All right, I'm taking the bait---evil, baaaaad or somehwere in between (like the rest of us)!

Curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought it back. PLease tell us about your occurrences/experiences with angels, LW.

Well it depends on whether you believe in the eyewitness accounts or not. Remember these same eyewitnesses fled the scene when Jesus was captured by the Romans. What made them come out of hiding and boldly proclaim the gospel even in the face of death. Every last one of them with the exception of John (who did not flee) was martyred for their faith. We know a man may believe a lie, but would he be willing to die for one? If they had taken Christ's body and hid it (stupid story) would they later be willing to die for this lie?

And answer to your last question....I agree with you.



I know scripture says to be careful you'll never know if you're entertaining angels unawares and we have examples of this in scripture. Three men visited Abraham, two were angels and one was the pre-incarnate Christ himself. Later these same two angels went to visit Lot. From all outside appearances they looked like men.

I have had some experiences where I felt I had an angel help me (the case when I was attacked in 97). I even had a security guard appear right before my eyes when I lost my middle son in a crowded mall when he was 3. Was he an angel? Not sure but I always thought so. He just...NK...appeared with a walkie talkie finding my son in less than a minute. Coincidence? Maybe.

Please understand that I don't believe for a New York minute that the Qur'an is of Divine origin.

That is fine Lola. Belief is a personal thing.

Second, there is absolutely nothing that is "mixed up" about the OT and the NT. It's God's written Revelation of the progression of salvation history of mankind.

If you say so.Many other God-Believing people dont think so. There is ample evidence to the contrary of what you say. But again this is a personal decision and each of us will one day answer toGod for that.

You say, "Dont put your words in His words." With Q 9:29, I didn't put my words in S 9:29. All I did was explain what I think the entire Sura means and then ask you whether the requirement that non-Muslims, even if they are Jews or Christians, first be "invited" to enter Islam and then be warred against until they convert or pay the special tax could possibly be of Divine origin. Are the 3 choices of Sura 9:29, war, violent intolerance against the people of the Book or death, the will of God or not?

I also answered that. You ignored it completely. Here it is again:

" Read that verse again. It is talking about those Jews and Christians WHO dont believe in Him, and in the day of judgement. It clearly say "from among the people of the book" not the people of the book. i am sure you realize the difference.........even the translation makes it clear. not every jew or christian is subject to that rule of fighting. only those who dont believe in God or In the Last Day. it is obvious that some of those at the time did not believe in that. they just pretended i.e hypocrites and that is the main theme of that Surah.........Ignoring a word or misunderstanding it makes a big difference. You cant just ignore the word "from among". Clearly He is not talking about any general one from the people of the book. He identified whom He meant. and that was specific to the people there who were hypocrites and pretending to be Jews or Christians. ..........By the way in the begining of the same surah he said the same about the hypocrites from the non-believers of his tribe in Mecca. some pretended to be Muslims but they were hypocrites and they were spying on the Muslims. the same was for those pretended to be Jews and Christians but were non-believers spying for Quraish. They pretended that because the jews and christians of Madina were protected under the treaty with the Muslims. "

I believe that answers your question. And Yes everyone is invited, like any other messenger, but none is forced in anyway to accept.

But hypocrites who are neither actually People of the Book nor Actually Muslims and are acting as spies in the middle of a battle deserve what the verse says.Even our laws NOW say the same thing. and it was done even after WWII. And it is always applied that way particularly during a war.

I think we discussed this topic from several angels, it was great discussion. The purpose is not to impose anything on anyone. Just to widen each other's scope of knowledge. It is up to each to make his/her choice.

I for one, appreciate the comments regardless of whether i agree with them or not.

Not really, but that's OK. I was trying to keep the discussion more focused on whether or not SS and the Qur'an was of Divine origin.

It's my understanding that Mohammad wrote Q. 9:29 after he returned from a battle. My problem with the whole Islam/Qur'an thing is that in reality Arab Christians aren't now or ever have been given real freedom of conscience in any of the Muslim controlled countries.


I agree, it's been a good discussion. I've enjoyed it.

I dont know where did you get that information. It is TOTALLY false. You should take a trip to the middle east. Sometimes i am surprised that this Idea is still there. For how long we, here in the USA, will continue to be ill-informed about 1.5 billion of humans and what they do or dont do.

Some facts:

Egypt has 20% of population christians ...... many high-officials are christians including cabinet members and CEO's of major corp. Professionals have higher % christians than general population.

You will see the same thing in Syria, Lebanon (50%), Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq, Yemen, Algeria, Jordon, and Sudan.

Only Saudi Arabia practice what you said. and they also practice a whole lot which has nothing to do with Islam or "Arabian" for that matter. They have a very strange culture and mentallity propagated by a ruling family that needs that kind of society to keep control. pure and simple. And what do we do here in the USA, take that as representing 1.5 billion people.

Believing whether anything has a devine origin or not is up to each person to decide. We all are supposed to do that AFTER we read and understand, correctly, what we judge. But Judging based on falsehood is no bases for judging anything.

I just answered your question and you still say "not reallY"

The verse clearly say it is for those "among the people of the Book" who "do not believe .... "

I told you who they were, hypocrites. not jews, muslims or christians. just hypocrites in all colors acting as spies.

After all that you still say "not really".

well, you are not looking for an answer then. You just want to justify your position.

I am not one of those who ignore facts or falsify them to justify their position. But I cant convince others to do the same. It is a sign of the times nowadays in politics and in religion ...... what a shame.

That is a topic worthy of a lot of studying of texts involved not casual snippets from here or there.

Just for your information: i dont say anything regarding the OT, the NT or Qura'an that is not based on careful reading and rereading of the texts. The whole Text not just a line from here or there and after tying it to what is said in other parts of the same text.




Let's look at your answer here:

First You say God didnt send his angels to Lot, HE sent them to destroy the city.

dont you see the problem here? you ignore the question completely and answer YOUR OWN Imagined one. I didnt ask WHY did God send them?

then you justify Lot's saving as a reward. based on what? someone's interpretation?

let's have some common sense here. why would angels need a host? why do they go to some's house and cause problem for him. the people attacked his house to get to these men for homosexual activities.

why would a man who would later have incest with his daughters object to letting the people have their way with strangers?

Also remember that the people referred to Lot as a man who is acting as a judge on them. why would Lot do that if He was not sent by God to these people?

answering the wrong question, ignoring the text, and relying on others' interpretation doesnt lead to any truth. it just propagates the wrong understanding.

Why is that? to justify that ALL the writings in OT and NT are from God?

Let me say this another way: there is a reason that there is a Text called Torah and another called Injil. that is not debatable and they are God's words. So what are the OT and NT which only existed 300-400 after Jesus was raised and they were a collection of many documents from many sources? Not only that. here is what the New RSV say in the preface:

"..... King James Version has serious defects..... which made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision ....."

This is what the people who wrote what you consider "Devine" say. and you still say ALL of it is actually devine? well, i cant argue with that.



Does the phrase "word of God" has two meaning?I didnt know that. To any reader it means "God's actual words to someone"

Muslims say "Qura'an is the ACTUAL words of God to Mohammad". whether anyone believes that or not is not the point. The point is what the TEXT and its followers Claim about it.

If it does not mean the same for the OT/NT, then that confirms my point.

What do you call the SS if the phrase doesn't mean the same i.e God's ACTUAL words?

(btw, why would Muslims need apologists .... ?!!!!!!)

Well looks like we have a consensus, that none of us agrees.

I'd say that is probably not overwhelming evidence of divine existence.

Finish the sentence...people of the Book (those Jews and Christians) who do not believe in the religion of Mohammed (Islam) and in Mohammed himself. That would be me.

ThinkAloud,

You raise some interesting points that I am moast interested in discussing, however, I will be away for a short while. I just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you.

In this instance, an apologist is someone who defends his faith.

Finish the sentence...people of the Book (those Jews and Christians) who do not believe in the religion of Mohammed (Islam) and in Mohammed himself. That would be me.

Lola, I told you what the Islamic scholars wrote about that verse and also about similar verses related to Non-believers in general. All these verses are referring to specific groups and battels at the time of revelation and NOT to people of the book or non-believers in general. That understanding was written and have been known for more than 1300 yrs. In other words it is not something new to accomodate any particular situation.

They based their understanding on the other verses which clearly defines how Islam deals with and treats, in general, the people of the Book and the non-believers.

Now, if you insist on your understanding of that verse, of course that is your option. Just be aware that Muslim extremists also understand it that way, which contradicts the opinions of the of Early Muslim scholars as well as the contemporary ones.

What makes the extremists' understanding unacceptable is the fact that the actions of the prophet himself and ALL who followed him confirms the Majority's point of view.

If the extremists's point of view is the correct one how do we explain the fact that when Muslims kicked the Romans out of the middle east Christians and Jews did not disappear in a genocide expected from that false understanding? Jews and Christians continued and still continue to live there with no problems. In fact when muslims were kicked out of spain and persecution of the Jews started there (along with Muslims) they left not to other parts of Europe but to the other parts of the Othman Empire like Turkey, Egypt and Syria and of course Palestine. these are historical facts. you can check them out and i am sure you are aware of it.

Actually, as far as I know, both Jews and Christians always flourished in that area. How is that to be explained if the extremists' view is valid? These countries came under muslims' rule since the 7th and 8th centuries and for 1300+ years and they didnt finish (actually never started) the job that view of the verse implies? it is a stretch of imagination to say the least.

In this instance, an apologist is someone who defends his faith.

at certain times, someone who defends his faith is an apologist ? Hmmmmm .....!!!!!

Does that apply to you too? or it only applies to others?

very arrogant way to treat others, imho.

Well looks like we have a consensus, that none of us agrees. I'd say that is probably not overwhelming evidence of divine existence.

ooh really?

i would say it is a FIRM evidence. do you see anything else in this universe behaving like that? if all this universe including us is a result of some "NATURAL" phenomenon we would be behaving in a much orderly logical manner. That is what Natural things do. they are caused by a Natural Law and it just keeps them behaving according to that Law. But the fact that we dont act that way, and even the universe itself doesn't ALWAYS obey those natural laws is a firm evidence that something else is acting. believers call that God. You can call it anything you like. the word itself is not important. It is the idea itself that this universe including us and its natural laws is under control of a higher authority.

TA have you ever thought of using a dictionary? The word is in there.

Apologist:

n. A person who makes an apology or defense in speech or writing 2. a. Also apologete, a person skilled in apologetics. b. One of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.

Apologetics:

n. the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity.

TA have you ever thought of using a dictionary? The word is in there.Apologist:n. A person who makes an apology or defense in speech or writing 2. a. Also apologete, a person skilled in apologetics. b. One of the authors of the early Christian apologies in defense of the faith.

No, KFC. You just informed me about them. and guess what. here is what it also say:

Apologist:

n. express regret.

I never heard that word used in the sense you indicated. I took it to mean the usual meaning i.e. expressing regret on behalf of Muslims. and that is why i asked: why would Muslims need that?

why would Lola use that word in the way you indicated, i will never know. but i will take your word for it. in this case, my question is not necessary, no harm done.

That should tell us all a lot. Misunderstanding can lead to a lot of confusion and wrong impression.