KAG,

You cannot say categorically that Ouija boards are fake. I expected you'd have some personal experience to relate to buttress your claim. Well, I haven't tried it myself - and I would never touch it for anything. I was a hardened skeptic and didn't believe in such stuff - until I saw what it did to someone who actually bought it to 'try it out.' I wasn't there watching the events unfold, but barely 3 hours later she was found hanging upside down in her room - dead, and the Ouija board was never discovered. We live in a sick world that transcends the natural or physical. I followed your link, but if by just reading an article online convinces you that such phenomena is non-existent, I have nothing else to say than just these two:

1. Those who have no experience cannot claim that something is not true.

2. Those who want to dabble into the occult out of curiosity need not do so - the price is too costly afterwards.

Todd,

I'd like to see this thread grow because I feel its topic is valid as many people (myself included) have heard and asked similar questions, and also wondered what to make of it. Sadly, when answers were not forthcoming, it has led some to say unfortunate things about Him in the belief that He has indeed changed. Perhaps, it might be helpful to define the question a bit more - like, in what ways are we asking if God has changed? In His ways, His nature, His Word, or His governance of lives?

Personally, I don't see any change - He is still the same unchanging God in all ages: absolute, eternal, loving and merciful. However, the fact that He is the ultimate Judge in no way contradicts His gracious disposition. He is the same God.

chrisd:

You should read a bit on Muhammed's life.

I already did. He may be many things to many people, but not the sort that Ajisafe projects. You have to understand that if a prophet used uncultured language at almost everyone, he would not have gained a good following - for the simple reason that there are people far more intelligent and civil than to take such gutter talk.

chrisd:

He is right on this one, really. The word is pronounced "Mus"-lim in Arabic but some English dictionaries allow both.

Glad you see that

nferyn:

You know, Ajisafe, that the white South-African racist have approriated your mulsim word kufar and use it gainst black South-Africans. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Awww, nferyn, I was just going to point that out to him. But I rest my case. So much for our "know-it-all" attitudes.

Ajisafe:

Are you going to argue with me concerning my faith? And what dictionary are you referring to? The one written by the kufars like yourself? Please, we are Muslim! Never a "Moslem."

And Muslim is what language? If the dictionary for "Moslem" is wrong, which kufars wrote your own "Muslim" dictionary?

chrisd:

We can teach them the alphabet again. I come from semitic county. We know how to spell.

And you didn't know that my spellings were correct?

chrisd:

Maybe the person who wrote the dictionary is not so clever.

And what version of dictionary undergirds your education?

Qur'an or Koran is another example.

Either spelling is correct - Moslem or Muslim. Check your dictionary.

If Ajisafe was acting in the same spirit like that of Mohammed, what would we think of the prophet of Islam?

chrisd, I didn't ask for your incoherrent statements. I'm seeking answers from Moslems, not windy talk from you. You neither addressed any of the enquiries in my post nor made a sensible input.

[flash=200,200][/flash] Please if you're a Moslem who is easily vexed at sincere questions from enquirers seeking answers, skip this thread. I'm seeking answers, and if you can't provide one, don't rattle your nerves.  

Ajisafe:

Those Western troublemakers knew what they were doing when they parodied our dear Prophet all in the name of their so-called "free speech -- free media."

It seems to me that there's something suspect here. First, let me assure anyone reading this that I'm in no way in favour of ridiculing any faith in any form - by caricatures or in speech - and if it is wrong to have done it to one faith, it is equally wrong to have done it to another faith. It bewilders common sense for some Moslems, however, to have reacted by killing others who had nothing to do with the cartoons in the first place. Second, the fact that some people would be unnerved by certain issues directed to their faith should in no way muzzle others who wish to protect the right to freedom of expression. The question is, how far should that freedom of expression go? Just as it was unwise for the cartoonists to have published caricatures of Mohammed, it wasn't the wiser for Moslems to have misdirected their protests at those who were not involved in or have played any roles in the event that immediately sparked off the upheavals. This is why it bothers me when more and more Moslems seem to be pushing the geography of the problem towards the West. I know that Moslems especially in the middle east and arab states have a disdain for the West, particularly America. But to wake up one morning and forget that Denmark is in Europe and not in the American continent often called the West, sounds suspicious. I am not an American; but I'm asking for a true picture of events and an unbiased interpretation of those same events.

A few Moslem friends I asked are of the opinion that while Islam is intolerant to the 'kufars' (non-moslems or unbelievers), they don't think that Moslems ought to have taken to such proportions in their reactions; especially as the Qur'an does not directly enjoin them to do so in the event of anyone cartooning Mohammed. Notice I said 'opinions' of my Moslem friends. But I haven't read all of the Qur'an (I have an English translation that I'm still reading), and perhaps someone would help me quote a verse that enjoins Moslems to do what they did in the last few weeks.

Trying to understand the rational for the riots, a few questions came to my mind:

1. Since Allah (alone) is known as the UNSEEN, are my Moslem friends trying to place Mohammed on the same pedestal as the One they worship? Is Mohammed also the UNSEEN? This is just a question and I don't mean to offend anyone (a few of my Moslem friends got really miffed by this question when all I wanted was a rational answer; I just could not understand their reaction). If Mohammed was no more than a prophet as were Abraham (Ibrahim), Moses (Musa) and Jesus (Isa), why does it seem justified that the same Moslems do not react at cartoons of Jesus and the other prophets as they do at the cartoons of Mohammed?

2. If the painters and cartoonists are going to face judgement ( 'a great chastisement') in the HEREAFTER, why was there a need for Moslems to try to seek their death in the HERE AND NOW?

3. Why do Moslems always conclude that anything expressed against Islam and Mohammed is necessarily perpetrated by Christians? If my memory serves me well, I didn't read that the Danish newspaper was run by Christians or a Christian/Jewish organisation. How does a secular media translate into a 'Christian' one just because the cartoon depicted Mohammed? In all fairness, it doesn't seem right to drag others into a situation when they are not involved.

There are more than a dozen questions that came to mind, not in any way cynical, but to seek the rational understanding of why most Moslems act the way they do.

Make some sense. You don't sound anything like an "advanced thinker" - so you don't need to be self-congratulatory. Nothing in my posts suggests that I'm a fundamentalist, so I don't know why that should come up at all.

Ajisafe:

,,,It's not in my dictionary to live in false pretense. ,,, all I know is I am far from being called a sycophant like other "Muslims" who want you to regard them as "non-violent."

Where in this thread have I poked my nose in your affairs or called Moslems the REAL TERRORISTS? I suspected at first that you're neither intelliegent nor peaceful: I only wanted to confirm it from you, and you proved my point. It doesn't matter to me however you address me; but one thing is for sure - if I never knew anything about Islam and had to make my guess about it from people like you, then it is conspicuous that Islam is indeed violent in nature.

A true Christian will not suggest the things you have said; and it doesn't sound like your attack was directed at democracy - unless you don't understand your own write-ups in the first place.

chrisd:

If God is all powerful, and on both Iraq's and America's sides, then why do we have a body count? Why was there a war in the first place? Perhaps God sees war as a necessary part of our lives. Or maybe he doesn't exist.,,, How many Christians do you know who believe in a democracy, instead of being lead by God or his messengers? Hopefully not too many, or the Christians are stupider than I first thought.

chrisd, you obviously have a problem. You are so incoherent in your arguments that you make very little sense, if any at all. I can't understand how you could claim to be a Christian and then attack the God you pretend to worship. Or, why would you state that "the Chrsitians are stupider" than you first thought, if you're not one of them? My best guess is that you're neither Christian nor Moslem, but just posing as one or the other. It would do you a world of good to drop the farce before you become a problem to yourself.

If you carefully consider the teachings of Jesus, you will not be one step towards the Allah of Islam but far away from him. The teachings of Jesus lead you to establish a relationship with God by faith - the God He came to preach and whom He called "Father." Allah in the Qur'an and God in the Bible are not at all the same, and if you're in doubt, ask your Imam the next time you go to mosque. If he tells you they are the same, ask him if you can go to church and worship God as 'Father.' I shouldn't prod you on - you probably would not survive to ask him the third question. But thanks for that good note that the important thing is the correct message and teachings of Jesus - _{as found in the Bible}

And your point is,,,?

Both the creation of the universe and the creation of man are great.

You just answered your question, kismat. 'If Jesus is not good, then how can He be God?' Since Jesus was good, then He was God! More than that, He did what no man could do and clearly displayed the attributes of God. Jesus is both good and God, and He is a good God. Only those who disagree to the veracity of Jesus being God will turn round and say that He was 'bad'. So, by your own summations, if He was good, He was God.

Softee,

It's going to be an uphill task to get rational answers from people viewing this thread if it was simply created for stereotyped answers. Certainly, anyone visiting it to read comments might have questions; some might even break the rules sometimes and say things with foul language that you consider just illusive, offensive or otherwise incoherent. Perhaps, it might be a little more helpful to welcome views both agreeing and dissenting as to the rational of your faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, why do you believe that Christianity makes more sense than any other worldview? Never lose sight of the title of this thread - "Dealing with Criticism" - and expect people to both criticise and appraise what they read here. Criticisms are as legitimate as the topic itself.

In all probability, it would have been almost impossible for me to trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour if the questions of my hardened skeptic mind received no rational answers. Nevermind if you don't have all the answers to the questions people ask: lovingly tell them the ones you know; leave a few more for some other Christians who might be more mature than you and me. Both ways, we'll be blessed. Jesus was criticised all round. Let's learn from Him who calls us to follow in His footsteps.

@ blkamrcngl,
This does not make much sense or sound convincing. It is just as well to say that 2000 years ago Nigerians were whites but today they are black; or, that 2000 years ago the caucasians of Scotland were blacks but today they are white. Is someone re-writing the history books? I need pointers that are more persuasive than conjectures and opinions as to why Jesus was either black or white; it will not suffice to just speculate that He was "likely closer to black than white." For me, there's a clear divide between ethnicity and skin colour. I've thought the question of this forum through, and wondered if it's all about ethnicity or race. If you've got a little more time to spare, you might want to see the difference here: http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_1.htm

Besides, the worry as to His skin colour most probably stemmed out of the disaffection of people who have a politico-racial problem. Other movies apart from "Son of Man" have hinted at this idea of a 'black Jesus,' and in my estimation none have had a perennial effect than the movie "Malcolm X." That is not to say that Malcom was right in his interpretation of Revelation 1:14, unless the colour of snow was black 2000 years ago. He certainly read that verse blindly.

So, what's my view in regards to the question? There's just one scripture that answers this enquiry for me presently, and that is 2 Cor.5:16 - "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more."

I cannot say with utmost accuracy at this point what exactly was Jesus' skin colour in the first century. That He was a Jew and from the tribe of Judah (Heb.7:14), no one is left in doubt. Like blkamrcngl, any opinions expressed will just be that - my opinions. Until I read something that might provide a stronger ray of light on the subject, I could not be so bothered about His skin colour.

I do enjoy your piece, though 

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.

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.

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.

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?

Just listen to how an "intelligent" moslem addresses people:

Ajisafe:

Because my uncle is highly intelligent and learned while you're so ignorant and a buffoon! ,,,. You're so idiotic that you didn't know right from left ,,,So, silly goat, ,,,Let it enter into your moronic cranium ,,, That "Jesus!" The one you[b] Black people[/b] are shamelessly comfortable with.

Now Ajisafe really considers himself a champion of Islam and tries to convince us about that fact,,, only, he does it with such tactless missives as to make one wonder if indeed he really has any uncle who's intelligent. Common sense would have saved the day by simply asking: does Islamic intelligence make people so saucy, hostile and racist? I don't need an answer from him: I anticipate he'll yet prove it again. 

@ Ajisafe
The best way to convince someone that you're peaceful is not by launching into acrid missives. By so doing, did you just prove that your religion is indeed violent? While it is legitimate for anyone to say whatever they feel, the topic is quite legitimate as well; and it would make a lot of sense to pass your comments as sanely as possible and devoid of caustic sentiments. You have failed to show that Islam is nonviolent.

You know something, GL? I've been thinking about the same thing lately. I think you're right in what you said and so many verses poured into my mind as I read your thread. One such was Lev. 19:19 which said we should not sow our field with mingled (or mixed) seed. Connect this with the parable of the sower in Luke 8. There we find that, in our relationship with God, sowing seed is like the Word of God that is planted in our hearts (see verse 11). Therefore, if people place political or business cliché on par with the Spirit-inspired Word, then there is a mixed sowing and the focus of our Christianity becomes blurred as commitment to God turns out to be something it wasn't meant to be. Nothing wrong with motivational speaking as such, but that should not take the place of true worship on a Sunday - I agree with you 100%. The Lord Jesus Christ warned about the practice of mixing the Word of God with the traditions of men in Mark 7:6-13; the result is that when such happens, people lose the powerful effect of the Word of God in their lives. I wonder how many believers still remember His warning to be careful about what we hear? (Mark 4:24). Good one GL.

Even so, don't you think calling someone a 'lunatic' went a bit too far just because you had problems with one church? You haven't even met or known Softee, and calling him what you did doesn't speak well on your part.

chrisd:

If we don't like people because they don't do what we expect them to, does not make them wrong. Perhaps we are wrong in expecting that. That's inly my opinion.

chrisd:

One of those proclaimed saved lunatics. Seen a lot of them around

chrisd, you amaze me! Within the space of 48 hours you're displaying two opposite dispositions. One minute you're advising that we shouldn't treat people wrongly just because they don't do what we expect of them; and the next minute you call someone a "lunatic" because he doesn't conform to your religion? I wonder who'll be your next victim. Just play it cool.