BS! Muhammad violent SINFUL dead Murderer! Islam/Quran is corrupt! Jesus/Healed/Blessed/Peace/Salvation/GOD! All MUSLIMS who converted to Christianity ARE HAPPY & FREE OF ABUSE & MISERY Islam leaders are killing you! Christians LOVE YOU! PLEASE accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! REBEL & ACCEPT JESUS! Be FREE of ISLAM LIES Visit cbn.com /radio
Sahih Bukhari No. 4747 - Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
why do u follow a son of a whore as prophet huh? shame on u muslim
@chillzz25 Christians have a sexual complex. At least in Islam we can chose to marry either virgins or older women. But in Christianity , if you marry a non-virgin you commit adultery.
This is the full Hadith:
" When we approached Medina, I started going (towards my house). The Prophet said, "Where are you going?" I Sad, "I have married a widow." He said, "Why have you not married a virgin to fondle with each other?" I said, "My father died and left daughters....
did you just equate shirk with a fatwa over mickey mouse?
so if someone commits shirk , your answer is yes and theres scholars who say we must kill mickey mouse
that song is a poem made by sufis and the sufis are the ones that honor it, Why dont you read the lyrics in arabic, theres a lot of too much love in that song, and little mention of praise of Allah
a fatwa over mickey mouse, is not too be confused with open shirk which is the unforgivable sin
McArthur is quite clearly wrong in using the passage from Luke 22 in support of his view. A careful investigation of the context of that passage will bear this out.
As for the issue of defensive war, I have never heard David Wood affirming a view that there is no such a thing as a legitimate defensive war. My understanding of what he argues is that there should be no wars fought in the name of Christianity.
" there should be no wars fought in the name of Christianity."
That what John Mac Arthur has said in that clip. But David wood is against violence in general ( see his debate with Abdullah al Andulsi) . You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you are to love your enemy, bless them who persecute you, or to fight them in self defense. The Bible can teach you anything you want. You can be pacifist or a warrior, for marriage ( genesis) or against ( Paul)...
If John Mac Arthur with his 150 books , Bible commentaries, 8000 attendance weekly in his church .. Got it wrong, who will get it right? The Muslims?
The problem is that the most influential Christians, are Christians like Mac Arthur, so what is the use of your " true" teachings?
As for me , Luke 22:35 doesn't make sense, just like the story where the soldiers fell back when Jesus says " I am he" , the stories are just silly and unhistorical, purely theological propaganda.
I don't know whether MacArthur uses that passage as a support for his view in his writings. Brief TV interview doesn't bring out the best of scholarship.
I won't get into detailed discussion over the historicity of the Gospels here. Just note that the soldiers falling back when Jesus says "I am he" (actually "I Am", meaning the name of God) makes perfect sense if we understand that the Gospel teaches Jesus' divinity and this was a brief moment of disclosure of his veiled glory.
Can you point me to a specific statement made by David in that debate? I have listened to it (a while ago) and I would be a bit surprised if he said what you think he said.
Abdullah 's position in that debate is that Christians scholars support war for self defense, David wood objected to that position, David wood threw the writings of Augustine down the well , like you did with Mac Arthur on Luke 22:35.
I still think that he quite possibly didn't argue exactly what you think he did (and I think I know where the misunderstanding would arise) but I need to listen to the debate again just to make sure if I'm correct on certain details.
I saw nothing in that clip (nor in his opening statement) that would amount to the view that there is no such thing as legitimate defensive war. In fact, during his rebuttal he says he believes that war as a last resort to fight for justice is acceptable and that in his view, a Christian can be in the military. So it seems that you may be misconstruing his view. Perhaps you are assuming that Christianity's personal ethic is somehow directly extrapolated to government functions?
Loving enemies and fighting the enemy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The individual people who fight on the enemy's side are not in control of everything that the enemy as a collective body does and the aim can be to put the enemy (as a collective body) out of power rather than killing every individual on that side. In a fallen world, a conflict of interests may arise (such as the need to resist an oppressor vs. respecting the value of people) and solutions are difficult.
Perhaps I was unclear. In a fallen world, there can be moral duties that come into conflict. In such situations, one should try to keep all duties to the greatest extent that it is possible. Assuming a justifiable war, one could try to bring down the enemy by using as much force as is needed but not more than needed. Love for individual enemies could still be shown in avoiding all unnecessary killing, treating prisoners with respect, avoiding most inhumane forms of warfare, etc.
Well, it was you who insisted on applying this passage to war situations in the first place. It's unclear whether it is primarily intended for such situations in the first place. And you don't seem to have come to grips with the reality that in this life, there ARE situations where prima facie moral obligations conflict so that one can't fulfill them both in their entirety.
Anyway, do you admit that you misconstrued Wood's position?
So what I understand of you is that both David Wood and Mac Arthur are wrong.
Can you show me what in NT legitimizes self defense, other than Luke 22:36? And please remember your position, the OT is the OLD covenant, as we always hear in debates.
christians have a problem with Jesus advocating war in self defense! Yet according to Revelation Jesus shall rule with an "iron rod" (offensive), he shall command the killing of jews who didn't accept him as King (Luke 19:27). Luke 19:27 is similar to 2 Chron 6:12 where GOD says "Kill those who don't accept the LORD". Yet, Luke 19:27 is a prophecy about the future, it doesn't say "Slay those who deny me as Lord" but "Slay those who deny me as KING", doesn't apply to Muslims.
This has been flagged as spam show
BS! Muhammad violent SINFUL dead Murderer! Islam/Quran is corrupt! Jesus/Healed/Blessed/Peace/Salvation/GOD! All MUSLIMS who converted to Christianity ARE HAPPY & FREE OF ABUSE & MISERY Islam leaders are killing you! Christians LOVE YOU! PLEASE accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! REBEL & ACCEPT JESUS! Be FREE of ISLAM LIES Visit cbn.com /radio
tigersforchrist 3 months ago
Here is ur filthy false prophet muhammad
Sahih Bukhari No. 4747 - Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, "What type of lady have you married?" I replied, "I have married a matron' He said, "Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?" Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?'
why do u follow a son of a whore as prophet huh? shame on u muslim
chillzz25 1 year ago
@chillzz25 Christians have a sexual complex. At least in Islam we can chose to marry either virgins or older women. But in Christianity , if you marry a non-virgin you commit adultery.
This is the full Hadith:
" When we approached Medina, I started going (towards my house). The Prophet said, "Where are you going?" I Sad, "I have married a widow." He said, "Why have you not married a virgin to fondle with each other?" I said, "My father died and left daughters....
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
btw are you sufi? the song at the beginning has alot of a shirk like sayings and scholars go against it
marcelcol69 3 months ago in playlist More videos from 1MoreMuslim
@marcelcol69 shirk like what exactly, it's a prayer. a prayer cannot be shirk.
1MoreMuslim 3 months ago
@1MoreMuslim
say muhammad peace on him, is the prince of the two worlds or beings and repeating praise it is not exactly a prayer
its more like exaggerated praise
marcelcol69 3 months ago
@marcelcol69 And there are scholars who say that we must kill Mickey Mouse.
1MoreMuslim 3 months ago
@1MoreMuslim
im sorry
did you just equate shirk with a fatwa over mickey mouse?
so if someone commits shirk , your answer is yes and theres scholars who say we must kill mickey mouse
that song is a poem made by sufis and the sufis are the ones that honor it, Why dont you read the lyrics in arabic, theres a lot of too much love in that song, and little mention of praise of Allah
a fatwa over mickey mouse, is not too be confused with open shirk which is the unforgivable sin
marcelcol69 3 months ago
@chillzz25
... so I decided to marry a widow (an experienced woman) (to look after them)." He said, "Well done."
So you filthy half truth teller, you are blocked.
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago 2
@1MoreMuslim i loved this argument of your! hahahaha lol... funny. Masha Allah! Let them burn in their own hatred...
SuperMaryam16 6 months ago
@chillzz25
shame on you changing up hadith
marcelcol69 3 months ago in playlist More videos from 1MoreMuslim
McArthur is quite clearly wrong in using the passage from Luke 22 in support of his view. A careful investigation of the context of that passage will bear this out.
As for the issue of defensive war, I have never heard David Wood affirming a view that there is no such a thing as a legitimate defensive war. My understanding of what he argues is that there should be no wars fought in the name of Christianity.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas
" there should be no wars fought in the name of Christianity."
That what John Mac Arthur has said in that clip. But David wood is against violence in general ( see his debate with Abdullah al Andulsi) . You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you are to love your enemy, bless them who persecute you, or to fight them in self defense. The Bible can teach you anything you want. You can be pacifist or a warrior, for marriage ( genesis) or against ( Paul)...
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
If John Mac Arthur with his 150 books , Bible commentaries, 8000 attendance weekly in his church .. Got it wrong, who will get it right? The Muslims?
The problem is that the most influential Christians, are Christians like Mac Arthur, so what is the use of your " true" teachings?
As for me , Luke 22:35 doesn't make sense, just like the story where the soldiers fell back when Jesus says " I am he" , the stories are just silly and unhistorical, purely theological propaganda.
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
I don't know whether MacArthur uses that passage as a support for his view in his writings. Brief TV interview doesn't bring out the best of scholarship.
I won't get into detailed discussion over the historicity of the Gospels here. Just note that the soldiers falling back when Jesus says "I am he" (actually "I Am", meaning the name of God) makes perfect sense if we understand that the Gospel teaches Jesus' divinity and this was a brief moment of disclosure of his veiled glory.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
Can you point me to a specific statement made by David in that debate? I have listened to it (a while ago) and I would be a bit surprised if he said what you think he said.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas
Abdullah 's position in that debate is that Christians scholars support war for self defense, David wood objected to that position, David wood threw the writings of Augustine down the well , like you did with Mac Arthur on Luke 22:35.
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
I still think that he quite possibly didn't argue exactly what you think he did (and I think I know where the misunderstanding would arise) but I need to listen to the debate again just to make sure if I'm correct on certain details.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas
watch?v=0hP4Ks2vddU&feature=related
Cannot be clearer than that.
You didn't answer , how do you reconcile Love your enemy and fight them.?
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
I saw nothing in that clip (nor in his opening statement) that would amount to the view that there is no such thing as legitimate defensive war. In fact, during his rebuttal he says he believes that war as a last resort to fight for justice is acceptable and that in his view, a Christian can be in the military. So it seems that you may be misconstruing his view. Perhaps you are assuming that Christianity's personal ethic is somehow directly extrapolated to government functions?
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
Loving enemies and fighting the enemy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The individual people who fight on the enemy's side are not in control of everything that the enemy as a collective body does and the aim can be to put the enemy (as a collective body) out of power rather than killing every individual on that side. In a fallen world, a conflict of interests may arise (such as the need to resist an oppressor vs. respecting the value of people) and solutions are difficult.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas
"The individual people who fight on the enemy's side are not in control of everything that the enemy as a collective body does "
The individual people fighting who? Another enemy? You Still don't follow the commandment of Jesus.
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
Perhaps I was unclear. In a fallen world, there can be moral duties that come into conflict. In such situations, one should try to keep all duties to the greatest extent that it is possible. Assuming a justifiable war, one could try to bring down the enemy by using as much force as is needed but not more than needed. Love for individual enemies could still be shown in avoiding all unnecessary killing, treating prisoners with respect, avoiding most inhumane forms of warfare, etc.
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas
" Love for individual enemies could still be shown in avoiding all unnecessary killing,"
So if it's necessary to kill your enemy , you just kill. You are just beating around the bush.
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
@1MoreMuslim
Well, it was you who insisted on applying this passage to war situations in the first place. It's unclear whether it is primarily intended for such situations in the first place. And you don't seem to have come to grips with the reality that in this life, there ARE situations where prima facie moral obligations conflict so that one can't fulfill them both in their entirety.
Anyway, do you admit that you misconstrued Wood's position?
HaecceitasQuidditas 1 year ago
@HaecceitasQuidditas
So what I understand of you is that both David Wood and Mac Arthur are wrong.
Can you show me what in NT legitimizes self defense, other than Luke 22:36? And please remember your position, the OT is the OLD covenant, as we always hear in debates.
1MoreMuslim 1 year ago
christians have a problem with Jesus advocating war in self defense! Yet according to Revelation Jesus shall rule with an "iron rod" (offensive), he shall command the killing of jews who didn't accept him as King (Luke 19:27). Luke 19:27 is similar to 2 Chron 6:12 where GOD says "Kill those who don't accept the LORD". Yet, Luke 19:27 is a prophecy about the future, it doesn't say "Slay those who deny me as Lord" but "Slay those who deny me as KING", doesn't apply to Muslims.
muslim9x9x 1 year ago