fathi

I know you don't see it as the truth. I didn't say you had a problem with it although I did wonder it because I know my relatives would be disgusted by it including my in-laws who are mostly Catholic across the board. See the Christianity I knew would say that someone acting in the manner he is, is in fact not being very "Christian". Regardless of how one feels about my faith, approaching people in the manner he is will never win anyone over.

Everything you have said since you have gotten on these forums has shown you to be a bigot. If Dot or one of the others wants to give me some imaginary warning points because I called you a bigot so be it. I will say it again, bigot. I know what you are and I call it like I see it. You want to try to indirectly go after Islam and Muslims, the difference between me and others on this board is I have the balls to call you out. What's more is I won't back down from it. You are a troll who has proven that he has nothing worth contributing to this board. Every single one of your posts is pointless.

Paul says that it is a new covenant. All that is in the words of Jesus, there is that it is for the covenant. In the book of Exodus it refers to blood offering of animals not human sacrifices. I will have to get back with you on the blood drinking although you might want to reference various different religions that were around at the time. Many of the mystic religions practiced this. I think the most likely explanation of this is the practice of Judaism. Try looking up kiddush and chabura. As to the my blood of the covenant commentary many think this was in fact added later. I believe this highly probable considering the considerable influence of Mithraism in the Roman world and the fact that Rome ultimately took over the Christian religion. I can bring more details on the history of the eucharist in other religions as well tomorrow insha'Allah. I have said though what I believe, what I did and how I made my conclusions as it pertains to finding Islam as the truth. Your path is your own.

I will see if I can't find some way to get the link for you on the swatsika. The situation in Burma is barely covered at all here in the states

As for the other attacks it is typical method in the manner they are practicing. Blowing up buses and crowded market places (not suicide bombing) was learned through watching many Christian sects such as the IRA. They are simply imitating. (disclaimer: not saying that those that did that accurately represent Christianity.) As for the suicide bombing this is likely something that they learned from eastern influence as it was a practice in certain Asian cultures such as Japan. Now I am about to say something that will likely get me in a lot of trouble on this board but it needs to be said. The ideology of Salafi and Wahhabi are the leading movements behind a lot of these individuals. Look up any random terrorist leader from the Blind Sheik to Osama Bin Laden and so on and you will see this. The Salafi and Wahhabi ideology are both relatively new in terms of history and a lot of trouble can be led back to these mindsets. In all fairness I do have to also say there are plenty of those that follow these ideologies that are not blowing each other up. However, those that are not are also the same ones that tear apart McDonalds over a cartoon depicting the prophet (saw). Meanwhile when the prophet (pbuh) was struck by a man and his uncle went and got vengeance on his behalf the prophet (pbuh) told his uncle that this did not please him, that he would rather have seen the man take shahada. Back to point, however, it is the scale of the event that throws it into question. Also the history between the government and Al Qaeda and the circumstances surrounding it. Blowing up the twin towers would allow the government a reason to enter the Middle East to increase presence and better secure oil areas. It would also allow for further expanding powers of the National government. (Not saying that this is what happened but it would appear that the national government would have more to gain from it, especially the U.S. military and the C.I.A. who were quickly losing financing before this)

There is an old saying down here, better safe than sorry

Wow. I do not envy you, lol. The best thing you can tell him is to not rush into anything. I have always been of the belief that there is nothing wrong with questioning one's faith. You should encourage him to thoroughly investigate both for a little bit and go from there. Also, this way you can reassure the family that while he has converted to Christianity you tried to encourage him to take his time and really try to think things through some. That is the only thing I can suggest as that is what my wife did when I was teetering.

On one hand I have to give you credit as that is a good response. On the other hand I have to respectfully disagree on the interpretation of this. It never says there is a new covenant but simply the covenant. Now, of course, a lot of this goes back to symbology and is never meant to be taken literally. To me, this is about Jesus (pbuh) telling them to follow him as the drinking of blood was a well-known practiced tradition. Now, of course, the argument that I have presented has issue, admittedly. The primary problem comes into how much credit one gives to the various books of the Bible. I have read the history of the traditional cannon and the books therein and thus have issue concerning certain things in the New Testament. A lot of these problems arise after realizing the pagan indications through what is taught in the more traditional Christian doctrine and the manner in which it conflicts with both ancient Judaism and modern Judaism. When I was struggling back and forth between Christianity and Islam I evaluated much of this. Ultimately I decided the most objective way to look at it was to go back to the beginning (after self realizing what it was that I believed personally). Upon revisiting the Old Testament and then going back to numerous sites that explain different parts of the Old Testament I realized that much of the Christian belief contradicted this. The primary things that contradicted was the idea of original sin, in the heriditary sense, and a human sacrifice god or otherwise. But, as one person on here already said it is ultimately between the individual and their maker. We will all realize the answers when we die, regardless of what they might be. The Qur'an teaches us that no one can be forced into religion and to do so is to make shirk.

See what I mean Andalusi? He does not believe that a Christian can see Islam as the true choice instead of Christianity. Of course, he has of yet to logically respond to anything and proves with every post what a troll he is. What I have to wonder at this point is if people like gmcbroom are feeling like the attitude and constant belligerence of Aligarr accurately represents their faith.

[at]aligarr: 1. Notice that part was addressed to QED, not you. 2. Thank you for proving how much of a troll you are 3. There are many places that would have had the impact of the twin towers without all the trouble 4. Unlike you I am not some bigot blinded by what they have been told in mainstream media. I try to think for myself and evaluate all sides of it. That is why I have previously said that I believe either side of the 9/11 argument is possible. Unlike some I do not limit myself but remain open to theory that I then evaluate. In closing, nowhere on this entire forum have you contributed anything useful but instead are a constant troll that simply looks for something to post. You also seem to have the tendency of looking for the most asshole way of posting your thoughts as if your very objective is to agitate. Personally if I were a Christian I would be ashamed that you were part of the same faith. Keep waving your flag though and watching Bill O' Reilly and tooting the horn of whatever you are told puppet. I have seen people like you all my life. You have giant sized balls when you are online but are always a coward in person. If you are not going to actually contribute facts and meaninful discussion do both the Christian and Muslims on this forum a favor and disappear. I am sure everyone here will applaud.

I can see no one wants to discuss the persecution of Muslims by radicals of other religions. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that lots of attention is focused on Muslim extremism while groups like the English Defense League remain out of the discussion despite their call to reinstate the use of the swatsika.

Andalusi either you really are the half wit that I thought or you are denser than Paris Hilton. It was called illustrating a point. If you bothered to read the conversation in full instead of trolling for some way to post responses maybe you would understand why I was talking about borders. Only after 9/11? Are you serious? Why do you think we arrested the Blind Sheik? Someone tried to blow up the World Trade Center in the 90's and was captured. Do you think they magically appeared in the U.S.? Did Captain Kirk beam them down? Stop being a troll and try to come up with meaningful responses for at least one of the threads that you are in. [at] QED I guess you could say my suspicions of 9/11 are that I simply do not think that little of our intelligent agencies. Put in the simplest terms, I mean. Not to mention I do not see the motive for Al Qaeda

I was in your same position at one point. A devote Christian I was. But, I felt that none of the denominations followed what the Bible (like the detailed description of how to run a service as outlined in 1 Timothy). I also felt that there was some contradiction between Paul and Jesus (pbuh) and no one seemed to be able to explain why the Bible explicitly said that specific individuals went to heaven in the Old Testament.

Andalusi you are barking up the wrong tree here. See Aligarr thinks it doesn't matter and that no one is ever a true Christian if they left Christianity. Of course, no amount of evidence is going to matter to him because he does not base his processes on historical and Biblical fact but church doctrine that he has been brought up in. The most humorous side of it all is he thinks that despite the differences between Protestant and Catholic everyone is going to heaven. What he fells to realize is that Catholics do not believe this. The Catholic church, in fact, teaches that Catholicism is the correct way and to divert away from the church is to deny that which was originally established through the first pope that they claim was the disciple Peter. In order to show their right to apostlistic tradition they go back to a verse where Jesus (pbuh) tells Peter that he shall have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If I were you Andalusi I would stop wasting time with Aligarr. Gmcbroom will at least listen to you whereas Aligarr will simply continue to spit back rhetoric like he just got done lapdoging Franklin Graham.

Very good akhi, indeed many Muslims that I meet that do that which is less desirable have ventured away from the salah. Also it should be noted that Nation of Islam is considered blasphemous by every Muslim group except them.