Yep, found a new church

Yep, found a new church

Yep, found a new church

Yep, found a new church

Yepp, found a new church

chrisd !watch out u're pressin post 2o many tmes
da only diff b/n christian n islamic religion is
da practices
da do's n dnts bt apart frm dese we're al 1
afterall is da same God we're al worshipping evn if he is called Allah/God

I agree

The same 'god' telling different people different things, thus causing centuries of accusations, hostilities and conflict.

Yes, I could see how that would be true.

Chrisd,

Is it just me or are you contradicting yourself? You said you go church but then you are critisising christianity and defending islam.You said that the muslim tradition is 'purer' so why are you going to church and following something that is not 'pure'. Something here just dosen't add up,



chrisd (m)
LONDON
Posts: 695
Offline

Re: Islamic And Christian Religion What Is The Difference
« #70 on: February 14, 2006, 05:36 PM »

Islamic people have close connection with God. And Muhammed was great prophet. ??

Chrisd,

Is it just me or are you contradicting yourself? You said you go church but then you are critisising christianity and defending islam.You said that the muslim tradition is 'purer' so why are you going to church and following something that is not 'pure'. Something here just dosen't add up,





 Re: Islamic And Christian Religion What Is The Difference
« #70 on: February 14, 2006, 05:36 PM »  

Islamic people have close connection with God. And Muhammed was great prophet.  ??

Chrisd,

Is it just me or are you contradicting yourself? You said you go church but then you are critisising christianity and defending islam. You said that the muslim tradition is 'purer' so why are you going to church and following something that is not 'pure'. Something here just dosen't add up,


Your words, Chrisd

"Islamic people have close connection with God. And Muhammed was great prophet"

Chrisd,

Is it just me or are you contradicting yourself? You said you go church but then you are critisising christianity and defending islam.You said that the muslim tradition is 'purer' so why are you going to church and following something that is not 'pure'. Something here just dosen't add up,





 Re: Islamic And Christian Religion What Is The Difference
« #70 on: February 14, 2006, 05:36 PM »  

Islamic people have close connection with God. And Muhammed was great prophet.  ??

Yep, that true. I am christian and I also think Mohammed is great prophet and I respect Mohammad's life. Mohammed had great compassion and love. He served the widows and orphans, the poor, sick, aged and homeless. Anyway, there is nothing wrong critisizing christianity, we're not perfect. And some have screwed up christianity. Whereas I consider muslims to be purer in the sense that I don't see so much division in their faith as christians do. People tended to corrupt the teaching of the Bible. And that's why there is so much disagreement, confusion, and division in Christian denominations that often disagree and contradict one another.

And Muslims are overwhelmed and how many Bible variations there are. The Quran remains intact in the original langauge and not much variation. Some Bibles have things chucked out from it and if one looks at the Bible of different denominations you see some bulkier than others. How is that?

The Quran remains intact in the original langauge and not much variation. Some Bibles have things chucked out from it and if one looks at the Bible of different denominations you see some bulkier than others. How is that?

Well my guess would be that power and wealth was the motivation behind the divisions in Christianity, just as the divisions in Islam were caused by power struggles.

However as to the comparison between the amendments made to the Bible and the lack thereof within the Quran; Islam is very clear in that it claims the Quran was sent by Allah to man via his last prophet.

There is more room for scope in Christianity, the Bible was simply inspired by a part of God (supposedly the Holy Spirit).

For me the Bible, the book of David and Book of Moses were also send by Allah. But most Muslims think they are corrupted and don't read them.

So what you think of Islam and Christianity. I think as time passed by christianity is losing it. Too much division and I'm seeing more division again and new churches and schools of thought developing again, especially in UK. SOmetimes it makes me sick.

I think that there's about as much truth in Islam and Christianity as there is in Greek/Roman/Mayan/Yoruba/Igbo mythology.

Sorry.

I think as time passed by christianity is losing it.

The Promise of Allah will be fulfilled. Allah Promised us that Islam will overcome all religions however the unbelievers may be averse. Amin!

There are good christians though also. What I don't agree is that many poeple bunk Islam. It has good things in it as well.

chrisd:

Yep, that true. I am christian and I also think Muhammad is great prophet and I respect Mohammad's life. Muhammad had great compassion and love. He served the widows and orphans, the poor, sick, aged and homeless. Anyway, there is nothing wrong critisizing christianity, we're not perfect. And some have screwed up christianity. Whereas I consider muslims to be purer in the sense that I don't see so much division in their faith as christians do. People tended to corrupt the teaching of the Bible. And that's why there is so much disagreement, confusion, and division in Christian denominations that often disagree and contradict one another.

And Muslims are overwhelmed and how many Bible variations there are. The Quran remains intact in the original langauge and not much variation. Some Bibles have things chucked out from it and if one looks at the Bible of different denominations you see some bulkier than others. How is that?

Chrisd,

My eyes are popping out of my head as i read your reply. I accept that you respect muhammed's life but you are a christian shouldn't you be saying all those things about YOUR DOOR TO HEAVEN! Jesus Christ?

Do you think your doing the right thing? critisising your own faith instead of letting God judge the people who CLAIM to be christians and just do wrong. THINK ABOUT IT!

How can you also say that people corrupt the teaching of the bible when is happens MORE in islam. The lives of innocent people are being taken away because of corrupt muslims that feel allah is telling them to strap a bomb to themselves and kill innocent people aswell as themselves! I'm not against muslims but if you call the bible corrupt then you obviously have your eyes closed to what is happen in society today when tony blair is saying in london we have estimated about 500 muslim suicide bombers!

Softee, If you think Christians are free of this kind of monstrous barbarities, you should really look into the behaviour of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

If one rightly makes the claim that these are not real Christians, then one should also be honest enough to say that those suicide bombers are not real Muslims.

nferyn, you often want to push the idea that this or that religion is bad because of the atrocities of the past. I don't know if anyone agrees (and I care less if they don't) that in our day people are more enlightened and want to know what a particular faith entails by looking at their doctrines or tenets. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, not on what some people do in the name of Christianity. The fact that people would misrepresent God and attempt to drag the name of Jesus Christ in the mud does not take God by surprise: the Bible said many would kill and think they are doing God a service (John 16:2). We've heard all the bad news; what's the goodnews? It is striking that those who complain against Christianity have not been able to quote a reference in Jesus' teachings that He orders murders or other crimes. It is just as easy to say that all Belgians are evil simply because someone in Belgium did something evil to me. Does that mean that the Beligian President is to be blamed for all the evils committed by the Belgians I have encountered? But you would immediately see the crass notion in that statement. In the same way, is it not about time to define any faith in their proper context by looking more closely at what their founders say and teach, than by sticking to some gory detail of what people did in the past in the name of this or that religion?

choice.A:

nferyn, you often want to push the idea that this or that religion is bad because of the atrocities of the past.

Not really, I only want to point out to those Christians that are very quick to criticise Muslims for the behaviour of a minority, tend to forget the past and current atrocities that are committed by Christians. It's either because of hypocrisy or out of ignorance.

choice.A:

I don't know if anyone agrees (and I care less if they don't) that in our day people are more enlightened and want to know what a particular faith entails by looking at their doctrines or tenets.

Viewed in that light, Islam is probably more enlightened, unless you want to dicrard the old testament completely.

choice.A:

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, not on what some people do in the name of Christianity.

Why then is the old testament still part of the Bible?

choice.A:

The fact that people would misrepresent God and attempt to drag the name of Jesus Christ in the mud does not take God by surprise: the Bible said many would kill and think they are doing God a service (John 16:2). We've heard all the bad news; what's the goodnews? It is striking that those who complain against Christianity have not been able to quote a reference in Jesus' teachings that He orders murders or other crimes.

There are instances in the Bible where Jesus just does that:
Mark 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
That's exactly the problem. The Bible is so full of contradictions that you can easily find a quote that justifies evil behaviour.

choice.A:

It is just as easy to say that all Belgians are evil simply because someone in Belgium did something evil to me. Does that mean that the Beligian President is to be blamed for all the evils committed by the Belgians I have encountered? But you would immediately see the crass notion in that statement.

We actulally don't have a president, but a constitutional Monarch You are indeed right in the sense that you cannot blame a group for the behaviour of the individual. If however some people are acting evil in the name of that group, then the group is responsible for either dissociating themselves from those individuals or for stopping these individuals. The group still bears some responsibility, not as individuals, but as group. During the colonisation of Congo, Belgians have commited attrocities in the name of Belgium. Even if I, as an individual, am not responsible for these crimes, Belgian society is and should repay the debt, even if this would mean a hike in taxes (I don't see that happen though )

choice.A:

In the same way, is it not about time to define any faith in their proper context by looking more closely at what their founders say and teach, than by sticking to some gory detail of what people did in the past in the name of this or that religion?

It is not only in the past, it continues in the present and religous though, by it's very uncritical nature, is perpetuating this.

nferny, there is no Mark 19 in my Bible. The book of Mark stops in Chapter 16. Can you check and quote again?

This confirms that the Bible has been corrupted by the reformation and protestantism. Some Bibles are chunkier than other. Luther/ Calvin etc chucked out parts they did not like. One of them is justification by faith alone.

Why the Old Testament
The Old Testament is a veritable part of Christian belief, but there would be no "New" Testament if the "Old" Testament was to be the operative rule of life for the Christian who is under the New T. One of the several reasons to distinguish between the two is found in Galatians 3:24-25 - "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

nferyn, the passage was Luke 19:27 (not Mark 19:27). In any case, you read that out of context - and that's precisely the problem of labelling people whose faith you don't understand as 'ignorant'. In context, that verse wasn't referring to the same thing as taking up swords to murder people in the name of Christ; rather it was a parabolic warning to His listeners that God's judgement is inescapable on the Day of Judgement. Go back and read the entire text and see for yourself (verse 11 says He was speaking in parables, and if you've any doubts that Luke 19:27 was pointing to the Second coming of Jesus Christ, look at verse 12 - it speaks of His return). The world we are living in belongs to Someone Who created it; but we repudiate Him and would not have Him rule over our lives (by whatever excuses we make). Therefore judgement is going to be meted out in full.

People may do whatever they like in the name of one religion or the other, but killing and committing crimes is not and never was what Christ came to establish. People take His words out of context and come up with accusations that Jesus' words are contradictory, almost as if to say that Jesus and His teachings are responsible for the heinous crimes of mankind against one another. Let's look at it this way: if Jesus actually believed in murdering people who reject Him, why then did He refuse His disciples to do just that when the people of Samaria rejected Him in Luke 9:51-56? I find His statement in verse 56 very fascinating - He didn't come to destroy men's lives but to save them.

I'm new to the Christian faith, and life is so different now. I don't know what you believe in, but if you ever felt like I did, you would be able to appreciate why a hardened skeptic like me gave my life to Jesus Christ - not out of fear; but rather, out of the compelling love I found in Him. It was the search for God that led me to opt first for Islam; but when I had questions, the Imam warned me sternly that questions are not tolerated in Islam. I don't think that is enlightened, if you claim that Islam is more enlightened.

Me, a pentecostal preacher told me the same. You just have to believe, don't you love Jesus?

chrisd, I think you would do yourself a whole lot of good to just speak about the things you know. Mark never had more than 16 chapters, and if alheri points that out, it does not mean the Bible was corrupted at any point. That was the nonsense I was told and for most part of my life I believed that lie as a hardened skeptic. One question I have for folks like you: if the bible was corrupted, could you please tell me what was the original message of the "pure" Bible? I don't see how a 'corrupt' Bible would provide me with pure answers to bring me out of my sick, empty, and wicked skeptic life. If it's corrupt to you, it is the very Book that made me a better person and gave me invigorating hope from the skeptic motto: "Life has no meaning." Jesus Christ came for the precise purpose that He claimed - a skeptic like me tested His claims and find it works. QED.

Unknown to almost all of the over two billion people who claim the Bible as their spiritual foundation is that there are several books and two sections missing missing from all but a few versions of that Bible. Perhaps one of the best kept secrets of the modern Protestant church is that the Bible used by that body is not the original King James Bible. That translation, completed in 1611, and the Bibles published for the use of the clergy and the church members until late in the 19th Century, contained 80 books. Although attempts to remove the 14 books known as the Apocrypha from the Bible began immediately after the King James translation was completed they remained in the Bible until the end of the 19th Century. There is no doubt that the 14 books of the Apocrypha were controversial, but it cannot be denied they were included in the original King James Bible.

The concept of the Protestant Church about the Apocrypha is virtually non-existent, with the general understanding that only the Catholic Church uses it. One would be hard-pressed to find any members of the clergy even aware that these books were ever included in the King James Bible. There are 155,683 words and over 5,700 verses contained in 168 chapters now missing from the King James translation of the Bible due to the exclusion of the Apocrypha. Although this only happened just over a hundred years ago, their existence as fully accepted scripture is virtually unknown.

Most early Bibles contained the Apocrypha; here are just a few:

· 1534 Luther's German translation of the Bible
· 1534 The Coverdale Bible
· 1537 Thomas Matthew Bible
· 1539 The Taverner Bible
· 1541 The "Great" or "Cromwell's" Bible
· 1551 The "Tyndale/ Matthews" Bible
· 1560 The Geneva Bible
· 1568 The Bishops' Bible
· 1610 Catholic Old Testament
· 1611 King James Bible
· 1615 King James Version Robert Barker at London, England

If one opens a Protestant Bible, you will find there are SEVEN books missing in comparison to the Holy Catholic Bible.

-Tobit
-Baruch
-Judith
-Wisdom
-Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
-1 Maccabees
-2 Maccabees
-Six chapters of the book of Ester which are A, 3B,4C, 4D,8E,10F
-seventy verses of the book of Daniel in chapter 3. In a Protestant Bible chapter 3 only has 30 verses. In a Catholic Bible there are 100 verses in chapter 3.
-chapters 13 and 14 in Daniel

Why would Protestant theologins discard these God inspired writings? The answer may be within it being easier to change the Bible to fit protestant doctrines then to change doctrines in Jesus' Catholic Church.

If one goes to a Christian book store they will find numerous Protestant Bible versions. Along with many versions of the Bible, the Christian Sourcebook indicates there are over 26,000 non-Catholic churches with own doctrines.

chrisd, whatever happened to the texts that gave people hope before the 14th century? And if you still believe the lies you're posting, I'd like to inform you that it was the very quotes you're ferreting that hardened my skeptic heart. Besides, I'd like you to please tell me what essential element is missing from the original Bible. It's easy to say that over 150,000 words are missing from the Bible - and you didn't have eyes to see that those were the 'Apocrypha' - which is not the same as the New Testament. So, if I don't practise the Apocrypha, I'd be charged and condemned to hell for believing that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour? Get your thinking right.