P∅17 - P-dog's Reason lyrics

There are actually many reasons why I converted to Islam instead of increasing my faith in Christianity or pursuing a different religion. First of all, with Christianity, the Bible is the Bible no matter what language it is in. I'm fine with that, but the fact that there have been many revisions and translations and editions of the Bible can only naturally lead me to a**ume that the original text in its original language has been lost or otherwise corrupted. Now, I am not a fundamentalist m**m. I simply follow the 5 Pillars of Islam(Shahadah/Testimony, prayer/salat, charity/zakat, fasting/sawm/Ramadan, and eventually the pilgrimage/Hajj.), the Six Articles of Faith(Belief in Allah, the holy scriptures, the angels, the prophets(AS), the Day of Judgement, and the divine decree of the Lord God.). If I have issues that I think the Qur'an or the Sunnah can answer, I follow that. The reason that I am not a fundamentalist is because it is a proven fact that the more committed to a religion one gets, the higher a chance for negative side effects such as stress, anxiety, and unreasoned pressure. I also do not agree with some aspects of Shariah law, such as flogging and stoning. The reason is because, being an African-American, whipping reminds me of slavery, and stoning to me seems like a practice that is too cruel for even the worst of criminals to suffer. I believe that Allah alone is the Most Just, the Most Understanding, So here are my reasons on religions and why I did not pursue them. Christianity: The Bible practically contradicts itself. Judaism: Lack of pa**ion and disunity. Hinduism: I do not believe in polytheism and idol worship. Buddhism: I believe there is an All-Powerful, which is Allah. Sikhism: I don't want to wear a turban and bow to an image. Scientology: Doesn't answer my question on the precision of the Earth. Atheism: If there is no God, then what happened? Theism: Belief in a God simply isn't enough for me for my life to be satisfied. Here's what I mean when I say “There is no Christ in Christianity:” Religious scholars have long attributed the tenets of Christian faith more to Paul's teachings than to those of Jesus. But as much as I would like to jump into that subject, I think it best to back up and take a quick, speculative look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament teaches that Jacob wrestled with God. In fact, the Old Testament records that Jacob not only wrestled with God, but that Jacob prevailed (Genesis 32:24-30). Now, bear in mind, we're talking about a tiny blob of protoplasm wrestling the Creator of a universe 240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles in diameter, containing over a billion galaxies of which ours—the Milky Way Galaxy—is just one (and a small one, at that), and prevailing? I'm sorry, but someone was a couple pages short of a codex when they scribed that pa**age. The point is, however, that this pa**age leaves us in a quandary. We either have to question the Jewish concept of God or accept their explanation that “God” does not mean “God” in the above verses, but rather it means either an angel or a man (which, in essence, means the Old Testament is not to be trusted). In fact, this textual difficulty has become so problematic that more recent Bibles have tried to cover it up by changing the translation from “God” to “man.” What they cannot change, however, is the foundational scripture from which the Jewish Bible is translated, and this continues to read “God.” Unreliability is a recurring problem in the Old Testament, the most prominent example being the confusion between God and Satan! II Samuel 24:1 reads: “Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.'” However, I Chronicles 21:1 states: “Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.” Uhhh, which was it? The Lord, or Satan? Both verses describe the same event in history, but one speaks of God and the other of Satan. There is a slight (like, total) difference. Christians would like to believe that the New Testament is free of such difficulties, but they are sadly deceived. In fact, there are so many contradictions that authors have devoted books to this subject. For example, Matthew 2:14 and Luke 2:39 differ over whether Jesus' family fled to Egypt or Nazareth. Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 differ over the wording of the “Lord's Prayer.” Matthew 11:13-14, 17:11-13 and John 1:21 disagree over whether or not John the Baptist was Elijah. Things get worse when we enter the arena of the alleged crucifixion: Who carried the cross—Simon (Luke 23:26, Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21) or Jesus (John 19:17)? Was Jesus dressed in a scarlet robe (Matthew 27:28) or a purple robe (John 19:2)? Did the Roman soldiers put gall (Matthew 27:34) or myrrh (Mark 15:23) in his wine? Was Jesus crucified before the third hour (Mark 15:25) or after the sixth hour (John 19:14-15)? Did Jesus ascend the first day (Luke 23:43) or not (John 20:17)? Were Jesus' last words, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit my spirit'” (Luke 23:46), or were they “It is finished” (John 19:30)? These are only a few of a long list of scriptural inconsistencies, and they underscore the difficulty in trusting the New Testament as scripture. Nonetheless, there are those who do trust their salvation to the New Testament, and it is these Christians who need to answer the question, “Where is the ‘Christ' in ‘Christianity?' “This, in fact, is a supremely fair question. On one hand we have a religion named after Jesus Christ, but on the other hand the tenets of orthodox Christianity, which is to say Trinitarian Christianity, contradict virtually everything he taught. I know, I know—those of you who aren't screaming “Heretic!” are gathering firewood and planting a stake. But wait. Put down the high-powered rifle and listen. Trinitarian Christianity claims to base its doctrines on a combination of Jesus' and Paul's teachings. The problem is, these teachings are anything but complementary. In fact, they contradict one another. Take some examples: Jesus taught Old Testament Law; Paul negated it. Jesus preached orthodox Jewish creed; Paul preached mysteries of faith. Jesus spoke of accountability; Paul proposed justification by faith. Jesus described himself as an ethnic prophet; Paul defined him as a universal prophet.[1] Jesus taught prayer to God, Paul set Jesus up as intercessor. Jesus taught divine unity, Pauline theologians constructed the Trinity. The Bible says: Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man…" Hosea 11:9 "...For I am God, and not man..." Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible: John 8:40 "…a man who has told you the truth…" Acts 2:22 "Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know." Acts 17:31 "He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed" 1.Tim. 2:5 "…the man Christ Jesus." God is not a man, but Jesus, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was a man, therefore, Jesus was not God. 2. The Bible Says that God Is Not a Son of Man Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man...nor a son of man…" The Bible often calls Jesus "a son of man" or "the son of man." Matthew 12:40 "…so will the son of man be…" Matthew 16:27 "For the son of man is going to come…" Matthew 28 "…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom." Mark 2:10 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority…" John 5:27 "…because He is the son of man." In the Hebrew Scriptures, the "son of man" is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25). Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called "the son of man", he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called "son of man" specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a "son of man" according to the Bible. 3. The Bible Says that Jesus Denied He is God Luke 18:19 Jesus spoke to a man who had called him "good," asking him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, "Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God. 4. The Bible Says that God is Greater than Jesus John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I." John 10:29 "My father is greater than all." Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus. 5. Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only Luke 11:2 "When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven." John 16:23 "In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name." John 4:23 "The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn't, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God. 6. The Bible Says that Jesus Recognized, Prayed, & Worshipped the Only True God Jesus prayed to God with the words: John 17:3 "…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus prayed to God all night: Luke 6:12 "he continued all night in prayer to God." …because: Matthew 20:28: "Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve." How did Jesus pray to God? Matthew 26:39: "he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, ‘My Father." Even Paul said: Hebrews 5:7 "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from d**h, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face with loud cries and petitions? Was it himself? Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from d**h? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.' Jesus was praying to "the only true God." Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God? The Quran confirms that Jesus called for the worship of the Only True God: "Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone). This is the straight path." (Quran 3:51) 7. The Bible says that the disciples did not believe Jesus was God The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, was raised to heaven. Throughout this period, they never referred to Jesus as God. For instance Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed a crowd saying: Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God (confirmed in Matthew 12:18): Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus." Acts 3:26 "God raised up his servant..." When faced by opposition from the authorities, Peter said: Acts 5:29-30 "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus..." The disciples prayed to God just as they were commanded by Jesus in Luke 11:2, and considered Jesus to be God's servant, Acts 4:24 "...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,' they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.'" Acts 4:27 "...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed." Acts 4:30 "…of Your holy servant Jesus." This is exactly what the Quran states of Jesus: Quran 19: 30 "…I am indeed a servant of God." 8. The Bible says that Jesus was God's servant, chosen one, and beloved Matt. 12:18 "Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased." Since Jesus is God's servant, Jesus can not be God. 9. The Bible says that Jesus could not Do Anything by Himself John 5:19 "The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing." John 5:30 "I can of mine own self do nothing." Jesus did not consider himself equal with God, rather he denied doing anything by himself. 10. The Bible says that God performed miracles through Jesus & Jesus was limited in what he could do Matt. 9:8 "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Acts 2:22 "a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst." Acts 10:38 "…he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." If Christ was God, the Bible would simply say that Jesus did the miracles himself without making reference to God. The fact that it was God supplying the power for the miracles shows that God is greater than Jesus. Also, Jesus was limited in performing miracles. One time when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26). Once a woman was healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him: Mark 5:30 "At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?'" Mark 6:5 "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them." Quite obviously, someone with such limitations can not be God. The power of miracles was not within Jesus. 11. The Bible says that at times of weakness angels strengthened Jesus; God, however, does not need to be strengthened Luke 22:43 "An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him [in the garden of Gethsemane]." Mark 1:13 "And he was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him." Men need to be strengthened; God does not because God is All-Powerful. If Jesus had to be strengthened, he must not be God. 12. The Bible says that Jesus wanted God's will to be done, not his own Luke 22:42: "not my will but Yours be done." John 5:30 "I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me." John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." Are some members of the coequal Trinity subservient, and less than equal, to other members? Even though they have different wills ("I do not seek my own will"), do they obey without question the others' commands ("the will of Him who sent me")? Jesus admits to subordinating his own distinct will, yet according to the Trinitarian doctrine they should all have the same will. Should one of the triune partners have to forgo his own will in favor of the will of another member of the Trinity? Should not they all have the exact same will? 13. The Bible says Jesus regarded God's testimony as separate from his own Jesus regarded himself and God as two, not "one." John 8:17 and 18: "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father." John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me." If Jesus was God, He would not have regarded God's testimony as separate from his own. All of that stuff you just saw, yes, I pulled it from a website: islamreligion.com But it shows you all the problems. And here's my own thing: Why would Jesus Christ practice Christianity if the term wasn't in existence at the time? And here's another thing from the website: The crucifixion: Of all the Christian mysteries, none rank as highly as the concept of Christ's crucifixion and atoning sacrifice. In fact, Christians base their salvation on this one tenet of faith. And if it really happened, shouldn't we all? If it really happened, that is. Now, I don't know about you, but the concept of Jesus Christ having atoned for the sins of mankind sounds pretty good to me. And shouldn't it? I mean, if we can trust that someone else atoned for all of our sins, and we can go to heaven on that concept alone, shouldn't we instantly close on that deal? If it really happened, that is. So let's check this out. We're told Jesus Christ was crucified. But then again, we're told a lot of things that later prove to be doubtful or even untrue, so it would be rea**uring if we could verify the fact. So let's ask the witnesses. Let's ask the gospel authors. Umm, one problem. We don't know who the authors were. This is a less popular Christian mystery (i.e., waaay less popular) – the fact that all four gospels of the New Testament are anonymous.[1] Nobody knows who wrote them. Graham Stanton tells us, “The gospels, unlike most Graeco-Roman writings, are anonymous. The familiar headings which give the name of an author (‘The Gospel according to . . .') were not part of the original man*scripts, for they were added only early in the second century.”[2] Added in the second century? By whom? Believe it or not, that is anonymous as well. But let's forget all that. After all, the four gospels are part of the Bible, so we must respect them as scripture, right? Right? Well, maybe not. After all, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible states, “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS [man*script] tradition is wholly uniform.”[3] Add to that Bart D. Ehrman's now famous words, “Possibly it is easiest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our man*scripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[4] Whoa. Hard to imagine. On one hand, we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John telling us . . . oh, excuse me. I meant to say, we have Anonymous, Anonymous, Anonymous and Anonymous telling us . . . well, what? What do they tell us? That they can't even agree on what Jesus wore, drank, did or said? After all, Matthew 27:28 tells us the Roman soldiers dressed Jesus with a scarlet robe. John 19:2 says it was purple. Matthew 27:34 says the Romans gave Jesus sour wine mingled with gall. Mark 15:23 says it was mixed with myrrh. Mark 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified before the third hour, but John 19:14–15 says it was “about the sixth hour.” Luke 23:46 says Jesus' last words were “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit,” but John 19:30: says they were “It is finished!” Now, wait a minute. Jesus' righteous followers would have hung on his every word. On the other hand, Mark 14:50 tells us that all the disciples deserted Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. But okay, some people – not disciples, I guess, but some people (anonymous, of course) – hung on his every word, hoping for some parting words of wisdom, and they heard . . . different things? Believe it or not, after this point, the gospel records become even more inconsistent. Following the alleged resurrection, we hardly find a single issue the four gospels (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20) agree upon. For example: Who went to the tomb? Matthew: “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” Mark: “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome” Luke: “The women who had come with him from Galilee” and “certain other women” John: “Mary Magdalene” Why did they go to the tomb? Matthew: “To see the tomb” Mark: They “brought spices, that they might come and anoint him” Luke: They “brought spices” John: no reason given Was there an earthquake (something nobody in the vicinity would be likely to either miss or forget)? Matthew: Yes Mark: no mention Luke: no mention John: no mention Did an angel descend? (I mean, come on, guys – an angel? Are we to believe that three of you somehow missed this part?) Matthew: Yes Mark: no mention Luke: no mention John: no mention Who rolled back the stone? Matthew: The angel (the one the other three anonymouses – now, let's see, would that be “anonymouses” or “anonymice”? – didn't see) Mark: unknown Luke: unknown John: unknown Who was at the tomb? Matthew: “an angel” Mark: “a young man” Luke: “two men” John: “two angels” Where were they? Matthew: The angel was sitting on the stone, outside the tomb. Mark: The young man was in the tomb, “sitting on the right side.” Luke: The two men were inside the tomb, standing beside them. John: The two angels were “sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” By whom and where was Jesus first seen? Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary,” on the road to tell the disciples. Mark: Mary Magdalene only, no mention where. Luke: Two of the disciples, en route to “a village called Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem.” John: Mary Magdalene, outside the tomb. So where does this leave us, if not wondering whose idea of scripture this is? But, hey, Christians tell us Jesus had to die for our sins. A typical conversation might go something like this: Monotheist: Oh. So you believe God died? Trinitarian: No, no, perish the thought. Only the man died. Monotheist: In that case, the sacrifice didn't need to be divine, if only the man-part died. Trinitarian: No, no, no. The man-part died, but Jesus/God had to suffer on the cross to atone for our sins. Monotheist: What do you mean “had to”? God doesn't “have to” anything. Trinitarian: God needed a sacrifice and a human wouldn't do. God needed a sacrifice big enough to atone for the sins of humankind, so He sent His only begotten son. Monotheist: Then we have a different concept of God. The God I believe in doesn't have needs. My God never wants to do something but can't because He needs something to make it possible. My God never says, “Gee, I want to do this, but I can't. First I need this certain something. Let's see, where can I find it?” In that scenario God would be dependent upon whatever entity could satisfy His needs. In other words, God would have to have a higher god. For a strict monotheist that's just not possible, for God is One, supreme, self-sufficient, the source of all creation. Humankind has needs, God doesn't. We need His guidance, mercy and forgiveness, but He doesn't need anything in exchange. He may desire servitude and worship, but he doesn't need it. Trinitarian: But that's the point; God tells us to worship Him, and we do that through prayer. But God is pure and holy, and humankind are sinners. We can't approach God directly because of the impurity of our sins. Hence, we need an intercessor to pray through. Monotheist: Question—did Jesus sin? Trinitarian: Nope, he was sinless. Monotheist: How pure was he? Trinitarian: Jesus? 100% pure. He was God/Son of God, so he was 100% holy. Monotheist: But then we can't approach Jesus any more than we can God, by your criterion. Your premise is that humankind can't pray directly to God because of the incompatibility of sinful man and the purity of anything 100% holy. If Jesus was 100% holy, then he's no more approachable than God. On the other hand, if Jesus wasn't 100% holy, then he was himself tainted and couldn't approach God directly, much less be God, the Son of God, or partner with God. A fair an*logy might be that of going to meet a supremely righteous man—the holiest person alive, holiness radiating from his being, oozing from his pores. So we go to see him, but are told the “saint” won't agree to the meeting. In fact, he can't stand to be in the same room with a sin-tainted mortal. We can talk with his receptionist, but the saint himself? Fat chance! He's much too holy to sit with us lesser beings. So what do we think now? Does he sound holy, or crazy? Common sense tells us holy people are approachable—the holier, the more approachable. So why should humankind need an intermediary between us and God? And why would God demand the sacrifice of what Christians propose to be “His only begotten son” when, according to Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” This lesson was worthy of two New Testament mentions, the first in Matthew 9:13, the second in Matthew 12:7. Why, then, are clergy teaching that Jesus had to be sacrificed? And if he was sent for this purpose, why did he pray to be saved? Perhaps Jesus' prayer is explained by Hebrews 5:7, which states that because Jesus was a righteous man, God answered his prayer to be saved from d**h: “In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from d**h, and he was heard because of his reverent submission” (Hebrews 5:7, NRSV). Now, what does “God heard his prayer” mean—that God heard it loud and clear and ignored it? No, it means God answered his prayer. It certainly can't mean that God heard and refused the prayer, for then the phrase “because of his reverent submission” would be nonsensical, along the lines of, “God heard his prayer and refused it because he was a righteous man.” Hm. So wouldn't that suggest that Jesus might not have been crucified in the first place? But let's back up and ask ourselves, why do we have to believe to be saved? On one hand, original sin is held to be binding, whether we believe in it or not. On the other hand, salvation is held to be conditional upon acceptance (i.e., belief) of the crucifixion and atonement of Jesus. In the first case, belief is held to be irrelevant; in the second, it's required. The question arises, “Did Jesus pay the price or not?” If he paid the price, then our sins are forgiven, whether we believe or not. If he didn't pay the price, it doesn't matter either way. Lastly, forgiveness doesn't have a price. A person can't forgive another's debt and still demand repayment. The argument that God forgives, but only if given a sacrifice He says He doesn't want in the first place (see Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7) drags a wing and cartwheels down the runway of rational an*lysis. From where, then, does the formula come? According to scripture (the aforementioned anonymous scripture lacking man*script uniformity), it's not from Jesus. Furthermore, the Christian formula for salvation hinges off the concept of original sin, and we have to ask ourselves why we should believe that concept if we can't substantiate the rest of the Christian formula. But that is a different discussion.