The rapture is close?

[My_Spirit]

There are indicators that shall reveal how close we are to the Lord's call. The Bible tells us that nations shall rise against nations, and kingdoms against kingdoms. Although this has always been the case in some parts of the world, think of this happening everywhere. Governments worldwide falling, children rising up against parents, unrest in communities and neighborhoods worldwide, opening the door to totalitarian elements. The playbook has been in existence for centuries, only its reach becomes global.

Now, will the rapture occur before all this? I think many will be touched by a measure of it, and with fear being the culprit, some Christians may subject themselves to whatever protection is offered for their and their family’s survival, even if that protection requires them to deny the Lord.

 

[My_Spirit]

You are sincerely out of touch with reality thinking I am excusing anything the Muslims do.

Yes, David is as you say but he still committed adultery and murder and lost his son and needed to be forgiven no matter what praise you wish to bestow upon him.

Yes, David did all those things, but he remained righteous in God's eyes, so judging him is not for us to do. Also, all have sinned and fallen short, and even after being born again and spirit filled, we continue to fall and pick ourselves up. So it's best not to look at the sin of others while we're still on this earth.

 

[biblestudent78]

Hard to believe you framed all
That outside the the Bible of Christianity and the Quran of muslims.
The Bible is against crimes against humanity.
The Quran demands brutality against the infidel....(Christians and jews)

Psalm1:
Would you kindly quote the verses in the Quran that supports you contention that "it demands brutality against the Infidel?" Before you climb back on that horse of yours remember for a hundred years Irish Catholics continuously brought violence on Protestants.

So, as a scholar of Christianity, I am required to be able to quote specific scripture in support of any theory or theological position I might take. Let me share with you the actual details and framework of the Quran as it relates to violence:

The Quran does not contain a blanket mandate for violence against non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. Instead, Islamic scholars and historians widely agree that the Quranic passages concerning warfare must be understood within their specific historical and textual context, typically referencing self-defense or active conflicts during the 7th century.Contextualizing Warfare and the "Sword Verses"Critics often point to specific passages—frequently referred to in theological debates as "sword verses"—to argue that Islam mandates perpetual warfare against non-believers. However, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence and modern academic consensus view these verses as contextual rather than universal commands:

Self-Defense and Aggression: The Quran explicitly restricts fighting to defensive measures. For example, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190 states, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits. Truly, Allah loves not the transgressors."

Historical Conflict: Verses that command Muslims to "slay them wherever you catch them" (such as Surah 2:191 or passages in Surah At-Tawbah) were revealed during active periods of war between the early Muslim community in Medina and the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca who had violated peace treaties and persecuted Muslims.

Cessation of Hostilities: The Quran consistently commands that if an enemy sues for peace, fighting must stop. Surah 2:192 states, "But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

In Islamic theology, Jews and Christians hold a distinct status separate from polytheists or atheists. They are designated as Ahl al-Kitab ("People of the Book"):

Shared Abrahamic Monotheism: The Quran recognizes the divine origins of the Torah and the Gospel.
Protection and Freedom of Belief: Historically under Islamic law, People of the Book living within an Islamic state were granted Dhimmi (protected) status. They were permitted to practice their faith, manage their own community laws, and were exempt from military service in exchange for a tax (jizya).
Theological Compatibility: The Quran explicitly permits Muslims to eat food prepared by the People of the Book and allows intermarriage with Jewish and Christian women (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:5).
No Coercion: Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256 explicitly states, "There is no compulsion in religion," establishing the principle of free conscience.
Sanctity of Life: Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32 states that killing an innocent person is akin to killing all of humanity, while saving a life is akin to saving all of humanity.

While mainstream Islamic scholarship maintains that the Quran establishes peace as the default state and war as an exception for self-defense, alternative interpretations exist. Extremist groups and literalist factions often isolate militant verses from their historical context to justify geopolitical violence. Conversely, some historical jurists argued that later verses regarding warfare "abrogated" (superseded) earlier verses of peace, though this remains a subject of intense debate among contemporary Islamic theologians

 

[Psalm1]

Psalm1:
Would you kindly quote the verses in the Quran that supports you contention that "it demands brutality against the Infidel?" Before you climb back on that horse of yours remember for a hundred years Irish Catholics continuously brought violence on Protestants.

So, as a scholar of Christianity, I am required to be able to quote specific scripture in support of any theory or theological position I might take. Let me share with you the actual details and framework of the Quran as it relates to violence:

The Quran does not contain a blanket mandate for violence against non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. Instead, Islamic scholars and historians widely agree that the Quranic passages concerning warfare must be understood within their specific historical and textual context, typically referencing self-defense or active conflicts during the 7th century.Contextualizing Warfare and the "Sword Verses"Critics often point to specific passages—frequently referred to in theological debates as "sword verses"—to argue that Islam mandates perpetual warfare against non-believers. However, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence and modern academic consensus view these verses as contextual rather than universal commands:

Self-Defense and Aggression: The Quran explicitly restricts fighting to defensive measures. For example, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190 states, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits. Truly, Allah loves not the transgressors."

Historical Conflict: Verses that command Muslims to "slay them wherever you catch them" (such as Surah 2:191 or passages in Surah At-Tawbah) were revealed during active periods of war between the early Muslim community in Medina and the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca who had violated peace treaties and persecuted Muslims.

Cessation of Hostilities: The Quran consistently commands that if an enemy sues for peace, fighting must stop. Surah 2:192 states, "But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

In Islamic theology, Jews and Christians hold a distinct status separate from polytheists or atheists. They are designated as Ahl al-Kitab ("People of the Book"):

Shared Abrahamic Monotheism: The Quran recognizes the divine origins of the Torah and the Gospel.
Protection and Freedom of Belief: Historically under Islamic law, People of the Book living within an Islamic state were granted Dhimmi (protected) status. They were permitted to practice their faith, manage their own community laws, and were exempt from military service in exchange for a tax (jizya).
Theological Compatibility: The Quran explicitly permits Muslims to eat food prepared by the People of the Book and allows intermarriage with Jewish and Christian women (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:5).
No Coercion: Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256 explicitly states, "There is no compulsion in religion," establishing the principle of free conscience.
Sanctity of Life: Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32 states that killing an innocent person is akin to killing all of humanity, while saving a life is akin to saving all of humanity.

While mainstream Islamic scholarship maintains that the Quran establishes peace as the default state and war as an exception for self-defense, alternative interpretations exist. Extremist groups and literalist factions often isolate militant verses from their historical context to justify geopolitical violence. Conversely, some historical jurists argued that later verses regarding warfare "abrogated" (superseded) earlier verses of peace, though this remains a subject of intense debate among contemporary Islamic theologians

Surah 2:191 (Al-Baqarah): This verse states, "And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they had expelled you."
Surah 9:5 (At-Tawbah / The "Sword Verse"): This verse states, "Kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them..."
Surah 8:12 and Surah 47:4: These passages include phrases like "strike above the necks" or "strike at the necks" of disbelievers.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Yes, David did all those things, but he remained righteous in God's eyes, so judging him is not for us to do. Also, all have sinned and fallen short, and even after being born again and spirit filled, we continue to fall and pick ourselves up. So it's best not to look at the sin of others while we're still on this earth.

Yes, and David also repented. That's why he was restored to righteousness. It's why God said that David is a man after his own heart.

 

[lrs68]

Yes, David did all those things, but he remained righteous in God's eyes, so judging him is not for us to do. Also, all have sinned and fallen short, and even after being born again and spirit filled, we continue to fall and pick ourselves up. So it's best not to look at the sin of others while we're still on this earth.

I wasn't judging but merely using his example.

 

[lrs68]

Yes, and David also repented. That's why he was restored to righteousness. It's why God said that David is a man after his own heart.

Amen, he repented as you have clearly stated.

 

[biblestudent78]

Surah 2:191 (Al-Baqarah): This verse states, "And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they had expelled you."
Surah 9:5 (At-Tawbah / The "Sword Verse"): This verse states, "Kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them..."
Surah 8:12 and Surah 47:4: These passages include phrases like "strike above the necks" or "strike at the necks" of disbelievers.

Like all writing, there is something called context or you would be killing witches today.

Surah 2:191 (Al-Baqarah) is one of the most frequently misquoted verses of the Quran when stripped of its historical and textual surroundings. When read in full context, it is a directive regarding defensive warfare and religious persecution, not a command for random violence.

The immediate textual, historical, and theological context explains its true meaning:
1. The Textual Context (Surahs 2:190–193)An Islamic principle dictates that Quranic verses must be read alongside the verses immediately before and after them.The verse before (2:190): "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." This explicitly limits fighting strictly to self-defense against active combatants and forbids initiating aggression.The verse itself (2:191): "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from where they have expelled you, for fitnah [persecution/oppression] is worse than killing..." Quran.com.The verses after (2:192–193): "But if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful... Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."
2. The Historical Context (Asbab al-Nuzul)According to classical commentaries like Ma'arif al-Qur'an, this verse was revealed following the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (around 628 CE).For 13 years in Mecca, Muslims faced severe torture, boycott, and murder by the ruling pagan Quraysh tribe, eventually forcing them to flee to Medina. When the Muslims later planned to return to Mecca for the peaceful pilgrimage (Umrah), they feared the Quraysh would violate the peace treaty, ambush them, and slaughter them within the sanctuary of Mecca (where violence was strictly forbidden by ancient tradition).This verse was revealed to reassure the Muslims: if the Quraysh broke the peace and attacked them first within the sacred boundaries, the Muslims were permitted to fight back fiercely to defend their lives and reclaim the homes they were wrongfully expelled from.

The historical context of Surah 9:5 (often referred to by critics and traditional scholars as the "Sword Verse") centers on the shifting political and religious landscape of the Arabian Peninsula in 9 AH (631 CE), shortly after the Conquest of Mecca. Surah at-Tawbah was revealed to systematically nullify and phase out these pagan treaties, establishing a strict timeline:The Faithful Tribes: Tribes that had honored their treaties and never aided Muslim enemies were granted a peaceful extension until their original contract naturally expired (Surah 9:4).The Treacherous Tribes: Tribes that had repeatedly violated their treaties or initiated hostilities were given a four-month grace period (during the "Sacred Months") of complete safety to travel freely, reconsider their hostilities, or peacefully leave the region (Surah 9:2).Surah 9:5 was the explicit ultimatum issued for when that four-month grace period expired.

Under a classical view, the verse served a grand geopolitical purpose: cleansing the Arabian Peninsula of idolatry entirely. According to this framework, Arabian polytheists were no longer offered peace treaties or the choice to pay a protection tax (Jizya); their only choices after the deadline were to embrace Islam or face warfare. (Jews and Christians, conversely, were handled separately in Surah 9:29 and allowed to maintain their faiths under Islamic rule by paying the Jizya)

 

[Psalm1]

Like all writing, there is something called context or you would be killing witches today.

Surah 2:191 (Al-Baqarah) is one of the most frequently misquoted verses of the Quran when stripped of its historical and textual surroundings. When read in full context, it is a directive regarding defensive warfare and religious persecution, not a command for random violence.

The immediate textual, historical, and theological context explains its true meaning:
1. The Textual Context (Surahs 2:190–193)An Islamic principle dictates that Quranic verses must be read alongside the verses immediately before and after them.The verse before (2:190): "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." This explicitly limits fighting strictly to self-defense against active combatants and forbids initiating aggression.The verse itself (2:191): "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from where they have expelled you, for fitnah [persecution/oppression] is worse than killing..." Quran.com.The verses after (2:192–193): "But if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful... Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."
2. The Historical Context (Asbab al-Nuzul)According to classical commentaries like Ma'arif al-Qur'an, this verse was revealed following the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (around 628 CE).For 13 years in Mecca, Muslims faced severe torture, boycott, and murder by the ruling pagan Quraysh tribe, eventually forcing them to flee to Medina. When the Muslims later planned to return to Mecca for the peaceful pilgrimage (Umrah), they feared the Quraysh would violate the peace treaty, ambush them, and slaughter them within the sanctuary of Mecca (where violence was strictly forbidden by ancient tradition).This verse was revealed to reassure the Muslims: if the Quraysh broke the peace and attacked them first within the sacred boundaries, the Muslims were permitted to fight back fiercely to defend their lives and reclaim the homes they were wrongfully expelled from.

The historical context of Surah 9:5 (often referred to by critics and traditional scholars as the "Sword Verse") centers on the shifting political and religious landscape of the Arabian Peninsula in 9 AH (631 CE), shortly after the Conquest of Mecca. Surah at-Tawbah was revealed to systematically nullify and phase out these pagan treaties, establishing a strict timeline:The Faithful Tribes: Tribes that had honored their treaties and never aided Muslim enemies were granted a peaceful extension until their original contract naturally expired (Surah 9:4).The Treacherous Tribes: Tribes that had repeatedly violated their treaties or initiated hostilities were given a four-month grace period (during the "Sacred Months") of complete safety to travel freely, reconsider their hostilities, or peacefully leave the region (Surah 9:2).Surah 9:5 was the explicit ultimatum issued for when that four-month grace period expired.

Under a classical view, the verse served a grand geopolitical purpose: cleansing the Arabian Peninsula of idolatry entirely. According to this framework, Arabian polytheists were no longer offered peace treaties or the choice to pay a protection tax (Jizya); their only choices after the deadline were to embrace Islam or face warfare. (Jews and Christians, conversely, were handled separately in Surah 9:29 and allowed to maintain their faiths under Islamic rule by paying the Jizya)

You can do all the soft balling you like.
The internet is full of people trying to get that demonic religion all cleaned up.

That religion brings pain and mutilation everywhere it shows up.
It is a demonic spirit with a demon inspired book.

All you are doing is either trying to hope it is somehow harmless and good, or you are one of them.

It is a demon.
Big time.

 

[Psalm1]

Like all writing, there is something called context or you would be killing witches today.

Surah 2:191 (Al-Baqarah) is one of the most frequently misquoted verses of the Quran when stripped of its historical and textual surroundings. When read in full context, it is a directive regarding defensive warfare and religious persecution, not a command for random violence.

The immediate textual, historical, and theological context explains its true meaning:
1. The Textual Context (Surahs 2:190–193)An Islamic principle dictates that Quranic verses must be read alongside the verses immediately before and after them.The verse before (2:190): "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." This explicitly limits fighting strictly to self-defense against active combatants and forbids initiating aggression.The verse itself (2:191): "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from where they have expelled you, for fitnah [persecution/oppression] is worse than killing..." Quran.com.The verses after (2:192–193): "But if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful... Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."
2. The Historical Context (Asbab al-Nuzul)According to classical commentaries like Ma'arif al-Qur'an, this verse was revealed following the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (around 628 CE).For 13 years in Mecca, Muslims faced severe torture, boycott, and murder by the ruling pagan Quraysh tribe, eventually forcing them to flee to Medina. When the Muslims later planned to return to Mecca for the peaceful pilgrimage (Umrah), they feared the Quraysh would violate the peace treaty, ambush them, and slaughter them within the sanctuary of Mecca (where violence was strictly forbidden by ancient tradition).This verse was revealed to reassure the Muslims: if the Quraysh broke the peace and attacked them first within the sacred boundaries, the Muslims were permitted to fight back fiercely to defend their lives and reclaim the homes they were wrongfully expelled from.

The historical context of Surah 9:5 (often referred to by critics and traditional scholars as the "Sword Verse") centers on the shifting political and religious landscape of the Arabian Peninsula in 9 AH (631 CE), shortly after the Conquest of Mecca. Surah at-Tawbah was revealed to systematically nullify and phase out these pagan treaties, establishing a strict timeline:The Faithful Tribes: Tribes that had honored their treaties and never aided Muslim enemies were granted a peaceful extension until their original contract naturally expired (Surah 9:4).The Treacherous Tribes: Tribes that had repeatedly violated their treaties or initiated hostilities were given a four-month grace period (during the "Sacred Months") of complete safety to travel freely, reconsider their hostilities, or peacefully leave the region (Surah 9:2).Surah 9:5 was the explicit ultimatum issued for when that four-month grace period expired.

Under a classical view, the verse served a grand geopolitical purpose: cleansing the Arabian Peninsula of idolatry entirely. According to this framework, Arabian polytheists were no longer offered peace treaties or the choice to pay a protection tax (Jizya); their only choices after the deadline were to embrace Islam or face warfare. (Jews and Christians, conversely, were handled separately in Surah 9:29 and allowed to maintain their faiths under Islamic rule by paying the Jizya)

Sharia law comes from the sacred texts of Islam and centuries of scholarly interpretation. [1]

Primary Sources

• • The Quran: Muslims consider this the direct, holy word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.
  • The Sunnah and Hadith: The Sunnah represents the practical example and way of life of the Prophet Muhammad. The Hadith are the thousands of recorded sayings and traditional accounts of his daily actions and deeds
  • Violations of Freedom of Religion and Expression
    Strict Sharia-based jurisdictions heavily criminalize actions that challenge religious hegemony: [1]
    
    
    • Apostasy Laws: Leaving Islam or converting to another faith is legally treated as a capital offense, violating the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
    • Blasphemy Laws: Criticizing or questioning Islamic doctrines, the Prophet, or religious symbols can result in severe imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death.

 

[Psalm1]

Sharia law comes from the sacred texts of Islam and centuries of scholarly interpretation. [1]

Primary Sources

• • The Quran: Muslims consider this the direct, holy word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.
  • The Sunnah and Hadith: The Sunnah represents the practical example and way of life of the Prophet Muhammad. The Hadith are the thousands of recorded sayings and traditional accounts of his daily actions and deeds
  • Violations of Freedom of Religion and Expression
    Strict Sharia-based jurisdictions heavily criminalize actions that challenge religious hegemony: [1]
    
    • Apostasy Laws: Leaving Islam or converting to another faith is legally treated as a capital offense, violating the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
    • Blasphemy Laws: Criticizing or questioning Islamic doctrines, the Prophet, or religious symbols can result in severe imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death.

Oh....but but it is a religion of peace.

Uh huh.
A religion of pain, death, suffering, and quest for world domination.

Everywhere it rules, they are poor and opressed.

 

[biblestudent78]

Sharia law comes from the sacred texts of Islam and centuries of scholarly interpretation. [1]

Primary Sources

• • The Quran: Muslims consider this the direct, holy word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.
  • The Sunnah and Hadith: The Sunnah represents the practical example and way of life of the Prophet Muhammad. The Hadith are the thousands of recorded sayings and traditional accounts of his daily actions and deeds
  • Violations of Freedom of Religion and Expression
    Strict Sharia-based jurisdictions heavily criminalize actions that challenge religious hegemony: [1]
    
    • Apostasy Laws: Leaving Islam or converting to another faith is legally treated as a capital offense, violating the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
    • Blasphemy Laws: Criticizing or questioning Islamic doctrines, the Prophet, or religious symbols can result in severe imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death.

There is a fairly consistent application of apostasy as it relates to conversion as a capital offense.
Blasphemy has legal Variations: Laws regarding blasphemy differ widely across contemporary Muslim-majority countries. Some nations, such as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia, maintain laws where blasphemy is a capital offense.Other Approaches: Many other Muslim-majority countries impose prison terms, fines, or other non-capital penalties, while numerous Islamic scholars and human rights advocates argue that state-enforced death penalties for blasphemy contradict foundational Islamic principles of freedom of conscience.

Hanafi and Shafi'i schools: These major schools generally accept sincere repentance from a Muslim accused of blasphemy, which can waive the worldly death penalty. In the Shafi'i view, blasphemy is treated as a distinct offense from apostasy, and repentance is accepted. If the accused refuses to repent, the death penalty applies

Many modern Islamic scholars and researchers argue that earthly punishments for blasphemy—and whether repentance is accepted—are subjects of ongoing debate. They note that the Quran prescribes spiritual consequences in the afterlife rather than a specific worldly death penalty, attributing capital punishment rulings to classical juristic interpretations influenced by historical political contexts.

In the Old Testament, the punishment for an Israelite who turned away from God to worship other gods (apostasy or idolatry) was death by stoning.

In the First Temple period, biblical accounts and archaeological evidence show that the prohibition against worshiping other gods was frequently violated. Executions for idolatry occurred sporadically, often driven by royal decrees or religious reforms—such as those under King Josiah in the 7th century BCE—rather than regular judicial processes.

Following the Babylonian exile, Jewish legal authorities codified strict evidentiary requirements in the Oral Law (later recorded in the Mishnah). To sentence someone to death by stoning, the court required: At least two eyewitnesses to the exact act. Proof that the perpetrator was explicitly warned of the specific legal consequences moments before committing the crime. An absolute lack of repentance from the accused.

 

[NightTwister]

Where have I head this before?

 

[Psalm1]

There is a fairly consistent application of apostasy as it relates to conversion as a capital offense.
Blasphemy has legal Variations: Laws regarding blasphemy differ widely across contemporary Muslim-majority countries. Some nations, such as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia, maintain laws where blasphemy is a capital offense.Other Approaches: Many other Muslim-majority countries impose prison terms, fines, or other non-capital penalties, while numerous Islamic scholars and human rights advocates argue that state-enforced death penalties for blasphemy contradict foundational Islamic principles of freedom of conscience.

Hanafi and Shafi'i schools: These major schools generally accept sincere repentance from a Muslim accused of blasphemy, which can waive the worldly death penalty. In the Shafi'i view, blasphemy is treated as a distinct offense from apostasy, and repentance is accepted. If the accused refuses to repent, the death penalty applies

Many modern Islamic scholars and researchers argue that earthly punishments for blasphemy—and whether repentance is accepted—are subjects of ongoing debate. They note that the Quran prescribes spiritual consequences in the afterlife rather than a specific worldly death penalty, attributing capital punishment rulings to classical juristic interpretations influenced by historical political contexts.

In the Old Testament, the punishment for an Israelite who turned away from God to worship other gods (apostasy or idolatry) was death by stoning.

In the First Temple period, biblical accounts and archaeological evidence show that the prohibition against worshiping other gods was frequently violated. Executions for idolatry occurred sporadically, often driven by royal decrees or religious reforms—such as those under King Josiah in the 7th century BCE—rather than regular judicial processes.

Following the Babylonian exile, Jewish legal authorities codified strict evidentiary requirements in the Oral Law (later recorded in the Mishnah). To sentence someone to death by stoning, the court required: At least two eyewitnesses to the exact act. Proof that the perpetrator was explicitly warned of the specific legal consequences moments before committing the crime. An absolute lack of repentance from the accused.

Hitler did several nice things.

He must not have been all bad.

Is that more or less what you are illustrating?

 

[biblestudent78]

Hitler did several nice things.

He must not have been all bad.

Is that more or less what you are illustrating?

Psalm1
Perhaps you can look at it this way. You made some very broad accusations against a religion that is practiced differently in 53 different countries. IMHO, those accusations were uninformed and not in keeping with our core belief that God loves all people.

Historically, religion has been a force for both good and bad. Historically, Christianity played a major role in the deaths of perhaps 85 million people. So, today some Christian communities are under threat from politically motivated radical islamists. Point fingers at the 2 billion practitioners of Islam because some radicals use their religion for personal or political gain is more of a political statement than anything having to do with either Christianity or Islam. This forum is about Christianity. There are plenty of political forums where one can let our prejudices run wild.. This is not that place.

 

[Psalm1]

Psalm1
Perhaps you can look at it this way. You made some very broad accusations against a religion that is practiced differently in 53 different countries. IMHO, those accusations were uninformed and not in keeping with our core belief that God loves all people.

Historically, religion has been a force for both good and bad. Historically, Christianity played a major role in the deaths of perhaps 85 million people. So, today some Christian communities are under threat from politically motivated radical islamists. Point fingers at the 2 billion practitioners of Islam because some radicals use their religion for personal or political gain is more of a political statement than anything having to do with either Christianity or Islam. This forum is about Christianity. There are plenty of political forums where one can let our prejudices run wild.. This is not that place.

It is a demon religion with a demon book.

I will never coddle it.
Or defend it.

What are you doing????
What is your motive??????

 

[biblestudent78]

It is a demon religion with a demon book.

I will never coddle it.
Or defend it.

What are you doing????
What is your motive??????

You are doing a great job of exposing who you at at heart. Nobody ever asked you to read, or "coddle" or "defend" anything. My concern in all things is to carry out my responsibility to share the love of God. God is not the author of hate. God is not the author of prejudice. God is not the author of falsehoods. I have given you ample information to demonstrate that you are doing all those things that God is not. I dare not ask you about other Christian religions as I am sure you are equally deeply antagonistic about all who do not share your "theological purity.."

A suggestion: When you find your strong beliefs challenged by data, rethink why you must reject the data instead of considering why certain facts are unacceptable, though true.

This applies to Christian theology just as much as any other "ology."

 

[Psalm1]

You are doing a great job of exposing who you at at heart. Nobody ever asked you to read, or "coddle" or "defend" anything. My concern in all things is to carry out my responsibility to share the love of God. God is not the author of hate. God is not the author of prejudice. God is not the author of falsehoods. I have given you ample information to demonstrate that you are doing all those things that God is not. I dare not ask you about other Christian religions as I am sure you are equally deeply antagonistic about all who do not share your "theological purity.."

A suggestion: When you find your strong beliefs challenged by data, rethink why you must reject the data instead of considering why certain facts are unacceptable, though true.

This applies to Christian theology just as much as any other "ology."

Yes.
You and I are different.

Anyone or any religion demon possessed needs help.

Not lipstick and makeup as you are suggesting.
In fact you defend the demon.
Sad.
You have no discernment.

 

[Tchawk]

You guys should look up the ancient Jewish costume of how the marriage process unfolds. From the announcement at the gate to only the father knows when he is going to tell his son to and go get his bride. It might shed some light on you thinking. Rapture or no Rapture that's not important.( I'll find out later) What's important is he is going to return like a thief in the night.. Who or what is he going to take? Look up the old custome. Take me Dear brother take me. I have a portion of you promise the church.

 

[Psalm1]

Show me anywhere that Jesus or an apostle was nice and loving to the devil or demons.

God hates sin and God hates the devil.

The Muslim people are valued and precious.
Their demon religion is horrible and demon infested.