Sabio Lantz an atheist blogger introduced “John Barron” in his blog with these words.
“John Barron is conservative Christian with a popular blog. He is intelligent and a fine writer.”
I therefore visited blog of John Barron “Sifting Reality” @http://siftingreality.com/. I wrote following comment on the post titled “Baptism: Necessary?” byTerranceH.
January 27, 2014 at 10:10 AM
“people of all religions should feel free to participate. What does your religion believe?”
Thanks for inviting followers of other religions for participation in the discussion; it means you are an open mind.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim.
In Islam/Quran there is no baptism; please define as to what is “baptism”.?
Islam/Quran/Muhammad do not hold that man is sinful by birth; there is no “original sin”; every human is born innocent.
Thanks and regards
While commenting on one of my latest post titled: “The Bible scribes did character assassination of the messenger prophets to attract more people”; our friend Hank Kimball gives his opinion.
Hank Kimball Says:
April 29, 2013
Interesting. According to who? Based on what? The statement: “Being a perfect man or an innocent man is a pre-requisite of messenger prophet of the one true creator God.” I am sure you have some ancient text that can be verified as making the claim that messenger prophets of the one true God are perfect and innocent.
I do not hold that in order that a man be a servant of God or a prophet of God or a messenger prophet, as you put it, he needs to be perfect. If it isn’t in the bible, AND it COMPLETELY renounces statements the bible makes; the source needs consideration.
If you would be so kind as to please quote the source when making claims that contradict scripture.
I quote a passage from your post:
“The statement: “Being a perfect man or an innocent man is a pre-requisite of messenger prophet of the one true creator God.” I am sure you have some ancient text that can be verified as making the claim that messenger prophets of the one true God are perfect and innocent.”
Why should one hold an ancient scripture more reliable than a new one from the one true God? If it is from the one true God; it must be accepted without putting any conditions.
Vedas are believed to be more ancient scriptures than the OT or NT; do you believe them more reliable than the OT or NT Bibles?
If not; why not?
Please give your arguments.
Also please quote from Moses and Jesus that the ancient scriptures are more reliable than the new ones.
One should note that every scripture that is ancient now was new one at his time.
I think one must have clear criteria for the reliability or truthfulness of a scripture whether it is old one or new one.
All messengers prophets of the one true God were perfect men; it is the scribes who did character assassination of them and made them like that they were sinful.
Being a perfect man or an innocent man is a pre-requisite of messenger prophet of the one true creator God.
The selection of the one true God or His choosing from among the human beings is never wrong.
In the olden times the narrators would verbally or out of their memory narrate the stories of the religious heroes of their people; to allure more people to their gatherings; they put some drama and scandals or cheap narratives in them to make them more interesting; later when the things were committed to writing these stories got added up.
A little thinking; when one’s read the Bible one discerns it.
I quote below from Bible:
Noe with his family go into the ark. The deluge overflows the earth.
 And the Lord said to him: Go in thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee I have seen just before me in this generation.  Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female.
1The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
 Behold I will establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you:  And with every living soul that is with you, as well in all birds as in cattle and beasts of the earth, that are come forth out of the ark, and in all the beasts of the earth. I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.  And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations.
 And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard.
 And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent.  Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father’ s nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without.
Floods did not cease even after the deluge; the covenant was not fulfilled. Noe did not remain innocent and became sinful, as stated in the Bible.
Obviously, it is the scribes who tried to make Noe sinful while he was an innocent person.
Hence, Bible is not preserved in its original form. Genesis is not covered in the warning of the revelation which is specific, if at all, for revelation and cannot be extended generally to other books.
~ War was always thrust upon Muslims of Muhammad’s time and they never fought with the intention of spreading the faith
~ The blame lies wholly with the ignorant Maulawis who do not value human life, and are so thirsty for blood that they eagerly await a Mahdi who, they believe, will come to cause bloodshed
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, the Second Coming says:
Those who are acquainted with the early history of Islam
are no doubt aware of the cruelty and barbarity that was
perpetrated by the opponents in Mecca, and the number of
innocent people who were killed as a result. But this did
not deter people from embracing Islam. Even those of
limited intelligence could see that its teachings were far
more rational and convincing than those of the idol-worshippers.
When the opponents saw the futility of their
efforts, they decided that the only solution was to assassinate
the Holy Prophet (sa),but God rescued him from their
hands and led him to Medina in safety.
however, persisted in their evil designs, and continued
their efforts to kill him even in Medina. Under these circumstances,
the Muslims had to defend themselves and to
avenge those who attacked them unjustly. The Islamic
wars were not fought to spread the faith but only to protect
the lives of the Muslims. Can any reasonable person
believe that Islam was unable to prove the Oneness of
God before the idolaters—who worshipped stone idols
and other inanimate objects, and were engrossed in all
kinds of vice—and had to resort to the sword for this reason?
God forbid! These allegations are groundless and
those who make them, do a grave injustice to Islam by
concealing the truth.
The Maulawis have played their part in perpetrating this
injustice, but the Christian clerics are no less guilty, for
they too have impressed these thoughts in the minds of the
Muslims by highlighting the edicts of foolish Maulawis.
When Muslims hear their own Maulawis issuing edicts in
favour of Jihad, and hear the Christian clerics—who are
also eminent scholars—raising the same objection against
Islam, they fall prey to the concept that Islam encourages
this kind of Jihad. Both these positions have given rise to
these unfounded objections against Islam.
Had the Christian clergy not adopted this course, and had
they honestly and truthfully admitted that the edicts of the
Maulawis are based on sheer ignorance, and that the circumstances
which had necessitated the Jihad during the
early days of Islam are not present in this age, the very
notion of this kind of Jihad would have disappeared from
the world. But they failed to understand this, being guided
more by their passions than their reason.
God only permitted the Muslims to fight when He saw
that the disbelievers had become deserving of death due to
their atrocities. But He also made the provision that anyone
who accepted Islam would be spared. It is this which
has, perhaps, caused the critics to draw erroneous conclusions.
They do not seem to understand that the injunction
was concerned not with coercion but with offering clemency
to those who deserved to die. Calling this teaching
coercive is the height of absurdity.
They merited their
punishment, not because they were non-Muslims, but because
they were killers. And since God was aware that
they had perfectly understood the truth of Islam, therefore,
out of His grace, He granted them an opportunity to
atone for their sins. This is further evidence that Islam did
not teach coercion, rather it provided respite to those who
should have been killed for their bloodshed.
Muslims suffered many hardships, and the degree of
prejudice that existed against them was such that if any
member of a tribe entered Islam he would at once be executed
or would live in constant fear of his life.
had to fight to win peace. But even under these difficult
circumstances, they never drew the sword unless the two
conditions of war were met. War was always thrust upon
them and they never fought with the intention of spreading
the faith. They only fought for the sake of security and
self-defence, but ignorant Maulawis later gave it a different
complexion and began to take pride in something
quite barbaric and shameful.
But it would be wrong to lay
the blame on the teachings of Islam. The blame lies
wholly with those who do not value human life, and are
so thirsty for blood that they eagerly await a Mahdi who,
they believe, will come to cause bloodshed. They wish to
convince people that Islam has always depended upon
force and coercion for its propagation and that it does not
possess an iota of truth.
“I found out where your comments went to on my blog; then ended up in the WordPress Comments ‘SPAM” folder. I had to go in there and approve them one by one. I did not intend for any comments to be put there, it seems to just put comments in there that it thinks are spam. There is a lot of spam that was in there.”
I appreciate your comments. Maybe some Catholics Protestants would have complained about my write-ups; but I express in them what I sincerely believe to be correct. I think they should reply my posts rationally, logically and reasonable; if they have a differing opinion. They are welcome at my blog. I respect their religion.
Wordrpess people are very nice people; they are the best bloggers
I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
You didn’t answer my question. Was Muhammad capable of committing sin? You have placed your entire trust in this man Muhammad’s version of the truth.
Hi friend fgenej11
All Messengers Prophets of God are from amongst the human beings and they have to be from the normal human being to become a role model for their kind. A normal human being is always capable of committing sins even if he is from the Messengers Prophets, if he is not capable of committing sins logically, then he is not a human being in the first place and then not fit for being role model for the mankind. Jesus of Bible is neither a human being nor a god; it is a mythical brain-child of sinful Paul and the sinful scribes; that is why It has no reality in the secular history.
The Messengers Prophets are no doubt the mortal human beings, they are one amongst the humankind; but they consistently take refuge in God Allah YHWH from the devil, and thus they desist and are saved from sins. This way they remain innocent and hence selected on merit for the high office of Messenger Prophet. Their capability being innocent therefore comes as a gift and reward from God Allah YHWH.
I put my trust in all the Messengers Prophets of the entire race of human beings all over the world; it is not based in the narrow approach of the Bible; rather I repose my entire trust in God Allah YHWH who mercifully selected and sent down from amongst the normal human being persons with a Message from Him.
If you reflect logically and reasonable you would also reach the same conclusion as I have; there is however no compulsion.
I invite you to the truthful path of Quran; the Quran presents claims with reason. The Bible is, please don’t mind, like a deaf and dumb person, its followers have constantly to spoon-feed the claims and reasons to it since it is a work of sinful persons, it is not from God Allah YHWH.
I love Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David and John the Baptist of Quran; not the mythical ones presented by sinful Paul and sinful scribes.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Was Muhammad a sinful man?
Hi friend fgenej11
Like Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David etc, all Messengers Prophets of God Allah YHWH are innocent; that is the merit on which they are selected for this high office of being Messenger.
God Allah YHWH cannot make mistakes in His selections, that is enough logically to vouch for the innocence of those who are selected by Him.
The Jewish and Christian clergy do ascribe sins to Messenger Prophets, which is a sinful mistake of the Jewish and Christian clergy and is an effort to make room for their own wrongs, without any reason or anything logical based in their scriptures.
I love Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David as mentioned in Quran.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
I read a question at Busted Halo – an online magazine of the Christians:
The Question : Someone told me that if a baby dies before being baptized, the baby goes to hell. Is this true?
The answer given by the magazine is not correct, in my opinion.
Babies are innocent: won’t go to hell; good news from Quran for all Americans fathers, mothers and babies and also in the West.
This concept of the Catholics Protestants sending babies to the hell is inhuman and is simply not correct, in my opinion. Every human child born enjoys a respect from God and is innocent and definitely not sinful.
Sins start when one could distinguish between right and wrong; or when one is mature enough. Nobody inherits any sin. It is for this that AllahYHWH only is the master of Judgment; as only He knows as to how much a person can know right from the wrong. No human could judge any person for moral or spiritual sins on behalf of God; not even the church, nor one is entitled to forgive sins on behalf of God AllahYHWH, in my opinion.
Sins are not hereditary, in my opinion.
Jesus never said anything like that. This is the weird philosophy of Paul and of the mislead Church which is neither rational nor logical.
It is for scuh concepts of the clergy that the Churches have become machines or factories producing Atheists in America, in my opinion.The Church is driving away the intelligent person from God.
For God’s sake revise such wrong tenets to make following of Jesus relevant to America and the Americans. The lost souls can only be salvaged with real Jesus, his real Acts and his real Teachings.
I love Jesus s/o Adam as I love Adam and Eve, mentioned in Quran.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
P.S. I have added a page titled “Ask Paarsurrey” on my blog for the questions. Please view it on the side bar of my blog for peaceful questions and discussions. Everybody is welcome; even those who differ with me.