German Muslim professor expressed his doubt that Muhammad ever lived.

[Zlatan]

Salaam/ peace

I am not asking about personal incidents. After 9/11 , why Christian majority countries attacked Afghanistan ?

Based on lies , why Christians majority countries attacked Iraq ?

Why Crusaders killed thousands & thousands Muslims including kids ?

Bangladesh

hhaha and muslims are any better? The muslim turks murdered my prople for hundreds of years. they raped our women and stole our children brainwashing them in islam and putting them in the sultan’s Janissaries.

wikiislam.com/wiki/History_of_Jihad_Against_the_Croats_and_Slovenes

The muslim turks went on to massacre millions of there christian subjects.These massacres are the hamidian masacres wich killed 300,00 armenians, the Armenian genocide which killed over a million armenians, The adana massacre which killed 30,000 armenians, the Assyrian genocide killed 700,000 Assyrian christians,the pontic greek killed 360,000 greeks. So before you go on about the crusades i suggest you research muslim history.

The fact of the matter is that the crusaders were not about invading muslim lands as muslims always claim. The muslims are the ones who invaded christian land in the Levant ruled by the byzentine empire. The crusades were a response to this isalmic invasion, The byzentine empror Alexios requested help from petitioned the pope for help and he was sent vast crusader armies which suprised him as he was only hoping for a small group of elite knights. But those lands were not muslim to begin with, the muslims were theinvaders. They ahd been chrsitian for 500 years. Yes the crusaders murdered many people but then again so too did muslim jihadists

 

[Sam_777]

Please do not judge Islam by what the Muslim countries are doing. Do not mix politics with religion. You must have noticed Paris in France is a christian city /country. Do you know what goes on in the city? Will you take that as a christian behaviour? Surely not. So please understand the reply to your question. We respect your attitude of tolerance and decency.

Brother planten,

France or any other country is not a Christian country, there is nothing called Christian countries, those are secular countries that host Christian Churches & people.

Please keep in mind that Jesus kingdom is not of this world per (John 18:36).

 

[Sam_777]

I remember seeing on the “Walking the Bible” series on PBS that at St. Catherine’s Orthodox monastery, they have a promise from Muhammed, complete with original handprint, not to destroy the monastery.

You mean The Charter of Privileges, which was overridden upon the completion of Quran & Hadith.

 

[Contarini]

If you want to read about their tactics of war - read the koran and peruse the hadiths.

The hadith impose restrictions on violence during war that are quite admirable in many ways–no killing of women, for instance (compare the Crusader chronicle that reports the massacre of some Muslim women with no sense of guilt). Of course, there are serious flaws morally with these laws of war–the acceptance of enslavement, for instance, including sexual exploitation of women (the same Crusader chronicle mentions with evident self-congratulation that the Crusaders did not rape the women, they just killed them–I don’t think you want to claim that this is superior to the Islamic approach, but obviously both are pretty awful).

I’m not arguing for moral equivalence. I am arguing that both Christians and Muslims have a tarnished historical record, tarnished in different ways. Christians are more able to place a “pure” essence of Christianity “above the fray,” but we do this at a heavy price–spiritualizing our religion to the point that it has little relevance to what Christians actually do. So I’m cautious about this tactic, and I’d encourage you to be cautious as well.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Can you give me one simple example when in the past or present Christians obeyed their Saviour ?

There are all sorts of examples of this. One of the most striking is the sixteenth-century Christian (an Anabaptist) who was running from his persecutors, and one of the pursuers fell through the ice and was drowning in the frozen river. The Christian turned back and saved the life of the man who was chasing him, and because he did this he was caught and executed.

Now here’s the catch: the pursuers were also Christians. I will freely admit that Christians have a very mixed record, and that examples of obeying Christ in this regard tend to be on an individual level or to come from small minority groups, often persecuted by other Christians. But it is not true that Christians have never obeyed Jesus. We have obeyed Him fitfully, occasionally, and imperfectly. But we have obeyed Him here and there.

This I think is one of the big differences between Christians and Muslims. You have a low enough standard that large societies have some hope of following it. We don’t. Most Christians are always going to be bad Christians. In fact, I would say that we are all bad Christians. The standard is just too high. But I wouldn’t swap it for your more accommodating one no matter what the advantages of that might be. It’s worth it. And our standard is based on Jesus Christ, who is God Incarnate.

Your religion aims to create a society of people who submit to God’s will and obey a reasonably interpreted version of God’s law, with emphasis on ritual actions and social cohesion. Our religion creates a mystical body of human beings united to God in the person of Jesus Christ. They are two different religions with two different goals. By your standards, our religion is a failure. By ours, your religion doesn’t even set itself goals worthy of human beings created in God’s image.

Edwin

 

[Muslim_Woman]

Salaam/peace

where did u get this info ?

you yourself have advanced such amazingly structured and coherent analysis as 2/3 of Christians I met online said been gay is ok.

I find it very dangerous that some or many Christians believe they won’t be accountable on the last day. This belief could lead anyone to commit any sin.

A convert Christian ( ex Muslim ) told me he became Christian because on the last day no Christian will be punished. I asked Christians in other forums if they think it’s ok for missionaries to tell Muslims this .

I was surprised & shocked that participants think it was ok to tell so .

I sincerely hope , the Muslims who are engaged in immoral acts don’t dare to think that on the last day , they won’t be accountable . But those gay Christians had no fear . They think Jesus (p) paid the price & they won’t be punished. Can you see the difference here ?

I am not attacking Christians. As a believer , I think , when one has no fear to face God , s/he can do any sin. This fearless attitude of some Christians may keep them away to offer repentacne / ask God for forgiveness—a very very dangerous attitude …is not it ?

 

[Muslim_Woman]

Salaam/peace

if you deny mohammed ever existed you can still be a muslim because all the word muslim means is “one who submits to god”

submits to God means obeying His all commands including accepting His Prophets .

We can’t accept one Prophet & reject another . So , it’s not possible for anyone to be a Muslim if s/he has doubt that the last Prophet or any ohter Prophet ever lived.

"The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith.
Each one of them believes in God, His angels, His books, and His Messengers.

They say: ‘We make no distinction between one and another of His Messengers.’

And they say: ‘We hear, and we obey. We seek Thy forgiveness, Our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys.’" (Al-Baqarah, 2:285)

 

[R_not]

shaitan/satan is called a kafir because because satan rebelled against God, that’s one definition, there are others

kufr : “that which covers the truth”, infidelity, blasphemy, rebellion against God, disbelieving in the Qur’an or any of the tenets of islam ( rejects the faith ).

someone who commits kufr is a kafir

here’s some verses :

But they who disbelieve (wa’llazina kafaru), and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein ( 2:39 )

exact word kafir :

waaaminuu bimaa anzaltu mushaddiqan limaa ma’akum walaa takuunuu awwala kaafirin bihi walaa tasytaruu bi-aayaatii tsamanan qaliilan wa-iyyaaya faittaquuni ( 2:41 )

And believe in what I reveal, Confirming the revelation which is with you, And be not the first to reject faith therein, Nor sell My signs for a small price, and fear me and me alone’ ( 2 : 41 )

huwa alladzii khalaqakum faminkum kaafirun waminkum mu/minun waallaahu bimaa ta’maluuna bashiirun ( 64:2 )

It is He who has created you; and of you are some that are unbelievers, and some that are believers; and Allah sees well all that ye do’ ( 64 : 2 )

so, it doesnt mean he/she has to be a combatant, hostile nonbeliever, etc. for a non-muslim to be called kafir.

Basically rejecting islam means one is a kafir and can be killed.

frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=76B12F33-3165-47D1-80ED-C3F1ACD07D8A

Here is a quote since I know you are unable to read websites out of fear.

**Islamic doctrine defines what is moderate and not moderate. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is dualistic. Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. This follows from the Koran. The early Koran, which was written in Mecca is generally religious. The Koran written in Medina is very political and includes jihad. The two Korans are not only very different, but they also contradict each other in major ways.

So we have the possibility of two kinds of moderate Muslims, since we have two doctrines. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim, who follows the Koran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kafirs call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Koran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Medinan Muslim.

The jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals.

The other kind of moderate Muslim follows the Koran of Mecca and he is more generally what kafirs mean when they say “moderate Muslim”. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir, but he isn’t violent, just antagonistic.

FP: So tell us exactly what “kafir” means. We take it to mean unbeliever but I presume it is more complicated than that.

Warner: The usual translation of this Arabic word is unbeliever, but unbeliever is only a very small part of its meaning. It is the Koran that defines the word “kafir” and it says the most terrible things can happen to them. The Koranic doctrine about kafirs says they are hated and are Satan’s friends. Kafirs can be robbed, killed, tortured, raped, mocked, cursed, condemned and plotted against. The Koran does not have one good thing to say about kafirs. (There are some psuedo-good words, but more about them later.)

For over the last 1400 years, 270 million kafirs have died as a result of the political doctrine of Islam. It is the biggest single source of suffering in the history of the world.

The word kafir is the worst word in the human language. It is far worse than the n-word, because the n-word is a personal opinion, whereas, kafir is Allah’s decree. Nearly two thirds of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. Islam is fixated on the kafir and the moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir. How moderate is that? **

 

[planten]

Define Kafir as much as you like. Kafir is not a simple disbeliever. Any peaceful non-believer is not a Kafir. Let every one not believe. There is no ham. But any one who will fight Islam or who will abuse any prophet of God will be a kafir.

There were Kafirs in the time of Jesus too. His opponents have been described as Kafirs in the Quran. So what is the problem of the christians about this Arabic word. Kafir is an external enemy of Islam.

 

[R_not]

The hadith impose restrictions on violence during war that are quite admirable in many ways–no killing of women, for instance (compare the Crusader chronicle that reports the massacre of some Muslim women with no sense of guilt). Of course, there are serious flaws morally with these laws of war–the acceptance of enslavement, for instance, including sexual exploitation of women (the same Crusader chronicle mentions with evident self-congratulation that the Crusaders did not rape the women, they just killed them–I don’t think you want to claim that this is superior to the Islamic approach, but obviously both are pretty awful).

I’m not arguing for moral equivalence. I am arguing that both Christians and Muslims have a tarnished historical record, tarnished in different ways. Christians are more able to place a “pure” essence of Christianity “above the fray,” but we do this at a heavy price–spiritualizing our religion to the point that it has little relevance to what Christians actually do. So I’m cautious about this tactic, and I’d encourage you to be cautious as well.

Edwin

The problem with your premise is that muslims declare war on non-muslims in the usual sense of the word. The government enacting a declaration of war - which is what most are used to. Instead, a declaration of war in islam is for any individual to do. It is called jihad and jihad is to islam as the Resurrection is to Christians.

Basically, in islam the world is divided up into two realms - dar al harb and dar al islam. And in dar al harb (the realm of war) **“Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world… If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them.” World peace, according to Islamic teaching, “is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam.” **

this is why there are so many aggressive battles (about 35) in this world being waged against non-muslims. In some instances it is downright genocide, as in Africa.

And this is how they twist definitions: **Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of “opening” the world to Islam. “[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.”

In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war. This explains, by the way, why “moderate” Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are terrorists. It is because jihad itself is not war, but a way of pursuing peace. By such manipulations of language and such massive double standards, Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims.
**

This website has Jihad and what it means, but also what kafir means to non-muslims:
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CEFECC23-C7F3-451D-B9C4-AF07A0E41DE2

 

[R_not]

Define Kafir as much as you like. Kafir is not a simple disbeliever. Any peaceful non-believer is not a Kafir. Let every one not believe. There is no ham. But any one who will fight Islam or who will abuse any prophet of God will be a kafir.

There were Kafirs in the time of Jesus too. His opponents have been described as Kafirs in the Quran. So what is the problem of the christians about this Arabic word. Kafir is an external enemy of Islam.

You are misleading us again. Read post #93 - you are not telling us the definitions of these things according to muslims.

Also, if you want to apply the word ‘kafir’ to people who didn’t believe in Jesus during His time - here is something that probably hasn’t occurred to you. Jesus didn’t kill them, He didn’t tell His followers to kill them - He forgave them for killing Him, but even then He said nothing bad about them, such as they are evil for not believing - as I, and others, get from the koran, hadiths and muslims on these threads.

 

[planten]

You are misleading us again. Read post #93 - you are not telling us the definitions of these things according to muslims.

Also, if you want to apply the word ‘kafir’ to people who didn’t believe in Jesus during His time - here is something that probably hasn’t occurred to you. Jesus didn’t kill them, He didn’t tell His followers to kill them - He forgave them for killing Him, but even then He said nothing bad about them, such as they are evil for not believing - as I, and others, get from the koran, hadiths and muslims on these threads.

I did not and would not apply the word Kafir to those who did not believe in Jesus. I would apply it only to those who were utter enemies of Jesus. And that is what I had written.

 

[Angelos]

Define Kafir as much as you like. Kafir is not a simple disbeliever. Any peaceful non-believer is not a Kafir. Let every one not believe. There is no ham. But any one who will fight Islam or who will abuse any prophet of God will be a kafir.

There were Kafirs in the time of Jesus too. His opponents have been described as Kafirs in the Quran. So what is the problem of the christians about this Arabic word. Kafir is an external enemy of Islam.

The Koran defines the word Kafir as an unbeliever and implies that every Kafir is an enemy:

Surah 3:28
Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
**
Surah 60:1**
O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth, driving out the Apostle and yourselves because you believe in Allah, your Lord? If you go forth struggling hard in My path and seeking My pleasure, would you manifest love to them?

 

[R_not]

I did not and would not apply the word Kafir to those who did not believe in Jesus. I would apply it only to those who were utter enemies of Jesus. And that is what I had written.

I am saying that even if you want to consider those who were against Jesus, and those who even killed Him, were kafir - the difference is that Jesus didn’t kill them, nor did He tell His followers to kill them. Instead, He forgave them and asked God the Father to forgive them.

A very, big difference - when kafir is used in islam - it is an a-ok thing to do to kill 'em.

 

[planten]

I am saying that even if you want to consider those who were against Jesus, and those who even killed Him, were kafir - the difference is that Jesus didn’t kill them, nor did He tell His followers to kill them. Instead, He forgave them and asked God the Father to forgive them.

A very, big difference - when kafir is used in islam - it is an a-ok thing to do to kill 'em.

**Did Jesus have any chance to kill them?. He was only abusing them as much as he could. But he was helpless in the face of opposion when all his disciples (according to bible) fled the scene. What could he do? Did he have any army? He could do nothing except what he did and went up the cross.

If he was free and he had the resources and then he forgave his enemies then it would been a great work of Grace.But under the circumstances, there is no such thing.
**

 

[Analyzer]

And not to mention Jesus’ SEVEN or EIGHT WOES (reported in the Gospel “according” to St. Matthew - Chapter 23), overthrowing money-changer’s tables in the temple compound in Jerusalem. …ecc. yet having no army or force.

 

[R_not]

**Did Jesus have any chance to kill them?. He was only abusing them as much as he could. But he was helpless in the face of opposion when all his disciples (according to bible) fled the scene. What could he do? Did he have any army? He could do nothing except what he did and went up the cross.

If he was free and he had the resources and then he forgave his enemies then it would been a great work of Grace.But under the circumstances, there is no such thing.
**

He knew they would leave Him, He said as much at the Last Supper. For what you look on as weak, we look on as necessary. In islam everything has to be a blood bath. Jesus was a perfect example, and compare that to mohammed who just figured killing 'em, looting, enslavement, etc was the way to go. mohammed should be compared more to the Roman soldiers and Barrabas in his behavior - poor behavior. Just lob their heads off! There is no concept of forgiveness for people not of their own in mohammed’s ‘religion’. Something that Jesus certainly taught, something that mohammed did not.

In fact, from all the writings on mohammed - he could not forgive - he was too self-important, he set himself above others by his behavior and he was making up allah as he lived his days. Whenever he wanted something all he did was say ‘allah told me to do it’, or ‘allah said it’. That is why islam is only concerned with the flesh, even in its heaven it is nothing but an orgy with women and little boys - I guess break time is eating a bunch of stuff and wine - and then back to the orgy!

Here are some hadiths that show that even when mohammed was in mecca - mohammed was not a very, nice guy. All these myths that his time in Meccas was peaceful is a fairy tale until one looks further into islam’s own writtings!

This one has one that says that mohammed’s time in Mecca wasn’t so peaceful, in fact he was harassing and bothering people and his own uncle was disturbed by his poor behavior:

Ishaq:119 “'Abu Tabib, your nephew Muhammad has cursed our gods [at this point he had cursed all of them, including Allah], insulted our religion [more correctly, insulted them by trying to steal their religion], mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you stop him or let us get to him. For you, like us, are in opposition to him. He gave them a conciliatory reply. They returned a second time and said, ‘We have asked you to put a stop to your nephew’s activities but you have not done so. By Allah, we cannot endure having our fathers reviled and our customs mocked.’ Muhammad thought that his uncle had the idea of abandoning and betraying him, and that he was going to lose his support. The Apostle broke into tears.”

Tabari VI:93 “The Quraysh went to Abu Talib and said, ‘Your nephew [Muhammad] has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values, and told us that our forefathers were misguided [and burning in hell]. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are as opposed to him as we are.’ They said, ‘We asked you to forbid your nephew from attacking us, but you did nothing. By Allah, we can no longer endure this vilification of our forefathers, this derision of our traditional values, and this abuse of our gods.’ This breach and enmity with his tribe weighed heavily on Talib. ‘Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god.’”

Tabari VI:95 “Abu Talib sent for Muhammad. ‘Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you. You should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god.’”

Tabari VI:96 “Abu Talib said to Muhammad, ‘Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?’ The Messenger said, 'I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah [submission tax] to them.”

And thanks for showing your true colors on what you think Jesus was. I already knew that muslims don’t even honor Jesus, and you even admit that you think that all He did was to abuse people.

 

[Angelos]

And not to mention Jesus’ SEVEN or EIGHT WOES (reported in the Gospel “according” to St. Matthew - Chapter 23), overthrowing money-changer’s tables in the temple compound in Jerusalem. …ecc. yet having no army or force.

Another silly and funny argument from you. LOL You are at least consistent.

Jesus denounced the Pharisees and scribes with His woes and overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple ALL BY HIMSELF and in His divine authority. He never organised a riot or brainwashed His dicisples for an insurrection. Why? Because His kingdom is not from this world, but from ABOVE.

 

[planten]

He knew they would leave Him, He said as much at the Last Supper. For what you look on as weak, we look on as necessary. In islam everything has to be a blood bath. Jesus was a perfect example, and compare that to mohammed who just figured killing 'em, looting, enslavement, etc was the way to go. mohammed should be compared more to the Roman soldiers and Barrabas in his behavior - poor behavior. Just lob their heads off! There is no concept of forgiveness for people not of their own in mohammed’s ‘religion’. Something that Jesus certainly taught, something that mohammed did not.

In fact, from all the writings on mohammed - he could not forgive - he was too self-important, he set himself above others by his behavior and he was making up allah as he lived his days. Whenever he wanted something all he did was say ‘allah told me to do it’, or ‘allah said it’. That is why islam is only concerned with the flesh, even in its heaven it is nothing but an orgy with women and little boys - I guess break time is eating a bunch of stuff and wine - and then back to the orgy!

Here are some hadiths that show that even when mohammed was in mecca - mohammed was not a very, nice guy. All these myths that his time in Meccas was peaceful is a fairy tale until one looks further into islam’s own writtings!

This one has one that says that mohammed’s time in Mecca wasn’t so peaceful, in fact he was harassing and bothering people and his own uncle was disturbed by his poor behavior:

Ishaq:119 “'Abu Tabib, your nephew Muhammad has cursed our gods [at this point he had cursed all of them, including Allah], insulted our religion [more correctly, insulted them by trying to steal their religion], mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you stop him or let us get to him. For you, like us, are in opposition to him. He gave them a conciliatory reply. They returned a second time and said, ‘We have asked you to put a stop to your nephew’s activities but you have not done so. By Allah, we cannot endure having our fathers reviled and our customs mocked.’ Muhammad thought that his uncle had the idea of abandoning and betraying him, and that he was going to lose his support. The Apostle broke into tears.”

Tabari VI:93 “The Quraysh went to Abu Talib and said, ‘Your nephew [Muhammad] has reviled our gods, denounced our religion, derided our traditional values, and told us that our forefathers were misguided [and burning in hell]. Either curb his attacks on us or give us a free hand to deal with him, for you are as opposed to him as we are.’ They said, ‘We asked you to forbid your nephew from attacking us, but you did nothing. By Allah, we can no longer endure this vilification of our forefathers, this derision of our traditional values, and this abuse of our gods.’ This breach and enmity with his tribe weighed heavily on Talib. ‘Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god.’”

Tabari VI:95 “Abu Talib sent for Muhammad. ‘Nephew, here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe. They have asked for justice against you. You should desist from reviling their gods and they will leave you to your god.’”

Tabari VI:96 “Abu Talib said to Muhammad, ‘Nephew, how is it that your tribe is complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that, and the other?’ The Messenger said, 'I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit to them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah [submission tax] to them.”

And thanks for showing your true colors on what you think Jesus was. I already knew that muslims don’t even honor Jesus, and you even admit that you think that all He did was to abuse people.

In the end, when you do not find anything in the Quran, you run to the Hadith which is slightly better (more reliable) than your bible. Both Hadith and bible are man made books. It is better not to indulge in the bible and Hadith too much.

It is another important news for me now that the christians (in this forum) have started disowning the bible. They are fed up with it or something. They say Jesus never gave them any book.He gave them the church. That is another way of getting rid of the difficult book.

 

[Angelos]

In the end, when you do not find anything in the Quran, you run to the Hadith which is slightly better (more reliable) than your bible. Both Hadith and bible are man made books. It is better not to indulge in the bible and Hadith too much.

It is another important news for me now that the christians (in this forum) have started disowning the bible. They are fed up with it or something. They say Jesus never gave them any book.He gave them the church. That is another way of getting rid of the difficult book.

Not an honest answer from dear Planten again. This is the 1000th time you are evading our questions and hijacking this thread with the help of your worthless and senseless arguments.

The only thing we are fed up with is NOT the Bible, but your pointless and baseless accusations.