 7 Verse
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

The above verses say who ever does righteous deeds that god prescribes us to do only will enter paradise and it is the same belief of the muslims as well. Also, to the people who called him Lord/God, in his second coming, he will not even recognize them and will ask them to get away.

Also, we muslims believe jesus was raised up alive and he will come again.
Jesus was in no way foretelling the coming of Mohamed. Why would a man have to come to save humanity when God had come? A man could do something God could not? According to Islamic understanding, but not according to Christian understanding.

Jesus paid the price for everyone sins as long as you accept the gift of God. If you don't, ...

Again, you show your ignorance of Biblical understanding.

Since Jesus is God come as man, the Son of Man, He is fully God and man. He had to lay down His God-ship to die. All part of the plan of salvation. If He had not laid down His God-ship, He would not have died. If He had not died, our sins would still be unforgiven. After He died, He was put in a tomb. He rose from the dead on the third day. By that, He proved his God-ship by taking up His life again.
 

abdulhaqq

New Member
Dear 2nd Amendment,

My purpose in criticizing Christian Theology wasn't to make you feel bad about your religion because you have certain beliefs that are rationally indefensible, but to show that every religion has aspects of faith and reason.

There is absolutely no doubt, according to historians, that Islam is entirely comaptible wtih reason and Western civilization. The sheer fact that so many Western scientists, philosophers, and thinkers have consistently looked to Islam and Muslims for intellectual assistance shows that a peaceful synthesis is possible.

I've already given you a reference to Harry Wolfson's "The Philosophy of the Kalam" which is an extensive exposition between the philosohical contributions between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/books/kalam.pdf

Here is another reference to the contribution of Muslims scholars and theologians to Western philosophy:
Among Western scholars of the history of philosophy, interest in and concern with medieval Islamic and Jewish tinkers is fairly recent. The traditional history of Western thought has usually held that it emerged from Greco-Roman thought, with the Islamic and Jewish thinkers functioning at best as middlemen, translating Hellenic and Hellenistic texts and commenting on them for the benefit of Christian medieval thinkers. The Islamic and Jewish thinkers were hardly considered important figures in their own right, except for Maimonides, who has been a most important and most problematic figure in Jewish thought for almost eight centuries. In recent decades, more and more scholars with the necessary linguistic training have been examining the achievements of Muslim and Jewish intellectuals from 800 onward. They are examining them both in their own right as significant thinkers and as important influences on later Western European thought. It is gradually being realized that a significant part of Western intellectual heritage relies upon the philosophical works of the Islamic world, and that developments in Muslim Spain from the tenth through the twelfth centuries played a major role in the development of Western philosophy. Critical editions of Muslim and Jewish texts have been published as well as translations of many of them into modern Western languages. One instance of the influence of these thinkers on later European ones is that seventeenth-century scholars such as G.W. Leibniz, Nicolas Malebranche, and Pierre Bayle are known to have read Maimonides in Latin and learned of al-Ghazali's occasionalism there.
-p 143 of "The Columbia Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy" -


As for everyone else, you're smear tactics have already been consistently addressed over and over in this thread. You cannot denigrate over 1.4 billion people on the actions of the few. If you don't feel that Muslims aren't doing enough to combat violence and other social ills in their communities, that is your personal opinion. It is not a historical fact. Throughout this thread, I have given reference to only articles, books, and major thinkers/scholars. Whereas the evidence that some of you have alluded to is either inconclusive, misinterpreted, xenophobic, or just weak.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
meelak said:
If that is the case, when Iraq fought with Kuwait and took over Kuwait, why did we go to liberate Kuwait. Iraq was not willing to give Kuwait back? So why didn't we say - Oh they captured it and it is theirs. But no, all the countries formed a coalition and went and liberated Kuwait (which is a sign of civilized world).

We cannot chose who we liberate and who we not liberate. If we call ourselves unbiased, freedom loving, just and hold ourselves to higher moral grounds, then why did we not liberate palestine?
The quote is your friend in forums.

Why? We wanted to. Period. Tough zots. Life isn't fair. Get over it.
 

abdulhaqq

New Member
Charity in Islam

Those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah and do not follow up their spending by stressing their benevolence and causing hurt, will find their reward secure with their Lord. They have no cause for fear and grief. (Qur'an)

To speak a kind word and to forgive people's faults is better than charity followed by hurt. Allah is All-Sufficient, All-Forbearing. (Qur'an)

The Prophet said: If any Muslim plants something or sows seed from which a man, a bird or an animal eats, it counts as a charity for him.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
abdulhaqq said:
Dear 2ndAmendment,

With regards to your claim that 'islam spread by the sword and imposed slavery', this is a argument is weak just like the rest of the ones you've been conjuring up today. The fact that you didn't even bother quoting a reputable historical source for a timeline that listed a bunch of dates doesn't mean anything. For example, the mere fact that Muslims conquered Jerusalem doesn't mean that it was done violently.

Here is the peace treaty between the Second Caliph Umar (may God elevate him) and the Jewish and Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem:

“This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar, the Ruler of the Believers, has granted to the people of Jerusalem. The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion...

The French historian Michaud (1767-1839), who traveled in the Middle East and wrote a book on the Crusades called Bibliotheque des Croisades (Library of the Crusades), says on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, “The Muslims were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Crusaders. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Muslims defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape.”

When the Muslims re-conquered Jerusalem in 1187, they again showed extreme mercy and kindness. The ruler at the time, Sultan Salahuddin Ayyubi, gave free pardon to the Christians in the city. Only the soldiers were required to pay a very small fee. However, the Sultan himself paid the fee for about ten thousand people. His brother paid it for seven thousand people. Salahuddin also allocated one of the gates of the city for people who were too poor to pay anything to leave from there.

These historical facts completely refute your claim on this one particular instance. In fact, if necessary, an entire thread could be dedicated in refuting the absurd allegations raised in your hitherto uncited article.

However, instead of doing so, I will argue general principles that will refute your claims, one by one.

Firstly, Islam itself prohibits forced conversions.

The Qur'an itself says "There is no compulsion in religion." Contrary to the Pope's erroneous claim that this verse was an early verse, this verse was a later verse revealed during the Madinan period where the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) had established a government. The verse was a prohibition on him and his followers to force people to convert.

Secondly, historians of notable repute agree that Islam spread peacefully, not by force.

"The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary."
- p 198 of "A History of Islamic Societies" by Ira Lapidus -


Professor Thomas Arnold has dedicated an entire book on the topic of the peaceful spread of Islam entitled "The Spread of Islam in the World"

Thirdly, even today, Islam is spreading peacefully, all through out the world

In fact, over 60,000 people converted to Islam in Rwanda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

Note how 4 clergyman from the Catholic church were charged with assisting genocide and face charges of war crimes.

Christians had actively participated in the a genocide that resulted in the death of 800,000 people. This isn't from a few centuries ago, this is within the past decade.

Lastly, Christianity has a history of forced conversions during the Crusades, Inquisition, and the entire history of colonization where Christopher Columbus forced thousands of Native Americans into slavery and Christianity. Lets not forget that the same thing happened to African Americans, of which 20% are estimated to have been Muslim who were forced into Christianity. Some as recent as 150 years ago.

With Peace,
Abdulhaqq
Yes, the crusades were an abomination. But Christians grew up. Muslims apparently haven't grown up yet. Maybe one of these days you guys will see the Light.

"Islam itself prohibits forced conversions." :killingme :jameo: Tell that to the two reporters that had to "Covert" to be released when the were captured in Gaza.

Ever heard that actions speak loader than words? The events of the Muslim world testify against Islam.
 
Last edited:

abdulhaqq

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
Yes, the crusades were an abomination. But Christians grew up. Muslims apparently haven't grown up yet. Maybe one of these days you guys will see the Light.

Maybe some day, when you truly seek guidance, you will see the Light too. :huggy:
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
abdulhaqq said:
Maybe some day, when you truly seek guidance, you will see the Light too. :huggy:
I have the Light. The Holy Spirit lives within me. Maybe one of these days you will realize that you do have sin in your life and need the Savior that God provided, the Son of Man, God comes as man. I pray that you find the love of Jesus, God come as man.
 

abdulhaqq

New Member
2ndAmendment said:
I have the Light. The Holy Spirit lives within me. Maybe one of these days you will realize that you do have sin in your life and need the Savior that God provided, the Son of Man, God comes as man. I pray that you find the love of Jesus, God come as man.

As I stated before, mankind is born free from sin. God didn't make a mistake in the creation of Adam. The sins of the fathers don't transfer to the travel.
 

Pete

Repete
abdulhaqq said:
As I stated before, mankind is born free from sin. God didn't make a mistake in the creation of Adam. The sins of the fathers don't transfer to the travel.
Did you hear Oprah gave away $300,000
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Kain99 said:
DUDE!!!!! You completely ignored my post! "Gentle goes the dove."
You didn't provide what they want. They don't want someone who agrees with them. They want the argument, so they can proliferate their Islamic propaganda.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
2ndAmendment said:
You didn't provide what they want. They don't want someone who agrees with them. They want the argument, so they can proliferate their Islamic propaganda.
Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it??
 
Top