Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Hezbollah Using Prostitution (Muta) for Recruitment

In the following video, the "Young Turks" seem convinced that Hezbollah invented "Muta" (temporary marriage). The broadcasters acknowledge the obvious, namely, that Muta is a form of prostitution. However, they don't believe that Islam would ever allow such a practice.



Now for a healthy dose of reality. Both Sunnis and Shias agree that Muhammad allowed his followers to practice Muta. Shias generally believe that the practice is still permissible, while Sunnis typically claim that Muhammad eventually abrogated the practice.

What Sunni scholars fail to mention, however, is that even their most reliable sources are thoroughly inconsistent. Some Sunni ahadith state that Muhammad outlawed Muta, while others declare that the practice was banned by the Caliph Umar, not by Muhammad.

Indeed, according to a Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari (Sunni Islam's most trusted collection of ahadith), Muta is justified by the Qur'an itself! Consider the following verse from the Qur'an:

Qur'an 5:87—O ye who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, and transgress not, Lo! Allah loveth not transgressors.

Now let's see how this verse was used by Muhammad:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5079—We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Messenger and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry a woman temporarily by giving her even a garment and then he recited to us: "O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you." (5.87)

Hence, Muhammad quoted the Qur'an to justify Muta!

So if Muhammad allowed his followers to engage in prostitution, why do Sunni Muslims today believe that Islam doesn't allow Muta? According to some of Muhammad's companions, it was Umar (not Muhammad) who outlawed the practice:

Sahih Muslim 3250—Abu Nadra reported: While I was in the company of Jabir b. Abdullah, a person came to him and said that Ibn 'Abbas and Ibn Zubair differed on the two types of Muta, whereupon Jabir said: We used to do these two during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger. Umar then forbade us to do them, and so we did not revert to them.

Indeed, Muslims continued to practice Muta until Umar stopped them:

Sahih Muslim 3248—Ibn Uraij reported: 'Ati' reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform 'Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

But how can Umar abrogate Muhammad's commands, especially when the Qur'an allows Muta? Apparently, Umar's supporters weren't comfortable saying that Umar abrogated Muta. Thus, they began circulating false ahadith, according to which Muhammad himself banned the practice:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5115—Narrated Ali: I said to Ibn Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade Muta and the eating of donkey's meat."

How does all of this cash out for Muslims today? Well, if a Sunni Muslim is offended at the thought of prostitution in Islam, he can quote ahadith saying that Muhammad put an end to Muta. If, however, a Sunni Muslim wants to have sex with a prostitute, he can quote other ahadith, which say that Muhammad and the Qur'an allow Muta. Islam's teachings, then, depend on a Muslim's preferences!

For Shias, on the other hand, there's no such difficulty. Muhammad allowed Muta, so they still practice Muta. Hezbollah is even using it as a recruiting tool. Much like their prophet, they lure people to Islamic terrorism through promises of sex.

For more on Muta, see the following article:

Sam Shamoun, "Revisiting Muhammad’s Permitting a Form of Prostitution known As Muta"

93 comments:

Kim said...

Bro get a degree in jurisprudence and hadith please.

David Wood said...

Ever notice that when Kim has no response, she simply tosses out an insult, and pretends that she's answered the argument?

So Kim, would you sell yourself to one of your fellow Muslims in a temporary marriage?

Deleting said...

I think Kim should get a degree in jurisprudence and hadith. Maybe then she'd see this IS what Islam has always allowed.

Radical Moderate said...

David whats wrong with this, as long as the father doesnt care.

I'm being sarcastic

Talk about temple prostitution

Gary Rumain said...

Arselifters are sickening and degenerate scum. Muta and thighing are but two examples of their sickening cult.

Nakdimon said...

David is right! We have a Quranic verse supporting Muta, we have multiple Sahih ahadith that say Mutah was practiced during Muhammad’s life only for Umar to abrogate the practice later during his Caliphate and we have a Sahih hadith that explicitly says that Muta was practiced during Muhammad’s life, Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and Umar’s Caliphate. Hence, the lone hadith about the so-called abrogation of Muta during Khaibar seems to have the sole purpose of helping out Umar on the abrogation of Muta. For why would Muta continue to be practiced at the Caliphate of Abu Bakr up until the Caliphate of Umar if it were abrogated at Khaibar? If the Muslims wan to claim that Muta is abrogated then they have to come reconcile these ahadith in such a fashion that the one hadith that attributes the abrogation to Muhammad trumps the other ahadith about Muta being sanctioned by Allah and Muhammad. I wish them good luck trying. Saying “those hadiths are fabricated” simply will not work and will completely undercut the supposed authenticity of the Sunna. Furthermore, if Muslims want to claim that Muta was abrogated while there is a Quranic verse “revealed” especially to sanction Muta, what Quran verse abrogated Surah 5:87?

HOWEVER, since the Quranic verse supporting Muta says that those that forbid that which Allah has allowed are transgressors, Umar is a transgressor and is not the one Muslims should follow, since he single-handedly abrogated something which Allah and Muhammad endorsed.

To think that the Quran calls Muta a “good thing”!!!!

It seems that the Shi’ites are correct here, by stating that Muta was never abrogated and is still in effect. Hence, Islam allows prostitution.

Nakdimon said...

Kim, I have a few questions for you:

1. Are you at all trained or have a degree in Islamic jurisprudence and hadith science?
2. Why do you think David is ignorant of all or one of the above?
3. Do you think David misapplied the ahadith he sites? If so why?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Kim

So whats the going rate for an hour? Im not implying you would personally know, just maybe some friends or cousins. And not for me of course I am kufre and Christian, the worst of creatures. So i would never participate in this glorious teaching of your Allah and perfect example in Mohamed. I am to lowly and cursed.

minoria said...

If you guys want to see a VIDEO about a TEMORARY MARRIAGE in IRAN,between a girlwho is 17 and a guy who is SIXTY-FIVE,and he gives her 2OO DOLLARS for SIX MONTHS of marriage,see:

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/10/22/bbc-video-about-temporary-marriage-in-iranhabib65-marries-leila17for-6-months/

SGM said...

@ Kim,

I would be very interested in getting this degree in jurisprudence and hadith. However, I have few questions:
1. Does this degree explains how certain hadiths are not authentic? What I mean is, will I be able to find the complete chronology of people from the time of Mohammad till the hadith was written. Will I be able to understand if one person was missing in the chain of narrators, why I should not count it authentic. Will this degree explain why the person was missing. Will it tell me that such and such narrators were fake Moslems, therefore do not count such and such hadith authentic. Will it explain complete biography of such fake Moslems?
2. People who give out these degrees, do they believe that sperm comes from between the ribs and the backbone, etc, etc…. Will this degree help me understand this mystery?
3. People who give out these degrees, do they point to some website when providing evidence to what they are saying?
4. After getting this degree, do you guarantee that I will be able to refute anything without providing any concrete evidence. As a Christian, I have real hard time to refute anything with out evidence. It would be great after receiving the degree of jurisprudence and hadith to understand how you can refute something with out providing any evidence.
5. People who give out this degree, do they believe that quran is clear as clear can get. They don’t re-interpret what is already clear?
6. People who give out this degree, do they believe that women have half brain and intellect compared to men? Will this degree explain how this is true scientifically?
7. Will this degree explain how one can be inconsistent with their theology and still believe in it?

I have a lot more question but lets start with these for now. I assume, since you are asking David to get this degree, you already have obtained it. Other wise, why would you ask someone to do something which you have not done it yourself.

All honor and glory and praise be to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who has redeemed us and saved us from all our iniquities.

The Purple Marquise said...

Oh my goodness! These Muta marriages (or as we Iranians call it Siqe marriages) are wrecking such havoc in Iran!

Many women who have no means of supporting themselves fall into its trap and start to get passed around from man to man! It is really 100% prostitution with a prayer said at the start to give it a religious and moral aura! All of it is a trick to make a sin look OK.

And, Kim, as usual you are TOTALLY wrong! Shias exactly reject the ban on Muta BECAUSE Omar banned it and Shias don't accept Omar as any kind of authority to overturn Quran and Muhammed.

This was their reason since time immemorial. If Muhammed really had banned Muta himself there would have been no dispute over it!

So it is more than obvious that those Hadith which claims that Muhammed banned Muta must have come later than the Shia-Sunni split!

By the way on a rather unrelated note, in summer of 2009 when the Iranian people started an uprising after Ahmadinejad stole the election, the Iranian regime who distrusted even their own revolutionary guards in suppressing the uprising brutally enough imported members of the Hezbullah from Lebanon to beat up protestors in the street as brutally as possible.

First I heard this from one of my friends who herself was amongst the protesters in Tehran. She wrote me an email almost everyday to tell me what was going on. One day she wrote me swearing that the plainclothes agents that were unleashed on the protestors that day all spoke Arabic amongst themselves. So she was quite sure that they were some Arab foreigners.

A day or two later I head on The Voice of America Persian program that my friend was right! Several eyewitnesses had confirmed that some plainclothes Arab agents were beating people up very brutally and later on some insider informers told the VOA that these Arabs were indeed members of the Lebanese Hezbullah!

You must understand that these agents were really brutal and merciless to the Iranian people and the regime had to use them because even their own Iranian revolutionary guards felt some sympathy with the public and were not sure whose side they should be on and in the first few days of the protest weren't sufficiently brutal to the people.

I thought to let you guys know that on the side now that these Shia terrorists of Hezbullah came up as a topic and now that I see that in addition to paying them lots of money from the pockets of the Iranian regime (which actually by right belongs to the Iranian people and not these thugs) they are also being sexed-up! Makes me want to throw up! Islamic "spirituality" is truly revolting!

BOOTA SINGH said...

Dear Kim,
How much do you charge for night? I don’t want any more Muslims from you just sex...

jonnykzj said...

@All Those Christians who bash Catholics/Orthodox for SUPPOSEDLY worshipping Mary and using graven images in Churches

Sorry to be so off topic again BUT more and more I seem to be leaning towards Orthodox Christianity than the modern Lutheran/Protestant churches. Let me ask all other Christians something. HOW CAN IT BE tht for 1000s of yrs the Church, which was only Orthodox/Catholic, was practically "dwelling in idolatry" and then along comes Luther N ONLY AFTER THT ALL IS FINE??! Maybe u have an explanation coz i certainly dont.
The biggest problems i have/had are those relating to them making "graven images" in churches and praying to(rather through) Mary BUT GRADUALLY these probs seem to be fading away. Here are a few articles i just read today which explained this in detail and why we cant just even rip one of the ten commandments out of context like tht:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graven_image#Christianity
http://francinemorrissette.suite101.com/do-catholics-worship-mary-a49579 (Read the comments as well)
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu67.htm

Michelle said...

hello, i am sorry that this comment doesn't have anything to do with your post but I did have a question on Psalm 84 and the valley of baca....ugh i know...i have a muslim friend who is convinced that psalm 84 is speaking of ishmael and abrahams house or the al-kaba in mecca, "because jews went to baca (present name is maca) for pilgrimage in god's glorious house build by abraham and is 14 years old son ismael. Now i don't know or understand where he thinks baca is actually mecca that's why i am asking. I do not want to say false information. However I did point out that psalm 84 is referring to God's kingdom just like the song better is one day in your courts than thousands elsewhere. And i quoted a verse from John where Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world. Thanks sorry if this seems a little random

-Michelle

Kim said...

No really, this is silly. And I said that for advice. Youll learn much better methods of analyzing Hadith +Quran when you take those degrees, and then perhaps you wont make silly posts.


http://islam-qa.com/en/pda/ref/islamqa/20738

apran said...

Islamic marriage is another form of prostitution. A muslim pays dowry to a woman in order to own the whole body of the woman. After satisified, he can just say the magic word "talaq" tree times to divorce her permanently without any obligation.

Many Arabs come to my country to get this kind of marriage for 1-2 weeks.

Foolster41 said...

Kim: And I think people here were serious when they say you don't actually show how Mr. Woods is "silly" or "ignorant". Perhaps you can explain what aspects of this post is wrong, so then Mr. Wood will see why he needs a "degree" in anything.

Cart goes before horse.

Kim said...

@SGM

I'm sorry if you can't afford college and never experienced one but there exists universities and Islamic schools that teach such subjects.

Deleting said...

Kim,
Nakdimon asked you several good intellectual questions. Please answer them.
So you don't have to go searching here they are again:
Kim, I have a few questions for you:

1. Are you at all trained or have a degree in Islamic jurisprudence and hadith science?
2. Why do you think David is ignorant of all or one of the above?
3. Do you think David misapplied the ahadith he sites? If so why?

Samatar Mohamed said...

Actually David, The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did outlaw Muta in the battle of Khaybar. Here is the hadith:

"It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.”
Narrated by Muslim, 1407.

So Muta is forbidden for muslims to practice and was outlawed by the prophet (pbuh).

Baron Eddie said...

@ David

there is another "prostitution marriage" for Sunni and it it called "Al Mis-yar" زواج المسيار

this is a A legal marriage "زواج شرعي"

but in it the woman losses her due rights like staying with him and the purpose is to fullfil their lust and the woman gets some money in return ...


If any Muslim have more questions about this, I will provide more information ...

Baron Eddie said...

here is a video that talks about

Muttaa, Misyar, female circumcision, and why Arabs leave Islamic countries ...

http://www.youtube.com/lalamuhammed#p/u/26/k9jtOBz6ATA

Usama said...

Kim:

Are you saying the Shia don't have credentials or any standing in regards to Hadith and jurisprudence? Isn't that an arrogant position to have?

Usama said...

Samatar Mohamed:

That Hadith is one of the types of Hadith that don't give any quotes of the sayings of Muhammad but only what is assumed based on the text given, which is not very strong evidence. He did not forbid Mut'a as far as his words themselves are, quoting a Sahabi doesn't really mean anything, because quotes from people are not evidence in Islam, Qur'an and Sunnah* is.

* Don't misread the word "Sunnah", it means example, therefore a Hadith that quotes a companion saying that the Messenger forbade something isn't Sunnah, but his saying and example of it does count as being evidence.

Usama said...

"It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, “O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut’ah marriages, but now Allaah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut’ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.”

This is the Hadith that Nawasib Muslims give as being genuine.

Meanwhile Rawafid give these evidences saying Mut'a is part of their belief:

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/

D335 said...

@JohnyKZJ

find your answer in here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Osuctvq4QU

Osama Abdallah said...

All,

Notice how the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed Muta for extreme situations.
The quote that David and all of the ones I've read say that the Muslims asked the Prophet if they should cut off their ganitals. This might've been metaphoric from them, but it still shows that the Prophet never favored it, and Muta came to solve social problems, and not to promote prostitution.

For more details, visit: www.answering-christianity.com/muta.htm

I've provided ample Noble Verses from the Glorious Quran that prove that Muta is not allowed in Islam.

Also, even in the Bible, Prophets were allowed to make exceptional rulings, or rulings that solved certain problems, or rulings that dealt with isolated situations. Why should it sound strange to you that the Prophet of Islam was allowed to make exceptional rulings?

As to the Shias, I've known more than 20 of them throughout my adult life, and perhaps even more. These people are like the NT's Pharisees. They are hypocrites who twist and pervert Text! Seeking college chicks to have fun with isn't what Muta came for. With the Shias, an Imam is even higher than a Prophet, and to them, an Imam can sleep even with another man's wife. A Shia, on youtube, exposed them for this. He is now a Sunni. The guy had to invite his friend over to force the imam to leave his home, becaue the imam wanted to do his wife in his home! Shias don't even represent the feces that I flush down the toilet! Let alone representing the greatest Faith on Earth.

Muta came to prevent rapes and prostitutions. It didn't come to promote prostitution.

As to if it's allowed or not, I myself believe that it is allowed under really extreme siatuations. Otherwise, it is a complete sin, and the person must secure his/her ganital and be real with GOD Almighty! Again, I've quoted the Glorious Quran on this.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Usama said...

Osama Abdullah:

"Also, even in the Bible, Prophets were allowed to make exceptional rulings, or rulings that solved certain problems, or rulings that dealt with isolated situations. Why should it sound strange to you that the Prophet of Islam was allowed to make exceptional rulings?"

The Prophets made no "rulings" they were simply wise men who knew their scripture, and verified their thoughts upon it.

The rest of it is an unjust diatribe on Shia, which I assume is indirectly responsible for their slaughter throughout Islamic history.

Look at the argument the Shia' present, and judge for yourself:


http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Usama

Then what are you looking for. You want exact quotations of the prophet saying he outlawed this practice. Well here it is:

"It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, “O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut’ah marriages, but now Allaah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut’ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.”

Narrated by Muslim 1406

Usama said...

D335:
You are fooled, a documentary isn't evidence. If they are correct they must have had evidence from documents or artifacts that made this conclusion possible. Find the origin of these conclusions by finding their source, and THEN after examining it, we'll make a judgement. That's how the Mujtahids did it with Islam, start being consistent.

Zack_Tiang said...

Osama said, "Muta came to prevent rapes and prostitutions. It didn't come to promote prostitution."

Yeah, by replacing the 'illegal' status into 'legal' on these rapes and prostitutions.

Funny how ALlah allowed a legal form of prostitution in any case, extreme or not.

Samatar Mohamed said...

It seems David that this is an attack on the Shia muslims, and I fully agree with you that it is ridiculous for Shias to try to justify Muta being permissible. If this is an attack on the prophet (pbuh) allowing this at a point in time, well Osama has pointed out very clearly that Muta was never favored by the prophet (pbuh), and he only allowed this to prevent the muslims from adultery. It seems that as David posts videos against Islam, that he does not take into accounts that there are exeptions in matters. When he posted a video about Allah (swt) committing shirk, he does not take into account that not all the rules that God (swt) commands to his people, are also commanded of him. In this case, the prophet (pbuh) did not favor the action, but did allow it for an extreme time for the muslim men. If muslims had brought up these posts against David, he would be explaining the same exact thing. In fact, I recall in a debate where a man brought up a verse in the old Testament that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. yet, we know that Christians alledge that Jesus (pbuh) rose from the dead in a physical body that contained both flesh and blood. How did david reply to this question, he merely said that there is an exeption for Jesus (pbuh) because his body is glorified. Anyone who wants the debate, it was the debate between sami zaatari and nabeel qureshi in the easter special. It was during the q and a period, where David and nabeel where representing the christain side, while sami and shadid lewis were representing the muslim side. Again David, try to be a little bit more consistent.

Baron Eddie said...

@ all Muslims

with all respect to you ...

You are not a Mullah or Sheikh ...

I understand that you are trying to defend Mutaa and Al Misyar ...

These are legal marriages and it is practised in Islamic countries

You want to compare that to what the Bible says ...

God created one woman to Adam ...

If God wanted to increase population like in Islam! ... guess what!

He would give Adam 4 wives, He could ... right? and at the time when populating were most needed!

In Matthew 19
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

That is how woman is respected in Jesus Christ ...

Glory to God forever

+ + +

@ Osama Abdullah
I missed you man ...

You are like a whale, you surface every now and then to take a fresh air from David Wood's page ...

الحمد لله

infidelophobic said...

2 Timothy 3:1-7 " This know also, that in the last days perilous times shallcome. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, convetous, BOASTERS, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, TRUCEBREAKERS, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despicers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of PLEASURES more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead CAPTIVE SILLY WOMEN laden with sins, led away with divers lust, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"

Royal Son said...

Osama tried to wield his get out of jail free (aka exceptional circumstances) card but failed to realise how utterly desperate that is.

There is NO situation where temporary marriage is necessary.

Muslims use the same reasoning to justify Mohammad having more than 4 wives, i.e. that this was an exceptional circumstance in order to unite the tribes of Mecca. Think about it people. Allah is so weak, that he lacked the providence and power to unite the tribes in Mecca, and instead depended upon his poster child, Mohammad to break his own statutes and regulations.

In like manner, Mohammad prescribes exception clauses where lying is permissible.

Don't commit adultery EXCEPT with those whom your right hand possesses.

We are told that Allah's committing shirk by swearing by pretty much everything except Himself is an exception clause and is perfectly acceptable.

Not only are Muslims using these exception clauses, but Allah seems to be in on the game too. He prides Himself on being the greatest of deceivers. Muslims, do you think you are immune to the deception of Allah?

By the way, Osama, you said that Muta came to solve social problems. Do you think these social problems exist today?

D335 said...

@Usama

nope you are the fool.

people can re-check the content, finding more, but you BLOCK their ways by calling them "fooled".

every attempts refraining yourself from the truth, therefor you have no interest in the truth.

lots of attempts of searching for truth:
- watching
- listening
- reading
- analyzing
which include also watching a documentary. When you suddenly point a finger and say "you are fooled", I must remind you that you are acting as an obstructing blockage.

Let those who watch see it for themselves. We don't need you.

D335

apran said...

According to a Shia Encyclopedia (http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/), 4:24 actually is talking of allowing mut'a.

(...Except the forbidden women) the rest are lawful unto you to seek them with gifts from your property (i.e., dowry), provided that you desire protection (from sin), not fornication. So for whatever you have had of pleasure (Istamta'tum) with them by the contract, give unto them their appointed wages as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you both agree (in extending the contract) after fulfilling the (first) duty. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. (Quran 4:24)

In the above verse, the Arabic equivalent of the word "marriage" or any of its derivatives has NOT been used. Rather the derivative of word "Mut'a" pleasure/temporary marriage) has been used, i.e., "Istamta'tum". The word Istamta'a is the tenth verbal form of the root m-t-a. As we will show shortly, the word Istamta'a has also been widely used in the authentic Sunni collections for Temporary Marriage. Of course, Mut'a is one type of marriage, but some of it's regulations are different than the permanent marriage, including the fact that the couple can extend this contract by mutual agreement as the end of verse specifies.

The Shia people make very good arguments using Quran and Sunni hadiths to support the temporary marriage, I hereby declare the Shia as the winner in this subject.

Nakdimon said...

Osama Abdallah said: Notice how the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed Muta for extreme situations. The quote that David and all of the ones I've read say that the Muslims asked the Prophet if they should cut off their ganitals. This might've been metaphoric from them, but it still shows that the Prophet never favored it, and Muta came to solve social problems, and not to promote prostitution.

Reply: What I noticed, Osama, is that your prophet promoted prostitution, since Muta is simply legalized adultery. No matter how you slice it. The fact that you so vehemently oppose Muta right now, proves that it is nothing other than legalized prostitution.

What I would like to know is, what “social problem” did he solve with Muta? Wouldn’t a simple “don’t castrate yourself but perform self-control, since that’s what Allah loves” suffice instead of “go have sex with those women, pay them and when you have satisfied your lustful desires you can get rid of them. Don’t worry, we will call it Muta, not Zinna”. I don’t see how Muta solves the problem of castration. By the way, since when is contemplating castration a social problem?

Osama Abdallah said: Muta came to prevent rapes and prostitutions. It didn't come to promote prostitution.

Reply: LOL!!! Osama, if Muta came to prevent rapes and prostitution, and not to promote prostitution, then why is Muta not allowed now? In other words, since Muta is opposed now BECAUSE it is seen as legalized prostitution and adultery, then why do you claim that it was implemented to prevent that which it actually represents?

Nakdimon said...

Samatar,

you cited a hadith where someone says that Muhammad forbade Muta at Khaybar. What do you do with the other ahadith that contradict that and say that Muta was still practiced until Umar, and not Muhammad, forbade Muta?

Nakdimon said...

Hi Michelle,

I made some videos on supposed prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible. You can watch the series here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPwf2-xLvAQ&list=PL88BCDB4B84A16D10&feature=plpp_play_all

Please let me know if that helped.

jonnykzj said...

@D335

>>find your answer in here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Osuctvq4QU<<

JK- Sure it may well be that there were and are still black sheep in the Catholic Church but this doesnt necessarily mean they're all bad and have got nothing or most of it wrong. ALSO what about the Orthodox Christian Church which is still distinct from the Catholics like not having a Pope for all?
NEXT what do u make of those Bible verses which clearly allowed the use of icons in context where they lead to the remembrance of the worship of the One True God?

Osama Abdallah said...

"@ Osama Abdullah
I missed you man ...

You are like a whale, you surface every now and then to take a fresh air from David Wood's page ... "

I love you too bro Baron! :) I am running away from the Great James White deep in the oceans :\) He's got teeth!!

As to Muta and Misyar marriages, they evolved from marriage and divorce in Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "THE MOST DETESTED LAWFUL THING TO ALLAH ALMIGHTY, THAT HE THE ALMIGHTY HAD PERMITTED TO MUSLIMS IS DIVORCED!" I am sure David is quite aware of this Hadith. Yet, Muta is a marriage that is destined for intentional divorce. I know divorce happens, but when you marry with the intention to divorce, then you are doing the most detested thing to Allah Almighty from all of the Lawful things that He, the Almighty, had permitted.

You see, divorce is allowed in Islam. But irresponsible divorce, or corrupt marriages that are destined for intentional divorce will make you a corrupt hypocrite who is playing games with Allah Almighty. That is why I said above that the Shias are equivalent to the New Testament's Pharisees, whom Christ called hypocrites, wolves, and liars. They claim to follow the Text, when all they're doing is BSing around.

Again, please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/muta.htm to see the many Noble Verses that I quoted that clearly prove that Muta is not allowed in Islam.

One last point, it is crystal-clear that Allah Almighty's prefered marriage in the Glorious Quran is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN! "...but if you fear that you will do injustice (between the wives), then marry ONLY one..." (The Glorious Quran). With the Shias' Muta, you can marry and divorce a thousand women! Even the members of the royal family in the Arab Gulf countries, there are ample roamers about them marrying women on Thursdays and divorcing them on the following Thursdays. THE MOST IRONIC THING OF ALL, is that these swines of the desert make sure that they don't have more than 4 wives at any given time! I mean seriously dude??!! You're that concerned and that damn serious about being True to Allah Almighty??? LOL

So here is what I say to you Bro Baron, you have your pharisees and we have ours. That's all I've got to say about it.

Now I am swimming down back to the ocean :).

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

SGM said...

@ Kim,
You are a very consistent and persistent moslimah. Instead of answering questions, you simply switched the conversation and assume that I can’t afford college. But then again that is typical of you and any other moslim.

It is so funny how Moslems like Osama and others are trying to defend a practice which they admit is wrong and that is the reason it was abrogated. How can Allah use something which is so wrong to resolve a social problem. Is Allah that depraved that he couldn’t find a good way to resolve it?

Seam_on_Us said...

@ johnnykzj

"Man must not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD."

I emphasised the last part of the above extract because that is one of the most important truths that Catholics have ditched for their man-made rites and doctrines.

Can Catholics provide the express command sent from God that permits praying to anyone else but Him through Jesus? Did He give a second name under Heaven through which we could come to Him or to His Son, Our Lord? Jesus says, "No one can come to the Father except through Me," and also, "Come to Me, all you who labour and I will give you rest." So Jesus has given us direct and unhindered access to Him, and through Him to the Father. Would you then assume that Jesus did not really know what He was saying? That instead He should have said, "Come to Me, all you who labour, through Mary, and I will give you rest"?

God has never, ever and, according to His eternal word, shall never give another name through which we can come to Him. And Jesus gave us direct (please note the word) to Himself.

An analogy of this issue can be the senselessness of washing your hand with spittle while standing next to the ocean. Jesus is a great and mighty ocean and that ocean willingly chose to die for you. Though Mary compelled Him to turn water into wine, she had no say in His decision to sacrifice Himself for the world.

Another point in this discussion would be why the Catholics don't offer as much veneration to Abraham. You may ask how he is relevant so I will explain.

Mary was born of Israel and therefore was a beneficiary of the faith Abraham showed when he was called by God to be blameless before Him. Abraham had no ancestors to look up to or to learn from as regards having faith in God. His submission to the command of the Lord was as great a sacrifice as Mary's submission. I would even argue that his was greater since he first pleased the Lord and did so millenia before Mary's deed.

So why don't they pray to Abraham, the father of faith, when he was (one of) the first to be faithful? Instead they pray to Mary. Joseph was not visited by an angel but was met in a dream but he still displayed the same level of complete submission to God. So why isn't he just as favoured in the sight of Catholics?

Forgive me, I seem to have ventured off into a rant. It is just that for almost two decades I was a confessed and fervent Catholic. But for the Grace of my Good Redeemer I would have continued all manner of detestable things. There is a lot I'd still like to add but that would have to be in another more topic-related thread.

God Bless.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Nakdimon

From the hadith, you can see that although the prophet (pbuh) forbade muta'a at khaybar, not everyone heard about it being forbade. Hence, Ali telling ibn abbas that the prophet (pbuh) forbade this.

minoria said...

Hello,

One thing I find strange about the Muslim debaters in youtube and elsewhere is their resistance to admit when they are wrong.

In MARK Jesus forgave sins.Muslims like SHABIR ALLY and AUL WILLIAMS say and it is TRUE,so it seems:

That there are 2 cases in Jewish literature where somebody also forgave sins.So they say THAT shows Jesus was NOT saying he was God.

LACK OF SCHOLARLY CONSISTENCY

In the story the SCRIBES,in effect, say Jesus was saying he was God.That was the MAINSTREAM Jewish thinking.Jesus doesnt deny the affirmation.

So the 2 cases go against OFFICIAL Jewish thinking.TODAY that is the same thinking,what is called RABBINIC Judaism.

That is the detail,did Jesus in MARK say anything to say they were wrong?No.But Muslim debaters just cant ADMIT the evidence that Jesus was denying being God is not there.

It shows a lack of seriousness.I now know the reason.

THEIR OBSESSION WITH SAYING THERE IS AN EVOLUTION IN THE GOSELS

They say MARK,the first book,does NOT say Jesus was God,nor LUKE and MATT say it,ONLY JOHN.

But the argument crumbles if,as is true,MARK has Jesus saying is God.

They have the technique of saying you CANT TRUST the NT,it shows evolution from Mark to John.

minoria said...

Hello Nakdimon,

Thanks for creating those videos,I will use them in antisharia.com

jonnykzj said...

@Seam_On_Us

I've discussed this issue with an Orthodox Christian. They don't seem to deny BY ANY MEANS tht one can come to the Father except through Christ so tht is a non issue. WHT THEY DO SAY is that in order to come to the Father, Son and Holy SPirit i.e. GOD one cld sure pray by him/herself BUT IT IS MORE EFFECTIVER IF ONE PRAYS ALONGSIDE THOSE PPL/SPRITS OF PPL IN HEAVEN WHO R CLOSEST TO GOD. For exaple there is a Bible passage i was shown tht says tht certain Christians first got hold opf Peter, who at tht ime was in another country, who then used the Holy Spirit to resurrect a lady. Why didnt they just use the Holy Spirit on their own Orthdox wld argue? saying tht this is COZ HE AS A DISCIPLE WAS CLOSER TO GOD.

jonnykzj said...

@All Muslims

Ive noticed some inconsistency when Christians argue that God cldve just made tribes unite without using certain methods COZ obviously God does things SYSTEMATICALLY otherwise one can argue why did God send His own son to the world to save everyone when there were other methods at His disposal. HOWEVER THE REAL ISSUE IS first ONCE JESUS CHRIST has come and he has taught A PERFECT WAY TO BECOME N REMAIN SOCIAL FOR ALL TIMES TO COME wht sense does it make to send another Prophet who resorts back to violent methods? 2ndly as weve seen the hadith contradict each other so it cannot clearly be said whether muta was ever truly abolished by Muhammad. 3rdly IN ISLAM ONE CAN HAVE SEX WITH SLAVES(MA MALKAT AIMAANUKUM). Nowehre has slavery in islam ever been abolished. Muslims today can go to the west n practically have sex with any non muslim woman calling her his slave. sure some muslims can argue this cannot be done coz we live with them under a contract of security. BUT OTHERS CAN SAY the west has breached this contract by their armies occupying our lands SO WE CAN NOW FIGHT THEM N TAKE THEM AS SLAVES n again be totally justified to have sex with those women INC MARRIED WOMEN BTW. See wht a morally bankrupt religion tht is?

Samatar Mohamed said...

"Thus, they began circulating false ahadith, according to which Muhammad himself banned the practice:"


Sahih al-Bukhari 5115—Narrated Ali: I said to Ibn Abbas, "During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet forbade Muta and the eating of donkey's meat."

I like how David just claims that they fabricated false hadith to deal with this issue. This is another inconsistency that David, nabeel etc... use. Nowhere does David explain how the hadith was fabricated, but just dismisses those hadiths because they do not work with his agenda. For example, Nabeel Qureshi was once explaining why Bukhari and Muslim do not include the satanic verses in their collections, he said tha they do not include the hadith because they were biased individuals. However, when there is a hadith in the collection of Bukhari and Muslim like the prophet being possessed, and poisoned. All of a sudden the bias is thrown out of the window.

@Johnny

In the hadith I do not really see a contradiction because it is clear that the outlawing of the Muta by the prophet did not reach everyone, hence Ali informing Ibn saad that the prophet (pbuh) outlawed it. Also, it is true that slavery was not abolished by the prophet (pbuh) but he did give the slaves and women rights that were unheard of at that time. And seeing as you only follow the Quran, but not the hadith, there is no way to prove this to you.

@Minoria

Actually Minoria, Shabir ally does say that all the gospels show Jesus claiming to be God in a sense. But what they are pointing out is the obvious development in his nature throughout the gospels to make him seem just as powerfull as the father. You would be a fool not to admit that.

jonnykzj said...

@Samatar Mohammed

>>In the hadith I do not really see a contradiction because it is clear that the outlawing of the Muta by the prophet did not reach everyone, hence Ali informing Ibn saad that the prophet (pbuh) outlawed it.<<

JK- The problem is that according to historians Bukhari, Muslim and the rest of the six sahih sitah were compiled >250 yrs after Muhammad's death AND are therefore NOT CONSIDERED AS RELIABLE AS THE SIRA LITERATURE FROM e.g. IBN ISHAQ by them. This also explains why we do not find Muhammad performin g any miracles in those early sira sources BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN in these hadith books we start finding them DESPITE the Quran clearly saying tht Allah stopped sending miracles coz folks be4 had rejected them. In regs to the splitting of the moon all the Quran had to say "And remember when we made thee pt towards the moon. And it split asunder and the hour has drawn near". INSTEAD the Quran only makes a general statement with NO reference to Muhammad's involvement. WHT A COINCIDENCE this allo is?

>>" Also, it is true that slavery was not abolished by the prophet (pbuh) but he did give the slaves and women rights that were unheard of at that time. And seeing as you only follow the Quran, but not the hadith, there is no way to prove this to you.<<

JK- To be honest im less and less impressed even by the Quran alone. infact one part of my brain has already accepted Chrst n the other wld soon follow. NOW with tht said the Quran clearly allows sex withz slaves WITHOUT having to marry them. THE BIBLE DOESNT NEITHER IN THE NEW NOR THE OLD TESTAMENT. Thats a major prob in islam. ALSO there is no rule against marital rape even in islam. a man has a right to sex. only exception r if the woman is in her menses or sick n the latter is very subjective in islam as the Kahlifa can always rule tht she wasnt really sick but just pretended etc. It is not acceptable if the woman is not in the mood during a particular time or is tired which is normal for almost the entire humanity EXCEPT ISLAM. ONLY THIS SICK RELGION till today gives man a right to have sex with a woman even if she doesnt will so.

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar

Quote " Nowhere does David explain how the hadith was fabricated, but just dismisses those hadiths because they do not work with his agenda."

Isn't that the foundation for Islam to discredit the Bible because Islam and Mohamed contradicted the teachings of all of the previous Prophets and biblical doctrine? Muslims will try and use the Bible to prove Islam and then when they realize it is inconsistent with the Bible the first thing that comes out of a Muslims mouth is. Well the Bible is corrupted!

Try consistency oh yeah, it's impossible for a Muslim and Islam to be consistent!

Radical Moderate said...

@Osama

You wrote…

"Muta came to prevent rapes and prostitutions. It didn't come to promote prostitution."

Oh please do tell us how MUTA prevents rapes and prostitution.
Since Rape is forced sex on a woman how does temporarily marring a woman prevent rape?

Since prostitution is selling ones body in the act of sex. How does exchanging money for marriage temporarily to engage in sex prevent prostitution?

I guess Muta is like the nicotine patch for Muslims it gradually weans them off of Rape and Prostitution.

You also wrote…

"As to if it's allowed or not, I myself believe that it is allowed under really extreme siatuations. Otherwise, it is a complete sin"

Oh do tell what are those extreme situations where Allah allows SIN?

You also wrote…

"The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "THE MOST DETESTED LAWFUL THING TO ALLAH ALMIGHTY, THAT HE THE ALMIGHTY HAD PERMITTED TO MUSLIMS IS DIVORCED!"

So not only does your Allah allow his followers to SIN, but now he allows them to do legally what he DETESTS. WHAT KIND OF GOD DO YOU WORSHIP. Truly this is NOT a HOLY GOD.

You also wrote…

"You see, divorce is allowed in Islam. But irresponsible divorce, or corrupt marriages that are destined for intentional divorce will make you a corrupt hypocrite who is playing games with Allah Almighty."

So Allah allows SIN, he legalizes what Is the MOST detestable to him, and now if you commit this SIN that he allows, and commit legally what he detests the most; you are the HYPOCRITE???

Well Osama it looks like you were wrong. Latin woman are not the easiest to BANG, looks like Muslima Mutta babes are pretty cheep, but you have proven that it is Muslim MEN who are in fact the easiest to BANG!!!

Radical Moderate said...

Samatar you wrote…

"I like how David just claims that they fabricated false hadith to deal with this issue. This is another inconsistency that David, nabeel etc... use. Nowhere does David explain how the hadith was fabricated, but just dismisses those hadiths because they do not work with his agenda."

WOW POT MEET KETTLE.

How amazing it is that Muslims tell us time and time again that this or that hadeeth is fabricated, by JOOOSH none the less.

Honestly man get a clue.

Radical Moderate said...

@Samata

You wrote...

"@Nakdimon

From the hadith, you can see that although the prophet (pbuh) forbade muta'a at khaybar, not everyone heard about it being forbade. Hence, Ali telling ibn abbas that the prophet (pbuh) forbade this."

Please tell us why Allah and his Messenger allowed it in the first place?

Zack_Tiang said...

Jonnykzj said, "To be honest im less and less impressed even by the Quran alone. infact one part of my brain has already accepted Chrst n the other wld soon follow."

Praise the Lord. Keep seeking the Truth, Jonny, and the Truth shall set you free (John 8:32).
And if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36).

D335 said...

@JohnyKZJ

Blacksheep in Catholic church? you missed the whole thing. The institution of the POPE himself is un-biblical /un-scriptural. This is the base of protestantism that differs from Catholicism in the past.
As time passed, we could live with one another eventho the gap of theological understanding is huge.
-----------------------------------
Iconic? moving so fast aren't you. Be clear on one point before you moving on. The use of icon in religions establishment is not the use for idol. If German Christians /muslims wears a T-shirt with german flag, do you consider that as IDOL ? or ICON? or do you believe the Germans worship the flag?
---------------------------------
The bible verses that mentions "one-true-God" is still true". Do you consider Christianity worship 3 Gods? maybe you have the wrong Christian.
When Jesus was baptized, a word booms from heaven noting that This is the Son, whom I'm well pleased. No Christian could over come that, along with many verses noting Jesus pray or say, noting The Father in heaven. This is the word of God, and put a note that God is one eternal Being who exists with a plurality of attributes and as three eternally distinct, yet inseparable Persons. You can read more here.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_mk_12_29.htm

Again don't move to fast until you got a hold onto something firmly.
---------------------------------

JK- To be honest im less and less impressed even by the Quran alone. infact one part of my brain has already accepted Chrst n the other wld soon follow. NOW with tht said the Quran clearly allows sex withz slaves WITHOUT having to marry them. THE BIBLE DOESNT NEITHER IN THE NEW NOR THE OLD TESTAMENT. Thats a major prob in islam.

D335 - I must remind you that a part receiving Christ and the other still Quran alone only tells an information about you being "CONFUSED".
I'm not discussing Islam right now, but I know that in Christianity is hard to answer many many questions, but for Islam it is impossible to defend anything at all. The breastfeeding polemic, the cross-dressing inspiration bla-bla.
So keep on searching, remove yourself from this confusion. You cannot have two distinct and contradictory faiths.

D335

hugh watt said...

"Iconic? moving so fast aren't you [JK]. Be clear on one point before you moving on." - D335

JK - I agree with D335. You ask good questions but you need the most important ones answered before the secondary ones.

The Devil doesn't mind you getting all the secondary questions right it's the one the will set you free he's worried about:

Matthew 16:13-13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

hugh watt said...

JK

"Sorry to be so off topic again BUT more and more I seem to be leaning towards Orthodox Christianity than the modern Lutheran/Protestant churches. Let me ask all other Christians something. HOW CAN IT BE tht for 1000s of yrs the Church, which was only Orthodox/Catholic, was practically "dwelling in idolatry" and then along comes Luther N ONLY AFTER THT ALL IS FINE??! Maybe u have an explanation coz i certainly dont."

What is "Orthodox Christianity?"

If you read the entire OT and NT you'll see praying to anyone other than God is forbidden.

"The biggest problems i have/had are those relating to them making "graven images" in churches and praying to(rather through) Mary BUT GRADUALLY these probs seem to be fading away."

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

"...probs seem to be fading away."

God's Word never changes.

"ALSO what about the Orthodox Christian Church which is still distinct from the Catholics like not having a Pope for all?"

Do you know what Pope means?

"NEXT what do u make of those Bible verses which clearly allowed the use of icons in context where they lead to the remembrance of the worship of the One True God?"

Which Bible verses?

jonnykzj said...

@D335 and Hugh Watt

Ok but an Orthodox Christian pted to me Biblical verses that states Christians called Peter who was in another location in order for him to perform the miracle by the Holy SPirit to rise a dead lady. WHY DIDNT they just pray directly to God themself? THIS is the crux of the issue. NOW wit tht said Orthdox SPECIFICALLY DENY tht they worship Mary or any of the saints BUT tht praying alongside ppl whore closer to God makes God answer the prayers more than if one not so close prays on his/her opwn. This nmakes sense to me COZ CHRISTIANITY IS A SOCIAL RELGION TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL RELATIONS.
LASTR BUT NOT LEAST id like to see u debate with an Orthodox CHristian likie e.g. "Rale" who used to frequent this blog o i can get to the bottom of this.

Rale said...

Hey, here I am!
I totally agree with Johnny on his last comment. Of course one can come to the Father only through the Son. The Son is the One who redeemed our nature and Who, through His incarnation, is uniting us to God. We all agree on that.
As Jonnhy pointed out, the intercessional prayers adressed to Mary and the saints are more to be understood in a sense of fellowship. They do not have any power by themselves, God is the ultimate source in any case.

I think that this blog is not the right place for such discussions. We are all Christians after all, and this blog is dedicated to issues we normally all agree on.

@jonny
I'm still open to discussions on skype, but as I told you, I've got some problems to solve first. I hope it's gonna be ok in one or two weeks.

hugh watt said...

1-

JK

People end up in error because someone tells them something and they don't check the text or context of the Scripture to see what it actually says.

Acts 9:36Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.

37And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

38And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them.

39Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them.

40But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.

41And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive.

42And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord.

Nowhere does it say Peter was called by "Christians...who was in another location in order for him to perform the miracle by the Holy SPirit to rise a dead lady."

hugh watt said...

2-

I went onto an "Orthodox" site and read this:

"First, it is imperative to understand that apostolic teaching and tradition is as divinely inspired as the Word of God. And far from contradicting the Word of God (The Bible), Church Tradition illuminates and clarifies the Scriptures so that we do not fall prey to subjective human interpretations. (Whatever one may think about Orthodoxy, there is far more consistency and unity of belief amongst Orthodox Churches than there is amongst the multitude of Protestant sects and cults. This is undoubtedly due to the Orthodox belief in the Divine authority of Apostolic Tradition as well as the Holy Bible.)

So the question at hand is whether or not it is appropriate to pray for the dead.

Since Protestants hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (*), I will provide three biblical precedents – one from the Old Testament and two from the New Testament – each from books that all Protestants consider as canonical:

1. Moses prayed for Reuben after he had died:

"Let Reuben live and not die.""

Notice what it says here: Deuteronomy 33:6 "Let Reuben live and not die."

Again: "1. Moses prayed for Reuben after he had died:"

"2. Peter prayed for Tabitha after she had died:" Acts 9:36-42.

Answered above.

"3. St. Paul prayed for Onesiphorus after he had died.

2 Timothy 1:16The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:

17But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.

18The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well."

Nowhere does it say Onesiphorus had died!

hugh watt said...

3-3

Deuteronomy 18:9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Necromancy is praying to the dead!
Once a person dies there is to be no praying for or to that person. King Saul found that out the hard way.

"Prayers for the dead are one of the greatest forms of prayer; for they are not prayers for ourselves, but rather prayers of altruistic intercession. Our prayers for the dead are a profound act of faith. That we pray even for those who have departed from this earth is evidence that we trust in the Cross of Christ and hope in the inexhaustible grace of God. God is bigger than we think, the Cross is more powerful than we think, and divine grace is more abundant than we think."

In other words: Ignore what the Boss says and do what they feel is right as "a profound act of faith."

Decide who you want as Boss. You will have to answer to His Word one day.

D335 said...

Ahoy @Rale

relax, we're not questioning where you stand on according to your views of Christianity, in fact we're all here discussing Islam.

Surely as a protestant I can disagree with a catholic or other denominations for that matter (God knows I do), but I will not throw condemnation like peanuts.
I don't even hate muslims considering how many muslim friends I've got compared to how many christian friends I've got in my home town.
I just disagree totally with Islamic teachings.

The history of how Christianity was in the old age are suppose to strengthen us today, ... rather than portrayed as an old shameful historical blunder dividing people.
Therefor, we learn from the history for a better tomorrow.

D335

-----------------------------------

On the view regarding Mary:

Protestantism basicly does not approve the use of "saints" or possible intercessor other than Jesus Christ, The Lord Himself.

Praying to God with the intercession of Mary the mother of Jesus has been questioned long ago on why can't we pray directly to God as Jesus did-taught us how to pray.

Again do not easily judge others for that matter.
---------------------------------

Papal authority

Again Protestantism disagree with Catholics in this manner of earthly representative, but again I won't head-butt my catholic cousins (oh yes).

Historical facts show bloody violence regarding persecution of heretics (considered from one faith's perspective) but are we going to do the same as the church forefathers did or are we to look up at Jesus Christ?

again I'm using Romans 14 to describe my standpoint, rather than throwing rocks at each other.

D335

D335 said...

@JohnyKZJ

Christians called Peter who was in another location in order for him to perform the miracle by the Holy SPirit to rise a dead lady. WHY DIDNT they just pray directly to God themself?

do you realize who is the Holy Spirit? Do you remember what is Triune or Trinity?

jonnykzj said...

@Rale, D335 and Huigh Watt

First i thank Rale for clearing this up. The reason why i consider this so important even if we are all Christians(n i say we coz after all one person in my being ME has accepted christ but thts off topic) IS COZ D335 AND HIUGH WATT SEEM TO IMPLY ORTHODOX/CATHOLICS R COMMITTING OR AT LEAST COMING VERY CLOSE TO IDOLATRY as far as ive understood N THIS IS A SERIOUS CHARGE, NOT just a minor issue.
SO now i want D335 and Hiugh to consider wht bro Rale has written and if possible give an adequate response.

Seam_on_Us said...

@ Rale & johnnykzj

"I think that this blog is not the right place for such discussions. We are all Christians after all, and this blog is dedicated to issues we normally all agree on."

I agree with you here Rale and I don't know how tolerant the blog's moderators are but I will indulge their patience as I respond, once again, to this issue.

First off, I would like any Orthodox or Roman Catholic to answer this question:

Why is Abraham not honoured in the same degree as Mary? Why are there no hymns of praise and adoration to the first patriarch of Israel, of whom Mary was born? (I pointed this out in my preceding post.)

From the scriptures you identified, notice that those Christians called a living, breathing human being who still walked the Earth to come help them. And when they asked for his assistance they did not kneel in his presence or genuflect, neither did they sing hymns of praise and adoration to him. They simply asked. (And yes, there is a world of difference between 'asking' and 'praying'.) If it is a matter of communion, why would you rather commune with the dead than with the living? You may argue that Mary is alive in Heaven so she is not really dead. Wrong! She is dead on earth and that is what matters because the dead cannot do the will of God anymore on Earth. If you doubt this then why do people bother praying for the dead? Why don't the dead pray for themselves?

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I used to be a Roman Catholic, and a devout one too. Have you ever heard of the Rosary? Looking back to those days, I realise now how improper and insulting it is to make such intercession to any other being but the Lord. Do not be deceived. Roman Catholics do not only pray 'through' Mary, they pray 'to' her which is, in and of itself, a sinful act. Prayer belongs to God through Jesus Christ, Our Only Lord and Our Only Saviour.

They csll Mary 'the mother of God.' Why don't they call Abraham 'the father of God'? For he was father of all Israel from whence the Lord was born to the world.

I repeat once more:

"Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY (please note the word) WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD."

Hugh Watt is right. It is sinful to take it upon yourself to do, in the Name of God or His Son, what He has not expressly told you do! When Aaron made the golden calf for the people, he did so at a time when the commadments had not been revealed to the Israelites. So would you say that he had not sinned because God had not yet expressly forbade such an act?

I would strongly advice that all Christians return to the bible and stick to it. Do not venture off into the land of man-made doctrine and rites because you will be put to task as to why you did things you had not been told to do.

I'm sorry I didn't include any biblical refrences.

God Bless.

hugh watt said...

JK

I gave a response.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

jonnykzj said...

@Seam_on_us

Good response. You brought up some good points. I'll send them to Rale. Are you protestant? Do u endorse "sola scripture"? If so why if ure protestant then technically u wont be "sola scriptura" coz URE AT LEAST TECHNICALLY IN SOME SENSE following Luther OR HIS INTERPRETATION of the Bible. this is another Critique ORHTHODOX, NOT catholic, Rale brought up. So there r still pts to clear but thts a good start

jonnykzj said...

@Hugh Watt

Rale replied to me regarding that and said that's not the issue COZ Orthodox too accept tht Jesus is the mediator btw man and God BUT tht doesnt mean tht other Christians/beleivers /saints cannot PRAY ON UR BEHALF to God. THEN orthodox Rale adds tht those who're closer to God, their prayers are MORE EFFECTIVE than tht of those who rnt tht. THIS he supoprted with the story of Christians calling Peter in the Bible to raise a dead woman instead of prying themslves n doing so. NOTE also tht the verse ure quotring may refer only to Jesus WHILST HE WAS ON EARTH IN THE FLESH ACTING ON HIS BEING A MAN since Jesus is God Himself. Like now wheilst Jesus is sitting on the right of God and being GoD Himself, it doesnt make sense He's the mediator SINCE HE IS THE VERY ONE. Ive also heard from Christians tht Jesus is now back with God in PURE SPIRIT NOT FLESH which is onyl assumed for the time he was or will be back on earth. tht way it makes much more sense as well.

JamesTheCatholic said...

@Seam_on_Us
You said ""Man must not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD."

True.. and Catholics believe EVERY WORD, but question - where in the Bible does it say that EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD is written in the Bible ? Can you show me a verse ? You cant. Cause there is none.
On the other hand if you do reply, consider the following

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonian 2:15.

Can you explain what those traditions which St Paul referred to as being taught "BY MOUTH" were ? Were all these "BY MOUTH" teachings recorded ? Can you show a verse from the Bible which says what these teachings were and that they were recorded and are NOW in the Bible ? If not are you saying that you disagree with the Bible and say that those traditions which St Paul "BY MOUTH" can be ignored ?
Please explain.

JamesTheCatholic said...

@Seam_on_Us

you say "They csll Mary 'the mother of God.'"

So which of these are you implying ?
1. That Mary is not the mother of Jesus ?
or
2. Jesus is not God ?
or
3. The Son of Man (ie the son of Mary) was not the one who died on the cross.

Since you claim you are Christian, I assume you wouldn't have a problem with accepting Jesus as God, so I'll skip explaining question 2.

If Mary was not the mother of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, then why does St Elizabeth exclaim to Mary "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43 ?

If it was not the Son of Mary, God incarnate, who died on the cross, but a mere man - please explain what the fuss about Christianity is all about anyway ? Even muslims claim that Jesus was just a man. A man dying on the cross does NOTHING to expiate sins against an infinite God(and infinite He is). So how are you even defending Christianity ?

Again you ask "Why don't they call Abraham 'the father of God'? For he was father of all Israel from whence the Lord was born to the world."
You seem to imply some kind of logic where Abraham being the father of all of the Lord's children, somehow does not make Mary the Mother of Jesus who is God. Can you explain what that supposed logic is whence Abraham being Mary's forefather somehow does not make Mary Jesus' mother ? All Catholics (and Orthodox) have believed for 2000 years that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God, as declared (but not originating - but conformed as doctrine) by the 1st Council of Ephesus in 431 AD against the Nestorian heresy, which basically said the same thing that you now say - that Mary is not the mother of God. (Father) Martin Luther believed that Mary is the Theotokos, and so do Lutherans today. So why do you believe that Mary is not the mother of God and expect to know better than divine revelation ?

again you say "Have you ever heard of the Rosary? I realize now how improper and insulting it is to make such intercession to any other being but the Lord."

Sure. What exactly in meditating and praying upon the life, death and resurrection of our Savior, which is what the rosary is(The Joyful, Sorrowful, Luminous and Glorious mysteries), that makes it improper and insulting ? Jesus alone is the one mediator between God and man, mediator because He alone is both God and man, and He alone who was fully God and fully man died for men on the cross, not because He is praying for man (why ? Is there something that God lacks ?), but where does the Bible say that Christians are not to pray for one another or that Christians cease being Christian once they die physically? Do Christians only pray exclusively for themselves ? Do they not pray for their families, for Muslims, for Hindus for Jews et all ?

D335 said...

seam on us and hugh watt just tackle the question you forwarded Johny.

And yes,
in my own response, why do I need Mary when in fact Jesus taught us how to pray to the heavenly Father?

Praying by the intercession of Mary, is like praying according to the "red tapes" of divine bureaucracy.

But NOTE, I debated this before with Catholics, and we didn't stab each other. Do remember that.

D335

Rale said...

@seam_on_us

"Why is Abraham not honoured in the same degree as Mary?"

This is very simple, protestants are usually underestimating the role of Mary in the history of salvation. Mary had the incarnate God in her womb. An orthodox hymn call her "largest than the heavens" (symbolically of course) because she had the One through Whom all was created in her womb. Abraham is indeed the forefather with whom the Old Covenant was initiated, but it is through Mary that the climax of the salvatory plan of God for mankind was accomplished. The Old Covenant by itself cannot bring salvation (see Romans), it is only through the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ that mankind can be saved from death. And here Mary plays a central role cause she was the agent through whom God became man. With her "fiat" (Latin word for "let it be") she has rendered salvation possible. If you look at it objectively, you will see how much more important the role of Mary is. Your comment would be like saying, "isn't Moses more important than Jesus ?" After all, without Moses, there would be no law that was necessary to prepare us for Christ (see Galatians).

"From the scriptures you identified, notice that those Christians called a living, breathing human being who still walked the Earth to come help them."
Indeed, I would be really glad if there could be some people like Peter on earth today. Unfortunately, it is not anymore the case. That's why we often rely to people that are already departed. The other reason it that we notice that saints often start working miracles after their repose. This is for us a sign of confirmation of their sanctity. But anyway, in the passage quoted, the believers didn't pray to God directly, but asked someone to help them because they didn't feel their prayer was strong enough to perform the miracle. This the very attitude we have when we pray to Mary/the saints. Notice also that in the NT, the apostle were still living, so there was no need to pray to departed people.

"They simply asked. (And yes, there is a world of difference between 'asking' and 'praying'.)"
What is the difference? 'Praying' is simply a way of 'asking'.

"If it is a matter of communion, why would you rather commune with the dead than with the living? You may argue that Mary is alive in Heaven so she is not really dead. Wrong! She is dead on earth and that is what matters because the dead cannot do the will of God anymore on Earth. If you doubt this then why do people bother praying for the dead? Why don't the dead pray for themselves?"

Isn't God the God of the living and not of the dead? Isn't death crushed by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And if she is in heaven, she is probably closer to God than anyone else, so probaly more alive than any of us in a spiritual sense, life being understood as closeness to God, Who is the source of life. You seem here to restrain the effect of the Resurrection. Mary and the saints are simply not dead! They live and they are with God in His Kingdom. Our life here is nothing compared to what is waiting for us. Your comment seems to imply that life in the Kingdom of God is a lower state than life on earth!

Rale said...

continued:

"If you doubt this then why do people bother praying for the dead? Why don't the dead pray for themselves?"
We pray for the dead so that God may have mercy on their souls. Obviously, we don't pray for Mary because we know that she doesn't need our prayers for her salvation. BTW, we don't ask anyone for intercession, but only people whose sanctity has been verified. One way of verification is that the saints start working miracles after their death in response to prayers adressed to them, but in the Orthodox Church it is not necessary. It happens very often though.

"And when they asked for his assistance they did not kneel in his presence or genuflect, neither did they sing hymns of praise and adoration to him."
When you kneel to someone, are you necessary comitting adultery? There are examples in the OT when people knelt to kings. You can kneel to anyone without of course implying that the person concerned is equal to God. Genuflexion doesn't imply worship.
Here is also an important distinction to be made. Worship/adoration is due only to God. The Greek term is λατρεια. Mary and the saints can only be venerated. They only deserve our veneration: προσκηνηση. as long as you don't imply that the person is divine, you're not worshiping that person.
BTW, didn't Mary say: "48 Because he has regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1). Do you find that in the Protestant church? The latter usually say: "she's just a women", "she's dead anyway" and stuff like that... I think she deserve a much better position, the honor granted to her a few verses earlier in the chapter. My response is that we have to praise Mary. She said that herself.

"Roman Catholics do not only pray 'through' Mary, they pray 'to' her which is, in and of itself, a sinful act."
If you pray to someone else than God an imply that the person you're praying to is divine, I agree that it is a sin. Adoration belongs only to God, but you can praise anyone that is doing the will of God. Praising for me is the same as giving compliments. I don't see why it should be problem praising someone that has achieved a high degree of sanctity, even the ultimate degree of sanctity in the case of Mary.

"Prayer belongs to God through Jesus Christ, Our Only Lord and Our Only Saviour."
Once again, I repeat that the prayer by itself doesn't mean anything. What is important is to look at the content of the prayer. As long as you draw a clear line between who is divine and who is not, you've got it. For instance, an Arian or Unitarian can pray to Jesus but he wouldn't like to imply that He's divine. Please, take into consideration the content of the prayer and what it implies.

Rale said...

"They csll Mary 'the mother of God.' Why don't they call Abraham 'the father of God'? For he was father of all Israel from whence the Lord was born to the world."
This shows once again that you don't have a clue about Church history. Of course, Protestants didn't exist yet at the time of the councils. So you have an excuse. Guess what, it was the Orthodox Christians who defended the true faith against heresies. There was a guy named Nestorius (V century) who denied that Mary had the God incarnate in her womb. He didn't want to call her Theotokos (the one bearing God) but Christotokos. He pretented that the Verb of God united with the man Jesus only after his birth. This is of course an inacceptable christological heresy. This is why the term Theotokos is important because it implies that Mary really had the divine son of God in her womb. But I agree that the term "Mother of God" can lead to confusion. The Greek term "Theotokos" Θεοτοκος or Latin "Deipara" are more clear. But even when you say "Mother of God", you never imply that she is the mother of the divinity. You only pretend that she is the mother of the man Jesus Who is divine. Onc again, you stick to the terms "prayer", "Mother of God" without trying to understand what lies behind them.

"Hugh Watt is right. It is sinful to take it upon yourself to do, in the Name of God or His Son, what He has not expressly told you do! When Aaron made the golden calf for the people, he did so at a time when the commadments had not been revealed to the Israelites. So would you say that he had not sinned because God had not yet expressly forbade such an act?"
We simply believe that the Holy Spirit is with us for even as the Lord promise and the true historical Church cannot err. As long as you're not doing anything wrong, like deifing the person you're praying to, I don't see what the problem is. Aaron and the Israelites worshipped the calf like a divinity. That's not what we're doing for Mary and the saints. Let's be clear. So the comparison doesn't work.

Rale said...

"I would strongly advice that all Christians return to the bible and stick to it."

BTW, it is the Orthodox Christians that established the canon of the New Testament. In particular, the first time that the 27 books were listed it was in a pastoral letter of a Greek Orthodox father named Athanasius of Alexandria (IV century). So, as we like to say about the Bible: "We gave it to you!"
And what about all the decisions of the Ecumenical councils, in which the Greek Orthodox fathers played a major role (the first major councils were all in the East, there were only legates of the bishop of Rome)? Should we also count them as nothing because it's not the Bible? Heretics like Arius and Nestorius were also relying on the Bible after all. But the Holy Spirit was still at work to inspire the fathers to counter their heretical teachings.
So there are post-biblical decisions that are also extremely important. You should just take a close look at the history of the Arian controversy.

"Do not venture off into the land of man-made doctrine"
Who were Luther, Calvin? There are Christians who call themselves Lutheran, Calvinist... Personnaly I wouldn't dare putting the name of a man in the name of my Church/denomination, let alone call myself "protestant".

Conclusion:
- we are not worshiping Mary or the saints. In no way do we imply that they have any divine power. When we pray to them, it's only to ask for their help. We do also praise them for what they've accomplished, but do not give them any divine attributes. Adoration λατρεια belongs of course only to God.
- Mary and the saints are not dead, they're even much more alive because they're closer to God, the source of life.
- It's very important first to define what lies behind the terms we're using and the actions we're accomplishing. For instance, you have to look first at the content of the prayer before making any assertion.

Rale said...

@hugh watt

You're still in the context of the Old Testament. I would like to inform that Christ is risen and that he has trempled death: "55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Cor 15).

With Christ's Resurrection the barrier between the living and the dead is abolished. The Church in Heaven and the Church on earth are one. There is only one Church whose head is Christ. I think that you're putting a too big barrier between those living on earth and the faithful that already reposed, and thus underestimating the effects of the Resurrection.

If we can't agree on this point, then it obvious that we won't agree on intercessional matters either. We believe that the barrier between the living and the dead is abolished by the Resurrection and for us the prayers for the departed and the prayers to the saints are not a problem.

In other words: Ignore what the Boss says and do what they feel is right as "a profound act of faith."
Once again Christ promised us the presence of the Holy Spirit for ever (John). The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church, even in post-apostolic times. This is in particular evidenced in the teachings of the coucils that you cannot reject because their purpose was to save the Church from heresies.
I'm just wondering what do you guys think the Holy Spirit was doing before Luther came to "save" the Church. That doesn't make any sense. It's like Muhammad claiming six centuries after Christ that he's coming to fix everything up. Here it seems even worse because we have at least twice as much centuries!

Rale said...

@jonnykzj

as you can see from my comments, venerating Mary or the saints doesn't have anything to do with idolatry. Idolatry is when you're divinizing an object or a person. As long as you can draw the line clearly between who's divine and who's not you're not an idolater.

BTW, I'm sorry to announce that the Church of Jesus Christ, permeated by the Holy Spirit, was indulging in idolatry for centuries!!! (I'm kidding)
For more than ten centuries (more than half of the existence of the Church) there were nothing but idolaters out there!
If you follow this logic you have also to reach the conclusion above.
But it doesn't make any sense at all because:
- Christ is the head of the Church and the Church is the body of Christ (see st Paul)
- Christ promised us the presence of the Holy Spirit for ever.
- The gates of Hades won't reach the Church (sorry for not giving the exact references)

Do you thing that being the body of Christ, whose head is Christ Himself, and being with the Holy Spirit (all those are BIBLICAL doctrines) is compatible with being in idolatry.
That simply would make Christianity not reliable because we could not trust the words of our Lord and the teaching of the Bible.

BTW, it is something the protestants cannot provide an authoritative answer to, the same as Muslims cannot explain why everything got so wrong with the plan of God that Muhammad had to come after so long a time to fix things up.

I trust Jesus and I belong to the Church that was there right from the beginning (don't need any Reformation or split).

Rale said...

When we say that Christ is the "mediator" we are refering to Him assuming our humane nature to unite it with God. Intercessional prayers are of a very different register. BTW, we Orthodox don't agree with the doctrine of Mary being the "Comediatrix".

Royal Son said...

I dare say, this thread has been hijacked and the off-topic posts ought to be removed.

D335 said...

This thread is now off-topic, surely please keep it simple and straight. Don't digest everything literally, but rather selectively consider how you can actively participate in broadening knowledge and maintain unity.

No condemnation necessary, disagreement was there even before all of you were even born. You can state where you stand, but please do keep in mind where others would also stand for their faith also.

The moderators of answeringmuslims has been pretty straight forward on the blog Q&A without so much launching random blows to spite every faith there are. I must respect them also.

In respect to Johny question trying to understand Christianity, we can show him what Jesus is all about, but NOT what WE think that Jesus is all about.

@JohnyKZJ
You may learn, but please in respect stay on ONE SUBJECT until you hold to it completely, and not just jumping around to new topics. It only creates more questions than you can answer.

@Rale, Hugh_Watt, Seam_on_Us, James_the_Catholics,

Your contributions are highly appreciated. This is not some B.S. talk from me, but again you all make me appreciate your faiths even more.
I live in a nation in which different opinion of faiths are solved with mob lynching. So do understand, united in Christ, this forum has been great contribution to free speech (and all the risks also).

D335

D335 said...

hmm, sorry I did not mentioned that the difference of opinions regarding faiths in Indonesia, solved by mob lynching, was done by the muslims. LOL

I guess I've appreciate the whole scripture hungry wolf packs in here.

D335

Seam_on_Us said...

@ Rale, johnnykzj & JamesTheCatholic

In order to keep from posting off-topic replies any longer here is my email address:

ebs4allways@yahoo.com

Please send me your own email addresses and I will mail you a reply to you latest posts.

Oh, and hello James. We are actually namesakes. Pleasure to meet you.

God Bless.

hugh watt said...

D335

I agree. This is not worth me pursuing. I put my point, if misunderstood or not understood I can't help that.

What I've asked JK twice now I still have received no answer to, but you keep asking all these many questions. So, I ask again: Can you prove from the Koran that Muhammad was a prophet? I'd like your reply so I can see if you're truly genuine.

Are you not willing to discuss this?

Sam said...

Rale, can you email me at sam_shmn40@hotmail.com? Thank you.

jonnykzj said...

@D335

>>ou may learn, but please in respect stay on ONE SUBJECT until you hold to it completely, and not just jumping around to new topics. It only creates more questions than you can answer.<<

JK- Infact id say my jumping to different topics EVEN IF i did not yet understand one thing COMPLETELY, which i say i prob never wld n am not asking for THE MORE I QS THE CLOSER I FEEL IM GETTING TO CHRIST. So on the contrary it has helped me n many Christians supported me and gave me very good n satisfactor answers. Much of the stuff as u can see i worked out from myself. it is as if im in debate with myself AS WELL as other Christians N IT IS AWESOME. Had my comments not gone through or Christians shown me an attitude like u did in the beginning or somewhere in the middle id perhaps only been repelled from Christ BUT PRAIS GOD THT DIDNT HAPPEN. So i imagine iot wont be long be4 the other region in my brain wld also accept Christ.

jonnykzj said...

@Rale

Very good and detailed explanation. I even think now that had it not been for the Orthodox CHurch practice to APPEAR as if they were worshipping Mary, THEN THE MUHAMMAD WLDVE PROBABLY NEVER INC IN THE QURAN the false statement "Jesus, did you say take ME N MY MOTHER AS TWO GODS BEISDES ALLAH", thinking they took Mary as god n thus exposing himself of not understanding the trinity. That is another issue i only realized recently.

HOWEVER there is one thing id like to point out. Since the english term "pray" often, if not mostly, signifies worship WHY NOT SAY "pray THROUGH Mary" instead of "pray TO Mary"?
ALSO wld Orthodox Christians accept by their understanding of the term "prayer" a phrase like "we pray TO A PERSON ALIVE ON EARTH WHO IS SAINTLY/VERY CLOSE TO GOD" as well e.g. a very practicing priest? Thank you.

D335 said...

I 'm sharing a known fact of how Indonesian Churches solved different views of faiths in the same religion or different religion.

Again, my basis is Indonesia, so I do not claim that it fits in most countries.
-----------------------------------

First of all, disagreements, discussions, debates often happen between interfaiths i.e. Prostestant church with Catholic church, etc etc. Nothing resulted in violence, when in fact we shared phone numbers and had lunches together. Some of us even join a pastoral /ministry exchange program (of course supervised).

Secondly, most of us view that it is our duty to remind a false doctrine, but also to consider that our own faith could be viewed by others as the wrong doctrine. And yes approach by Romans 14 is considered valid.
================================
A solution approached by Indonesian church associations such as PGI (protestant church ass.) or KWI (conference of Indo. catholic bishops)is to let the authority of the land to maintain and upholds the public law.
(that is also regarding what Jesus said about give unto caesar what is caesar's)
=================================
i.e.
- a Jehovah church was forced to close down by the authority when the police are informed by the district attorney regarding an ongoing Pyramid Scheme (which is considered illegal in Indonesia).

- another suicidal sect that was abruptly shutdown and literally raided by the police, followed by mass-arrests made. Apparently the sect followers were to commit mass-suicide on a certain date believing that a UFO will save all their souls up to heaven.
I guess you all can guess which church did this, and we discover the word "mormon" or LDS later on.
(I'm still unable to digest the galactic missionaries idea)

-church of "Children of God" in Indonesia was also raided for a mass orgy involving minors. No need to say that the leaders are still behind bars to this date.

---------->>
Notice that no other churches carried pitchforks and torches, but maintain communication with the law. Also wait for the right time to inform the authority.

While this in fact works inside the protestant and catholic groups but it doesn't work with muslim offshoots.

Conflicts regarding Ahmadiyah and Shiah in Indonesia are often solved with mob lynching, leaving the authority to clean up the mass.

Of course when one's death considered martyrdom, the rest of the followers will undoubtedly be more daring to act. This is what we continuously remind everyone of the downside of mass-action.

Indonesia unfortunately today grows more and more into pro-Islamic sharia rather than secular approach as it used to be.
Note that Indonesian regards our laws to be non-secular, but 5 amendments (Pancasila) which approved 6 religions only. Eventho it works exactly like secularism.

D335
NB: I hope this will give you all an idea of what different views of faiths could be, but also guard ourselves from war-mongering, child-molesting and female raping doctrine /faith.

Rale said...

@everyone
Sorry for creating the confusion! I was just replying extensively to Seam_on_us and Hugh Watt who made some serious attacks on my branch of Christianity (idolatry, sinful actions...)
I also think that we should stick to issues regarding Islam, coz that's what this blog is about. This is problem that concerns all Christians and that we have to tackle all together, whatever our respective denominations.

@jonnykzj
Please stick to topics concerning Islam. If you have questions regarding any denomination, e-mail the concerned person directly. Now you know who's Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.

@Seam_on_us
Click on my name

Rale said...

@David

should we remove (Seam_on_us, Hugh Watt, jamesthecatholic, jonnykzj, and I) remove the off-topics post concerning protestantiscm/catholicism/orthodoxy ?

D335 said...

Sometimes moderator can lock down a thread, but removing comments are a bit... un-right.

even if Christians have disagreements, it shows our own unity against all-odds.

D335