Thread Last Poster Posts Last Post Archive through June 16, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  06-16-05  10:13 pm Archive through June 17, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  06-17-05  07:54 pm Archive through July 01, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  07-01-05  11:46 pm Archive through July 20, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  07-20-05  09:30 pm Archive through November 02, 2005 Redhorse (Redhorse) 10  11-02-05  05:47 pm Archive through November 03, 2005 Redhorse (Redhorse) 10  11-03-05  06:22 am Archive through November 04, 2005 Redhorse (Redhorse) 10  11-04-05  04:47 am Archive through November 06, 2005 Redhorse (Redhorse) 10  11-06-05  07:48 am Archive through November 08, 2005 William Spencer (Bub 10  11-08-05  08:41 pm Archive through November 10, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  11-10-05  06:28 pm Archive through November 11, 2005 zaheer - uddin (Zahe 10  11-11-05  01:35 pm Archive through November 14, 2005 Michael .P (Mik3y) 10  11-14-05  07:19 am Archive through November 19, 2005 Michael .P (Mik3y) 10  11-19-05  10:41 pm Archive through November 23, 2005 Michael .P (Mik3y) 10  11-23-05  05:10 pm Archive through December 07, 2005 William Spencer (Bub 10  12-07-05  03:48 pm Archive through December 08, 2005 the blue flame (The_ 10  12-08-05  08:00 pm Archive through March 23, 2006 Jennifer Maxwell 10  03-23-06  09:50 pm Archive through March 27, 2006 zaheer - uddin 10  03-27-06  06:36 pm   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   zaheer - uddin Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:14 pm:    Thanks Michael i just visited the discussion board today and saw your post I'm over with it too, so far you have been the most consistent participant. Ken i did not misquote Paul-- please specify.---   Michael .P Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:25 pm:    Never hurt me personally Zaheer..i was only curious as to why you'd lable opinion as FACT. But im over it I'm no mother mary either eh. Michael william James   zaheer - uddin Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 08:25 am:    i guess debating would only cause hurt and ill feeling and i never intend to do that. I apologize if i've hurt any of you by my posts . peace Zaheer   Ken Starlite Member Username: Lovemepoetry Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:03 pm:    you would do wel to read all of Paul's letters instead of trying to misquote his teaching--------Paul said no man can earn his salvation by good works---------but Paul expected all christians to live a holy life-----the 13 chapter of first cor is a good start on your road to christian holinessi would love the chance to debate you face to face------the scripture says be not decieved God is not mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap Currently I am working on a 1500 acre tract in Tenn and need CALTALPA seeds to replant and create the needed bio-diversity also I need TURKS HEAD oak acorns ----any help will be appeciated by mother nature------currently the deer and wild turkey are in large numbers and the project is 80 % complete   Jim Armstrong Starlite Member Username: Njaeok Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 09:42 pm:    Zaheer-- If it seemed to you that I was attacking you personally, I apologize for my poor ability to communicate my true meaning. I have never met you and can only judge your words. In reading your words I find scant few that are "your words" and there are even fewer that reveal your personal intellectual efforts. You may very well be a great thinker with an IQ somewhere in the stratosphere. I have no way of knowing because all you have revealed so far is a small talent for using other people's words to boost your point of view-- whatever that is. The best I can sort out so far is that your position is to boost Islam and discount Christianity. I am not married to either so I don't care philosophically. I care a great deal from a practical position because I wouldn't survive a month in a culture that enslaves non-believers and females. You see I have a strong negative response to slavery by what every rationalzation and I insist that my mother be treated with respect. From a secular viewpoint which finds little to commend in the history of any of the major religions, I find it extreamly hard to understand how any sensible person could decide that an omnipotent creator requires assistance from puny men to get the word spread or enforce the creator's laws. I mean, how arrogant and self deluded can puny men get. Just look at a real law that the creator actually instituted; say the law of cause and effect. Now try to imagine in your wildest fancys a manner in which any human can take action to violate that law. Don't hold your breath. So beyond the optomistic opinion that the creator is firmly in control and the universe is proceeding right on schedule I care nothing for the dogmas, isms and religious rituals of men. I only try to choose the kindest, gentlest culture with some progress toward the understanding of real moral principles in which to live. The Christian cultures with secular governments are the most pleasing. The Moslem cultures are way down on that list. Jimbo   Michael .P Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 08:37 pm:    I see little attack against you..i was speaking in general about the actual religion not the people.. we can't expect to see God when we look at each other in the fullest sense. But the actual rejection of many of Christs most important teachings by Islam is what bothers me to no end. Michael william James   Michael .P Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 08:35 pm:    You did more than aska thought provoking question you made some rotten assumptions and claimed them as FACT! Michael william James   zaheer - uddin Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 06:59 pm:    Regarding Apostasy --- These are the words of the 13th-century Catholic authority St Thomas Aquinas, the most influential of all Catholic thinkers, presented by Catholic writers from Lord Acton to Jacques Maritain as the antecedent of European democracy. As for heretics, their sin deserves banishment, not only ... by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death." Those are the words of the 13th-century Catholic authority St Thomas Aquinas, the most influential of all Catholic thinkers, presented by Catholic writers from Lord Acton to Jacques Maritain as the antecedent of European democracy. St Thomas did not merely support a death sentence for individual heretics, but weighed in vigorously on behalf of the Crusade against the Albigensians, which laid waste to most of Provence. In fact, the terrestrial power of the Church, along with its authority to burn heretics, was pried out of her cold, dead fingers. It took the frightful 30 Years' War to break the political power of the Church in Europe, and the reunification of Italy. Pope Urban II, while standing in a church in 1095, called Islam a satanic religion. He called the followers of Islam wicked and then called that those wicked people should be eliminated. That sermon was the start of the crusade to eliminate Muslims and continued for 200 years in which Muslim territories were attacked and people were massacred. Why was that?   zaheer - uddin Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 06:48 pm:    You guys only believe in the comment of Winston Churchil which cannot be found in any of his books it is presumed that he wrote that comment but withdrew it-- why withdraw something which you believe . anyways Churcil has a right to his beliefs i will quote only western scholars in Defense of Mohammad peace be upon him and Islam _______________________________________ J.H.Denison : In the fifth and sixth centuries the civilized world stood on the verge of a chaos. The old emotional cultures that had made civilization possible, since they had given to men a sense of unity and of reverence for their rulers, had broken down, and nothing had been found adequate to take their place… It seemed then the great civilization which it had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration, and that mankind was likely to return to that condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next, and law and order was unknown… The old tribal sanctions had lost their power… The new sanctions created by Christianity were working division and destruction instead of unity and order. It was a time fraught with tragedy. Civilization, like a gigantic tree whose foliage had overarched the world and whose branches had borne the golden fruits of art and science and literature, stood tottering… rotted to the core. Was there any emotional culture that could be brought in to gather mankind once more into unity and to save civilization- It was among these people that the man (Muhammad) was born who was to unite the whole known world of the east and south. (J. H. Denison Emotion as the Basis of Civilization, London, 1928, pp. 265, 269) _________________________________________________ Bertrand Russell: Our use of the phrase 'the Dark Ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe… From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to Christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary… To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization; but this is a narrow view. (Bertrand Russell History of Western Philosophy, London 1948, p. 419.) _____________________________________________ Marquis of Dufferin and Ava: It is to Mussulman science, to Mussulman art, and to Mussulman literature that Europe has been in a great measure indebted for its extrication from the darkness of the Middle Ages.(Marquis of Dufferin and Ava Speeches Delivered in India, London 1890, p. 24) _________________________________________________ Annie Besant: You can find others stating that the religion (Islam) is evil, because it sanctions a limited polygamy. But you do not hear as a rule the criticism which I spoke out one day in a London hall where I knew that the audience was entirely uninstructed. I pointed out to them that monogamy with a blended mass of prostitution was a hypocrisy and more degrading than a limited polygamy. Naturally a statement like that gives offence, but it has to be made, because it must be remembered that the law of Islam in relation to women was until lately, when parts of it have been imitated in England, the most just law, as far as women are concerned, to be found in the world. Dealing with property, dealing with rights of succession and so on, dealing with cases of divorce, it was far beyond the law of the West, in the respect that was paid to the rights of women. Those things are forgotten while people are hypnotized by the words monogamy and polygamy and do not look at what lies behind it in the West-the frightful degradation of women who are thrown into the streets when their first protectors, weary of them, no longer give them any assistance… 'I often think that woman is more free in Islam than in Christianity. Woman is more protected by Islam than by the faith which preaches Monogamy. In Al-Quran the law about woman is more just and liberal. It is only in the last twenty years that Christian England, has recognized the right of woman to property, while Islam has allowed this right from all times… It is a slander to say that Islam preaches that women have no souls. (Annie Besant The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, pp. 25, 26) _________________________________________________ A. M. Lothrop Stoddard: The closer we examine this development the more extra-ordinary does it appear. The other great religions won their way slowly, by painful struggle, and finally triumphed with the aid of powerful monarchs converted to the new faith. Christianity had its Constantine, Buddhism its Asoka, and Zoroastrianism its Cyrus, each lending to his chosen cult the mighty force of secular authority. Not so Islam. Arising in a desert land sparsely inhabited by a nomad race previously undistinguished in human annals, Islam sallied forth on its great adventure with the slenderest human backing and against the heaviest material odds. Yet Islam triumphed with seemingly miraculous ease, and a couple of generations saw the Fiery Crescent borne victorious from the Pyrenees to the Himalayas and from the deserts of Central Asia to of Central Africa… Preaching a simple, austere monotheism, free from priest-craft or elaborate doctrinal trappings, he tapped the well-springs of religious zeal always present in the Semitic heart. Forgetting the chronic rivalries and blood feuds which had consumed their energies in internecine strife, and welded into a glowing unity by the fire of their new-found faith, the Arabs poured forth from their deserts to conquer the earth for Allah, the one true God… 'They (Arabs) were no blood thirsty savages, bent solely on loot and destruction. On the contrary, they were an innately gifted race, eager to learn and appreciative of the cultural gifts, which older civilizations had to bestow. Intermarrying freely and professing a common belief, conquerors and conquered rapidly fused, and from this fusion arose a new civilization – the Saracenic civilization, in which the ancient cultures of Greece, Rome and Persia were revitalized by the Arab genius and the Islamic spirit. For the first three centuries of its existence (circ. C.E. 650-1000) the realm of Islam was the most civilized and progressive portion of the world. Studded with splendid cities, gracious mosques, and quiet universities where the wisdom of the ancient world was preserved and appreciated, the Moslem world offered a striking contrast to the Christian West, then sunk in the night of the Dark Ages. (A. M. Lothrop Stoddard The New World of Islam, London 1932, pp. 1-3) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt from Hart's book: Michael H. Hart The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company Inc. 1978, p 33 My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels... Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world's great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive... Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world's great religions all figure prominently in this book. Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament. Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammed through the medium of the Koran has been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus. Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time... the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history _________________________________________ G. Lindsay Johnson: The ignorance displayed by most Christians regarding the Muslim religion is appalling… Mohammad alone, among the nations at that time, believed in one God to the exclusion of all others. He insisted on righteousness as the source of conduct, of filial duty, and on frequent prayers to, the Ever-living God, and of respect to all other peoples, and of justice and mercy to and moderation in all things, and to hold in great respect learning of every kind… Most of the absurdities which Christians would have us believe to exist in the Quran were never uttered by Mohammad himself, nor are they to be found in a correct translation of the work( G. Lindsay Johnson, F.R.C.S The Two Worlds, Manchester, 9th August 1940) _______`H.G. Wells: A year before his death, at the end of the tenth year of the Hegira, Muhammad made his last pilgrimage from Medina to Mecca. He made then a great sermon to his people… The reader will note that the first paragraph sweeps away all plunder and blood feuds among the followers of Islam. The last makes the, believing Negro the equal of the Caliph… they established in the world a great tradition of dignified fair dealing, they breathe a spirit of generosity, and they are human and workable. They created a society more free from widespread cruelty and social oppression than any society had ever been in the world before.( H.G. Wells The Outline of History, London 1920, p. 325) __________________________________ Arthur Gliman: In comparison, for example, with the cruelty of the Crusaders, who, in 1099, put seventy thousand Muslims, men, women and helpless children to death when Jerusalem fell into their hands: or with that of the English army, also fighting under the Cross, which in the year of grace 1874 burned an African capital, in its war on the Gold Coast. Muhammad's victory was in very truth one of religion and not of politics; he rejected every token of personal homage, and declined all regal authority: and when the haughty chiefs of the Koreishites appeared before him he asked: 'What can you expect at my hands? 'Mercy O generous brother! 'Be it so; you are free! He exclaimed (Arthur Gliman The Saracens, London 1887 pp. 184, 185 ) _________________________________________________ Stanley Lane-Poole: The day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Koraysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn in which they had afflicted him and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka. Four criminals whom justice condemned made up Mohammad's proscription list when he entered as a conqueror to the city of his bitterest enemies. The army followed his example, and entered quietly and peacefully: no house was robbed, no women insulted. One thing alone suffered destruction. Going to the Kaaba, Mohammad stood before each of the three hundred and sixty idols, and pointed to it with his staff, saying, 'Truth is come and falsehood is fled away!', and at these words his attendants hewed them down, and all the idols and household gods of Mekka and round about were destroyed.It was thus Mohammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest there is no triumphant entry comparable to this one. (Stanley Lane-Poole The Speeches and Table-Talk of the Prophet Mohammad, London 1882, Introduction, pp. 46,47 ) _______________________________________ John William Draper : Four years after the death of Justinian, 569 C.E. was born at Mecca,in Arabia, the man who, of all men,has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race.( John William Draper A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, London 1875, vol. 1, pp. 329-330 -) ______________________________________________________________ `Sir William Muir: Our authorities, says Muir, all agree in ascribing to the youth of Mohammad a modesty of deportment and purity of manners rare among the People of Mecca… Endowed with a refined mind and delicate taste, reserved and meditative, he lived much within himself, and the ponderings of his heart no doubt supplied occupation for leisure hours spent by others of a lower stamp in rude sports and profligacy. The fair character and honorable bearing of the unobtrusive youth won the approbation of his fellow-citizens; and he received the title, by common consent, of Al-Ameen, the Trustworthy.(Sir William Muir Life of Mohammad, London 1903) _________________________________________________ The weekly news magazine Time dated July 15, 1974, carried a selection of opinions by various historians, writers, military men, businessmen an others on the subject: 'Who were History's Great Leaders?' Some said that it was Hitler; others said Gandhi, Buddha, Lincoln and the like. But Jules Masserman, a United States psychoanalyst, put the standards straight by giving the correct criteria wherewith to judge. He said: 'Leaders must fulfill three functions: Provide for the well-being of the led, Provide a social organization in which people feel relatively secure, and Provide them with one set of beliefs.' With the above three criteria he searches history and analyses Hitler, Pasteur, Gaesar, Moses, Confucius and the lot, and ultimately concludes: 'People like Pasteur and Salk are leaders in the first sense. People like Ghandi and Confucius, on one hand, and Alexander, Caesar, and Hitler on the other, are leaders in the second, and perhaps the third sense. Jesus and Buddha belong in the third category alone. Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Muhammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same   zaheer - uddin Starlite Member Username: Zaheer Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 06:35 pm:    I asked a thought provking question and all i get is attacks. i am not the only one to suggest that Paul has a lot to explain Paul teaches that the gift of salvation through grace occurs "apart from any behavioral requirement": Paul reiterates this position in: Romans 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5 -- yet no other Bible writer ever makes this point of stating that salvation occurs apart from or separate from works or deeds, which Paul not only states, but reiterates so emphatically. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28 ) "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." (Galatians 3:13 ) paul simply throws out the law of Moses which Jesus had held on till his departure from the world. He not only rejected both Moses and Jesus but asserted that he was a law unto himself. “ All things are lawful unto to me , but I will not be brought under the power of any”(I Corinthians 7;12) The question here is not which law should be kept and which should be thrown out, the issue here is whether Jesus in his life time observed the law of Moses . YES-- Did he preach that salvation occurs"apart from any behavioral requirement" NO The doctrine of Original sin, atonement, trinity are no where to be found in the bible . The bible is very clear when it teaches that salvation lies in keeping the commandments . Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Clearly the soul that sins shall die. Clearly that no one shall bear the iniquity (sins) of others. So Jesus cannot bear the sins of others either. If one is righteous then it shall be upon him, and if one commits a sin then it shall be upon him, and not on Jesus. Finally, the way to repentance and forgiveness is by turning from all sins, doing what is right, and keeping the commandments. Also we see the same message given by Solomon. He says in the book of Ecclesiastes 12:13 'Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.' This is the whole message, and this is the conclusion of messages. It is that one should fear God, and keep the commandments, and nothing else. Again in 2 Chronicles 7:14 'If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.' This clearly states that to seek forgiveness from God we have to humble ourselves, pray and seek God, and turn away from wickedness. Paul is the one who introduces the concept of original sin and the "inheritance" of sin, in Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." This is what William Channing and others have to say about the doctrine of Atonement " There is no passage in the bible in which we are told that the son of man is infinite and needs an infinite atonement .This doctrine teaches us that man although created by God , a frail erring and imperfect being is regarded by the creator as an infinite offender Channinng stated that God can forgive sin without this rigid expedient This doctrine which talks of God becomming a victim and a sacrifice for his own rebellious subjects is as irrational as it is unscriptual .Atonement should be made TO God and not BY God. if infinite atonement was necessary which only God can make so , then God must become a sufferer and must take upon himself our pain and woe, a thought which the mind cannot concieve. to escape this difficulty we are told that Christ suffered as man and not as God. But if man only suffered for a short and limited period then what was the necessity of infinite atonement'?---- (Willian Ellery channing(1780-1842 “The church`s God son who is supposed to have been born of the substance of God from the beginning of eternity is nowhere mentioned in the scriptures nor the God son who would be second person of the trinity descended from heaven and become flesh this is only human invention and superstition as such should be discarded'. Francis David (1510-1579) (Francis David by W.C Gannett) Priestley wrote of the fall of man: As I conceive this doctrine to be a gross misrepresentation of the character and moral government of God, and to affect many other articles in the scheme of Christianity, greatly disfiguring and depraving it; I shall show, … that it has no countenance whatever in reason, or the Scriptures; and, therefore, that the whole doctrine of atonement, with every modification of it, has been a departure from the primitive and genuine doctrine of Christianity. Priestley and Jefferson believed that the very nature of atonement suggests that God, not humanity, was a failure. Humanity, being a creation of God, sinned (as God knew would happen), and thus required the sacrifice of the only sinless being, Jesus Christ. Even the Gospels failed to attribute atonement to Jesus, and Jesus himself never laid claim to this doctrine explicitly in his teachings. Rather, it was Paul and other early church fathers that implemented it. For Jefferson, the Pauline version of Christianity and priestly corruptions of the message led to the true fall of man, not God’s ‘mistake’ of granting free will. (Brown, Ira V. Joseph Priestley: Selections from His Writings. University Park: Penn State University Press, 1962, pages 289-290. Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, page 307.) 'Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ.' 'Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ (Wil Durant) "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus" (George Bernard Shaw ) The Muslims are not the only one who conclude that Paul was an apostate ,there are eminent thinkers who hold the same view Thomas Jefferson 'Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.' From a letter to W. Short published in The Great Thoughts by George Sildes (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985, p.208). _______________________________________________ Albert Schweitzer 'Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.' (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p. 171) _____________________________________________ Jeremy Bentham The renowned English philosopher , in his Not Paul But Jesus,published in 1823 declared thatIf Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul. _______________________________________________ Ferdinand Christian Baur The eminent theologian, in his Church History of the First Three Centuries, wrote: 'What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus....He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.' _________________________________________________ Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) 'Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism.' (The Mythmaker, Barnes & Noble, p. 16) ________________________________________________ From the book, 'The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception' by Michael Bajgent and Richard Leigh (Corgi Books, London, 1991) '... Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Savior.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.' 'As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder.' John Toland a famous historian states in his book 'The Nazarenes' “Since the Nazarenes or Ebionites are by all historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians. or those who believed in Christ among the jews. With which his own people he lived . they having been the witness of his actions and who were all apostles. Considering this. I say how it was possible for them to be first of all others who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and decisions of Jesus(for they were made to be the firstheretics) and how come the Gentiles who believed in him after his death . by the preaching of persons that never knew him to have truer notions of these things who whence they could have their information but from the believing Jews” The question of the origin of Jesus , his nature and relation to God was not raised among the first followers of Jesus . That Jesus was a man who was a prophet and one who had been given many gifts by God was accepted withoutquestion. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life on earth had led them to modify this certainity. According to Aristides,one of the earliest apologists, the worship of the early Christians was more purely monotheistic than even that of the Jews. It was into this circle of sincere followers that Paul of Tarsus walked. The teachings of Jesus as the Son of God were not preached by Jesus nor accepted by Jesus, but were taught by Paul as supported in Acts 9:20: 'And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.' Paul claimed to have an access to Jesus which had been denied to the closest followers of Jesus while he was on earth . The teachings which Paul claim he had been given did not tally with what the apostles had heard from Jesus .It is understandable that they were therefore suspicious of his conversion and considered his revelation unreliable . Many probably suspected that he was no more than a spy posing as a follower of Jesus (The Jesus report by John Lehman pg123)   Michael .P Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 05:04 pm:    Yes, I have read through winston's article alot.. when religion allows for such atrocities to occur it is far from right. Excellent example with the pedophiles in the church ..the Pope could not lie and sugar coat what has happend because that would be going against the WORD. We don't make exceptions because of a minority of peoples opinions..if your given the truth in your heart and you see someone been abused even an enemy then you know what is right! I love that bit from Jesus about pagan love..because it keeps magnifying to speak volumes to me. Anyone can love their family or friends or those who do Good to them even pagans. Love even your enemies! A religion shouldn't in anyway differ from how we "Truely" yearn to live our lives. Michael william James   William Spencer Starlite Member Username: Bubby Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:30 am:    Jimbo my friend, you could hear a pin drop in these hallowed halls..Your research and summation is beyond reproach.I shall read said article by Mr."Never Give Up",and also thank TBF for bringing this to your attention. Its time we told the cave dwellers to put up or shut up..you cannot continually treat women worse than animals and not have a profound effect on the rest of the world.Without women there would be no world...allelujah...Brother Bub   Jim Armstrong Starlite Member Username: Njaeok Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:01 am:    Words have meanings--- mercyfull-- compassionate-- forgiving-- kind-- honest-- generous--- all these words have spicific definable meanings in the languages of Christian cultures. As far as I can discern most other cultural religions have spicific definable meanings for the translation of these english words. Not so with the Muslim religion. In the Muslim religion the meaning of the translation of these words can be applied to any barbaric act so long as some religious authority says it is so. Were the leading character of some Christian demonation, say the pope, to stand up and declare that the abuse of children by preists were actually acts of love and compassion you would hear an immediate uproar of disapproval from an overwhealming majority of Christians. By christian standards Muslem women and children are slaves. They are the property of some man and often are treated with cruelty that we don't allow with our domestic animals. Where is the uproar? Where is the condemination of the public execution of innocents? I hold no religious affiliation with any group or ism. In observance of the various major religious groups around the world both in historic and present behavior I find myself in total agreement with Winston Churchill when he said; "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London : Longmans, Green & Co., 1899) I want to thank TBF for recalling this to my memory. Jimbo   Michael .P Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 11:16 pm:    It is just my opinion but to be a peaceful muslim even in the area of vengance..a muslim would have to ignore part of Islam's teaching. You don't have to tolerate everything but you don't go persecuting either. I've met perfect examples of Christians.. man and women trying to be more like Christ..failing but when you keep trying you never really fail. To sit in idle would be failure..it goes against our nature to live, breathe, love, and move. While christians have a great sharing in the divine life of Christ..muslims seem to have a similar approach to the jewish people when it comes to God. God is distant and the prophet mohammed[forgive my spelling] was a mere man..hardly someone to aspire to be like..especially when he rejected some of the most important teachings of Jesus Christ. Forgivness and love..not revenge and hate ..make peace with all your brothers before you come to the Lord. It seems that muslims can live with people fine..but the moment they feel challanged or don't like someone who persecutes them it becomes ok for the old eye for an eye tooth for a tooth bravado! Christ said love your bro's n sisters 7 x 7! Anyone can love their friends and family..or people who respect and love them..but even pagans can do this. Love your enemies and you will begin to see a small portion of God's love! I'm tired of people writting off religion based on a few people because they claimed they were sinners but people are suddenly shocked when they see it for themselves. This whole righteous bull about the Church been all high and mighty is rubbish.. First and Foremost the church is a place FOR sinners! Jesus didn't go preaching and converting angels ..but the lowest of the low. If we keep splitting everytime we have an indifference then we're going to end up with alot more different churches [as if there isnt enough already] This is how the protestant churches started from an indifference and since then they have continued to split time and time again..just look at all the different protestant churches. Catholics were even guilty of this early on when the east and west split..but since have made great improvement in reuniting. All i can say is look for the holes yourself and don't believe all you hear right away especially when what people say is mere hearsay or a complete misunderstanding. Oh the church had pedophiles..How could they? The same way the police force and teachers/principals had. Wake up! Do some thinking of your own and the best of luck to you all. Michael william James   Just Plain Me Starlite Member Username: Just_plain_me Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 09:40 pm:    I don't think it matters if the person follows the Christian, Muslim, Hindu - whatever - path. He is NOT rightous if he spends his time looking at the faults within others rather than perfecting himself and trying to live the life dictated by his beliefs. Quick Translation for those attacking one another in this thread: Why don't we stop criticizing one another and start simply living what we believe.   Ken Starlite Member Username: Lovemepoetry Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 05:58 am:    TRUE CHRISTIANS DO NOT CLAIM TO BE GOD-----OR EVEN BECOME AS GOOD----THE ONLY EXAMPLE IS CHRIST HIMSELF------gahandi WAS NOT PERFECT NOR WILL YOU FIND PERFECTION IN ANY LIVING PERSON-----THE BEST AMONG US HAVE SOME BAD THE WORST HAVE SOME GOOD---------gahandi ALMOST BECAME A CHRISTIAN AS HE KNEW THE MESSAGE TAUGHT BY CHRIST WAS THE CORRECT ONE--------HE SHOULD HAVE CONVERTED AND SHOWN THE WORLD HOW TO LIVE A CHRISTIAN LIFE-----INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT ALL THE COUNTERFITS---IT IS EASY TO FIND FAULT-----AND EASIER TO FIND FAULT IN SOMEONE ELSE Currently I am working on a 1500 acre tract in Tenn and need CALTALPA seeds to replant and create the needed bio-diversity also I need TURKS HEAD oak acorns ----any help will be appeciated by mother nature------currently the deer and wild turkey are in large numbers and the project is 80 % complete   Jennifer Maxwell Starlite Member Username: Jennifer03801 Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 05:37 am:    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. Mohandas Gandhi   Ken Starlite Member Username: Lovemepoetry Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 01:25 pm:    The peaceful loving men of ISLAM =========Want to kill a man who only changed his faith-------and regularly kill women who have been raped-----and the most bloodthirsty of all those that declair the KORAN are the religious leaders that claim the holy plan-------when i see tollerance---love and peace-----and the bloody wars within islam cease-------then tell me about this religion of peace--------Christians have fought wars but few have been for faith-------they were poltical--------not to create an island of one brand of hate======more deaths in IRAQ are from peaceful ISLAM upon other believers of islam than any other source-------Where is the peace that would destroy a house of worship and those inside-----if this is peace and love---I choose war=======Do not quote words from paper--------Show me deeds that illustrate the kind words you declair Currently I am working on a 1500 acre tract in Tenn and need CALTALPA seeds to replant and create the needed bio-diversity also I need TURKS HEAD oak acorns ----any help will be appeciated by mother nature------currently the deer and wild turkey are in large numbers and the project is 80 % complete   William Spencer Starlite Member Username: Bubby Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 10:13 am:    Zaheer,you blasphemy our Desciples of Christ and expect us to embrace your theories? Who are you to judge anyone??? I will respond more, once I get my Adobe file renewed...right now ,my computer is more important than your ridiculous accusations.If you are going to cut n paste the entire Koran here,I suggest Albert give you a zip file.I can cut n paste some Will Durant here that will prove how barbaric the Muslims were,and still are..it's time to come out of the cave and join the REAL world.   Michael .P Starlite Member Username: Mik3y Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 05:02 am:    I'd love to know where you studied Paul Zaheer..because "Isn't it fact" that alot of what you are suggesting is not FACT at all..but rather 2nd hand assumptions and contradictions. "Is'nt it a fact that the new covenant is Paul's innovation and based entirely on his supposed visions. " You make a very bold assumption in suggesting that ..a VERY BIG ASSUMPTION! Paul is absolutely right in saying that the disciples were in constant need of Christ..they are human just like us and of course we need Christ's constant help. To write off paul like this is absurd..you have very little if any information to suggest that He wrote purely only on his visions and you have little info to back up your accusation of Paul been a liar. Alot of harsh accusations with little factual evidence to back them up..I'm not so impressed by your argument Zaheer. Michael william James

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action: