I don’t know where you got this from - but perhaps it was from wiki ~
I don’t believe we do…!!!
I did not say the killing did not happen. I just said that God did not order it. This claim is just made by men to justify their actions.We should get back to Muhammad.While you can understandably think that way, as Christians we certainly have some basis for the killing to really have happened. Again, as I said this is all in context and the facts that lay before us. To non-believers, that facts can be merely equal to belief.Well, that is what going around here afterall, it is all about belief. And therefore we must have ‘fact’ to support that belief.
Simple Christian theology would say that the consequence of sin is death. You sin you die. You don’t sin you stay with God forever. (in a nutshell). Thus the people of Sodom and gemorrah died because of sin. Out of the whole cities, not even five were righteous. Thus God had no choice but they had to face the consequenceof sin. Then there were other towns - Jericho , Ai, which were synonymous with sins and therfore must die.
Was God cruel? In a human sense, yes. In God sense, no. Death or alive makes no difference to God because he is not governed by time and space. It is better if sinners die so as not to spread sin.
Does God love? Yes. Does God forgives? Yes. Is God merciful? Yes. So what did God do? He made a plan of slavation for mankind so that they do not have to die anymore even if they sin. Thus Jesus came.
What about those who have died before Jesus, would they have a chance to go to heaven? Of course, they would be judged on individual merit.
Now people of other religions who do not believe this would be erroneous to judge Christianity but without its context.
So you are a Hindu. I am soooo sorry. I thought all this while you were a Muslim. I guess I got carried away in typing my posts and did not realize that you are a Hindu. One’s religion is always on the right hand corner, right? My bad.
Well the OP who asked the question in the first place is Catholic.
Yeah Reuben - I noticed that right way…So you are a Hindu. I am soooo sorry. I thought all this while you were a Muslim. I guess I got carried away in typing my posts and did not realize that you are a Hindu. One’s religion is always on the right hand corner, right? My bad.
Of course what you say now makes sense. You don’t believe in all this. Your premise for your argument is from you, as a Hindu. Of course you do not believe in the great flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jericho and Ai and the killing of the innocent first born of the Egyptian. You do not believe in the Bible. You based your argument from the perspective of a Hindu God.
It is hard to discuss with you because we do not have the same premise. You should direct your post to the Muslim posters since Mohammad is a Muslim prophet. Our opinion on Mohammad is based on our belief as Christians. No wonder we seem to be talking in a different wavelength.
Yes, I agree. Let’s not derail the thread by digressing. This is after all a Mohammad’s thread.
Please no changing of the subject.
Just to answer your question, I do believe in the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament. I do believe in the history about the flood, Jericho, Ai (not so much the Egyptian first born). Much of the Old Testament is made up history by some rather violent people while blaming God for their own violence and killings. I can’t understand how Christians can reconcile this idea that God can order massacres while believing in the loving God of the New Testament. The fact is that it just is not true that God ordered any such thing, just as the earth is not 6000 years old and the Sun does not revolve around the earth.So you are a Hindu. I am soooo sorry. I thought all this while you were a Muslim. I guess I got carried away in typing my posts and did not realize that you are a Hindu. One’s religion is always on the right hand corner, right? My bad.
Of course what you say now makes sense. You don’t believe in all this. Your premise for your argument is from you, as a Hindu. Of course you do not believe in the great flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jericho and Ai and the killing of the innocent first born of the Egyptian. You do not believe in the Bible. You based your argument from the perspective of a Hindu God.
It is hard to discuss with you because we do not have the same premise. You should direct your post to the Muslim posters since Mohammad is a Muslim prophet. Our opinion on Mohammad is based on our belief as Christians. No wonder we seem to be talking in a different wavelength.
Yes, I agree. Let’s not derail the thread by digressing. This is after all a Mohammad’s thread.
I am not changing the topic of the thread -
As a matter of interest the Malay and Indonesian language (Bahasa) are very
The Bismillah (hope thats the right spellng) States somethig to this effect
It’s called the Shahada:
Hinduism does not have a single or common historical founder. Hinduism, or as some say ‘Hinduisms,’ does not have a single system of salvation and has different goals according to each sect or denomination. The forms of Vedic religion are seen not as an alternative to Hinduism, but as its earliest form, and there is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between Vedism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism. According to Supreme court of India “unlike other religions in the World, the Hindu religion does not claim any one Prophet, it does not worship any one God, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow any one act of religious rites or performances, in fact, it does not satisfy the traditional features of a religion or creed. It is a way of life and nothing more”.
The subject is likely to have a different view, but a general observation:
I don’t know if most Hindus believe Muhammad was a prophet. Some probably do and many probably don’t. I am not sure how much Muhammad had to do with the invasion of India, they may have invaded even if they were not muslims.
There were no Arab invasions into India in the 7-8th century. Islam was introduced into southern India through Arab traders in that time period, but no conquest by armies occurred. India at that time was a multitude of states each governed by a different leader. Besides, there was no religious unity. Hinduism was different in different localities in India. Islamic invasion into the Indian Subcontinent occurred during the time of the Crusades, and it was not conducted by Arabs or Persians, but by Turkic people from the north. The Mughal empire got started as a result of Genghis Khan’s Hordes swarming over central Asia.