We Created men and women equal in Allah’s sight, though Islam understands they have biological differences. And Men and Women can understand they are different, but they can also work their differences harmoniously without trying to live up to man’s and women’s expectations. They each go at their own pace. Islam does believe however in certain gender roles.
Also consider: The Term (Feminism) originates from the Western Activists. This Term is Un-Known in the Muslim World due to Female oppression being Low in Muslim World. Most Feminist Movements are located in Western World.
U.S soldier, sexist comment?
American Soldier tells Iraqi soldiers that they are acting like a bunch of women. Due to them being scared and Coward.
Also note, the West also believes in gender roles. That’s why they will never choose a woman to jump in the boxing ring to fight Mike Tyson. They will always pick a Man to do that!
So gender roles isn’t something strange, and the West still practise it to this very day!
Now a Western may say, well Females can still box in Womens competition.
But that still doesn’t prove a thing, because women can’t box against Men and take advantage of the same level of prize money, viewing, and status. Again they segregate between Men and Women that proves their not co-equal.
In the article bellow we highlight Scientific and Medical reasons for why women can not be appointed as a Judge, read the full article in the attached link below:
In the next video we give more points on the reasons why women in Islam can not be selected as Rulers or Judges, we also show many inconsistency in the West where Womens and Mens rights are taken away from them:
Further proving Gender Roles in Islam from the Quran and Hadith
Now will be showing, How the West imposes it’s values on Afganistan.
Gender roles, even feminists believe in it!
When they ask women what type of men they prefer to marry or have long-term relationships with, they say they prefer macho men who fit the profile of “benevolent sexists” who exude “toxic masculinity.” Even the self-labelled feminists have this preference. Given the option, no woman prefers to marry a weak man who is a pushover, who actively avoids leadership, who wants to be a meek, quiet follower of women. This type of man is literally disgusting to women.
In other words, the gender component is embedded in human nature.
Some Modernist/or Western Feminist will say things like No such thing as gender roles in the West like your Islamic interpretation. Everyone gets an equal opportunity.
When they look for the next fighter to take on Mike Tyson heavy weight champion of the World . They look for another MAN not another Women.
If they knew men and women were equal. Then they would raise a female boxer to take on Tyson wouldn’t they?
Should I continue with gender roles, like how UFC uses beautiful women called a (ring girl) is a woman who enters the ring between rounds of a combat sport, carrying a sign that displays the number of the upcoming round.
This sort of gender roles are all over Western Liberal society, but you wish to think there is no gender roles and everything is just equal across the board 🙃
It’s clear that gender roles do exist in the West, and their is no real equality, when biology proves there are differences.
Muslim Feminism leads to Apostasy.
When you show a certain Hadith to a feminist. And they say, that hadith has to be rejected because it’s Patriarchy, and also not found in the Quran. Just an example where the Hadith says, women should worship men in a symbolic sense. The Feminist then gets outraged and says, that’s symbolic Patriarchy and must be a weak Hadith or even fabricated. The same goes when you show hadith where it, which explicitly talks about women need to take permission from their husbands who they let into their house. Also how women pray behind men, and not men pray behind women, the list goes on. So the Muslim Feminists is outraged by all of this, saying it’s men who wrote that hadith to serve men’s desires.
But then I roll my eyes because there are many examples of Patriarchy within the Quran. Though I don’t like to use the term Patriarchy, because this term Patriarchy has had a negative meaning since it’s been used for ways to abuse women so let’s rather call it, gender roles, just to name a few examples:
Quran says Men can have more women. But nowhere in the History of Islam or the Quran women can have more than one man. Is that too Patriarchy?
The Quran says, that women ought to obey men. But never says Men need to obey Women. Sure 4:34
The Quran speaks of men getting Hoorlayin (virgin wives), but it doesn’t mention women getting Hoorlayin.
The Quran speaks about women being disciplined using the (Miswak) but never a Man being disciplined using the (Miswak) I.e in none violent way of course. See Tafsir ibn Kathir under Ibn Abbas’s conduct. Sureh 4:34
The Quran speaks about, men having right-hand possession (concubines). It does not say Women can have male concubines.
The Quran speaks about, men being the Protectors, providers and maintainers of women, but it does not say women are the Protectors, providers and maintainers of Men.
The Quran speaks about Prophets to be Men, but never does it say that there were Women Prophet’s in the history of Scripture.
The Quran speaks how during transactions, only 1 man witness is needed. And Two female witnesses. It’s never 1 female Witness. Surah al-Baqarah, Ch:2: V.283
The Quran speaks how men get twice the inheritance women to get. Quran: 4:11-12
The Quran speaks about women having to wear a Hijab over most parts of their body, while men only have a specific area such as the Awrah.
So as you can see, gender roles in the Quran are apparent, so if you’re going to reject the Hadith, then to be consistent you would ought to also reject the Quran for Patriarchy or more correctly “gender roles”. This is our religion and we are unapologetic about it. There are many things also in the Quran and Hadith that favour women and men can not do it also. For example how women don’t have to protect and maintain men, how it’s not hard (compulsory) upon her to attend Cumah while men ought to, how men have to perform Jihad fighting in Battle where you risk your life, and women are not required to risk their lives as such, how men have to pay the Mahir (Bridal gift) even when it can be in the hundreds and thousands, but women don’t have too, and the list goes on. Where women don’t need to fast during breastfeeding or menstruation while men still have to fast, no matter what their work dealings are, and so on.
So this is what we have been saying all along, feminism leads to apostasy because to believe in Western Feminism, it’s designed for you to reject not just the hadith but also the Quran.
There are several ways Apostasy occurs among these feminists. Some of these are more subtle while others are much more apparent.
1 – Where they completely denounce the faith 2 – They may reject Sahi hadith even though it’s classified as being authentic by the council of scholars. 3 – Give a completely different meaning to the verse ( which is pretty much the same as rejecting the verse) 4 – The verse is no longer applicable, or it just is metaphorical. Which is another way of rejecting the ayah. 5 – Openly reject the verse of the Quran. Despite this still claim they are Muslim and accuse you not to judge them and only God can judge them. 6 – Claim that the Hadith contradicts the Quran based on it not being found in the Quran. (By the way, this isn’t how Islamic jurisprudence works, because everything is helal until the Quran or hadiths proves its haram. And everything is Haram until the Quran and Hadith prove it to be Helal. If either the Quran or Hadith is silent then it becomes lawful, and vice versa.
Feminism started all innocent, you know like sticking up for women oppression and domestic abuse or equal right and opportunity in the workplace like equal pay and so on. But these days it pushed itself into an ideology where it tries to remove every type of gender role and tries to change any legal code or religious belief because they continued to get blinded by their hatred towards men and so they think that anything that is withheld from women classifies as a Misogynistic idea. But of course, you would hardly see them complain when scripture also favours them. Then it’s all fine and justified. And when they are pushed into “consistency in their logic” is when the next stages to apostasy take place.
About the End Times. They say “Yes” Jesus did a lot of wars in the Old Testament Bible, however, Jesus came in the New Testament to teach, Peace and Love and no more killing and Wars and taught us to turn the other ” Cheek,
Yet this Christian Website says ” Jesus comes as a WAR Lord in his second coming:
Interesting points from website with my additions;
-The Devil Anti-Christ will sign a contract with Israel and not Saudi Arabia. So much for Christians sucking up to Jews! And defending Israel.
-The devil will then ” Rule the Jews” for seven years! Note the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) will be accepted by the Jews as their Leader. Notice nothing about ” Islam or Arabs being Ruled by the Anti-Christ. So much for Islam being of the devil!
The Anti Christ will be Worshiped in the Jureselem Temple. Not in the Islamic Mosque!
-Jesus will then WAR against the Anti -Christ AND his ARMY. Ask yourself who is the Army of Israel. Hamas or IDF?
-Jesus will then cast ALL unbeliever’s into a Lake of Fire.
Halulya God of Peace?
It seems Jesus will be fighting none other then the Zionist Israeli run by the Anti Christ.
If Islam was the Devil why nothing about Fighting Saudi Arabia?
Even Christian Apologist Sam Shamoun admits ” Israel is an Abomination”
Well the Christian website admits: that ancient manuscripts have differences, some say 70 others say 72. However they argue it’s more “likely it’s 70. And that the 0 was changed to a 2 was simply a “copiest error”.
However this begs the question. One could argue, it’s not 70 but rather 72. And that the 72 was accidentally rounded off to the nearest number of 70 by “accident”. However it should have been originally left at 72 as it was “inspired”. So it’s really a circular arguement, there could be two possible explainations, both invalidating each other’s theory.
It is thus clear, Christian’s do not have “The holy spirit ” to tell them conclusively which is truelly the Word of God. That being 70 or 72? And so they just guess which it is, like it’s Russian roulette let’s hit the fire on the gun and see where it lands.
Honestly is this, what Christian’s call the divinely inspired word of God? What about all the other theological teachings in the bible can one say, well their just copiest Errors? Those who had the “Holy Spirit” while copying didn’t the voice the holy spirit tell them you made a mistake? Christian’s tells us often how the holy Spirit guides them to all truths. And it even talks to them in toungs. We hear how even miracles are being performed, and yet no miracle to correct the bible? Oh wait, if you ever bring this up, a Christian will say, do not test God!
It’s basically a trick way of saying, look I understand we kinda got exposed but don’t try and test God, because thats “blasphemy” it’s basically a convenient way, of trying to silence criticism. And Yet the bible says, “prove all things: (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
Furthermore Christian’s tell us, they can indeed refer to the oldest manuscripts to repair any scribal Errors, so I ask then why they couldn’t fix the issue of 70 or 72? Perhaps they can not because these discrepancy are too found in the earliest ancient manuscripts.
Does Jesus Judge people or does he not?
No: John 12:47
Jesus said “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
Yes: John 5:22
Jesus said ” Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction. Quran – 4:82
Christian Apologists admits in a Debate ” lots of really bad things in the Old Testament” meaning that his Jesus the God of the Old Testament commanded his followers to go and kill; Men, women, children and infants. The verses in the O.T (1 Samuel 15:3) & (Numbers 31) in the name of Jesus.
Ali Atai pointed out, that Moses in the Bible in Numbers 31.
Killed Women and Children, and the non virgins girls were given to men. So they can be raped. Otherwise why would virgin girls lives spared? And not the non virgin ones? This is all ordained by Jesus, because Christians say Jesus is God. And saying that was the Old Testament doesn’t make the “crime go away”. Read also 1 Samuel 15:3, again the Bible endorsed the killing of women and babies.
1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version (NIV)3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Yes, Jesus the God of the O.T endorses for his followers to go stick swords into infants. Numbers 31:17-18 King James Version (KJV)
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Exactly keep all the virgin girls to “yourselves” If Jesus was alive today he would be arrested for war crimes he commited in the Old Testament for endorsing such violence that, He would be held accountable under the Human rights watch, and charged for war crimes under the United nations commission.
Christian Apologist David Wood is reminded again, of the bad things in the Bible see:
And so God sent them a army and killed them by the sword, and even infant babies and children were killed. However the non virgin girls were killed but not the virgin ones. So if they all were sinners due to unbelief why were the virgin lives spared? And then how can babies and children be sinners? What sin did a infant commit? There’s Davids claim they deserved death because they were sinners doesn’t make sense.
Now just imagine, we said that Allah gathered a Muslim army to go and kill babies and infants women and children because they were “sinners”?
David wood, would have had a field day with this, and said look how barbaric Allah is, He even tells Muslims to stick swords into infant babies, women and children.
So David Woods explaination fails miserably. Claiming they were sinners doesn’t work, as not all sinners were killed, and we know babies can not sin, since they are sinless. And if you want to claim all babies are born into sin, then are we to believe that all babies should be killed including all humanity because we are all born into sin? So again that makes no sense. So what we are left with, the Biblical God of the Old Testament is presented as a bad God, with bad Morals. Now someone might say, what about Allah who kills babies and infants by natural disasters, like cyclones and hurricanes.
I would argue, there is still a difference, why? Because here we see God working alone, He gives life and takes life. And so if He wishes to take a life, by natural means so that life returns to him, so be it. But then on the other hand you have a God, that specifically instructs human beings to stick swords into infants because he claims they are unbelievers and in sin, but then the same God says, don’t stick swords into older virgin girls who are sinners too. So why does God prefer virgin older girls over babies? Its really bizzar. And what makes it even more so bizzar, is when Christians all day argue how evil and barbaric Terrorism is, and they point to groups like Al-Qa’ida or ISIS who commit acts of Terrorism like blowing themselves up in market places, killing both men, women and children. And they do this because they are brain washed to believe this is what God is instructing them to do. And God is instructing them to do this, because they are sinners and unbelievers. And so the Christian will say, look at this barbarism, look at this Terrorism. And if that Terrorist said, I’m doing this because God told me to do it. The moral justification would never be accepted by a Christian, which begs the question then, why do they accept the Terrorism ordained by the Biblical God, who tells his soldiers to do the very same act of ISIS.
1) Kill the sinners
2) Target women and children
Or perhaps there is a double standard here. One standard for Arab terrorists. And another standard for Biblical Terrorists?
Muslim apologist Nadir Ahmed argues, “Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands [sic] to go commit genocide against this nation of people as we read in 1 Sam 15:3. These are Jesus Christ’s words. What is even more demented, is that Jesus Christ ordered the killing of babies!”(6). However, there are several problems with Ahmed’s “analysis.”
As noted, this type of “destroy all that they have … man and woman, child and infant” language was commonplace in the Near East and is not to be taken literally. It was simply a way back then of saying there was going to be war victory. How do we know Saul did not literally annihilate all the Amalekites including women and children? Because later in 1 Samuel 27:8 we see that there are Amalekites still living. They are also seen again in 1 Samuel 30 in massive number (four hundred) (vv. 1, 17). Thus, to argue Saul literally wiped out of all Amalekites including women and children is erroneous since the totality of the book demonstrates a great number of them were not meant to be killed. Again when those in the Ancient Near East would say they were going to (or did) wipe out all of the people of a land; it was a hyperbole to communicate desired decisive war victory.
Now it must be asked: who were the Amalekites and why was war with them justified? Immediately after Israel crossed the Red Sea and camped in the wilderness in Rephidim in Exodus 17, these barbaric nomad Amalekites viciously attacked them there (Exodus 17:1, 8). As Copan notes, “The Amalekites were relentless in their aim to destroy Israel, and they continued to be a thorn in Israel’s side for generations (e. g., Judg. 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; 10:12; etc).”(7)
Muslim Response: This Rebbutal is going to be very short and very simple. Keith argues that when God orderd Biblical followers to go and kill all the Amelikites including Women and Children and Infants this does not mean “Literally” what is the Bases of his arguement? Simply because in other passages of the Bible their were “Still Amelekites found living.
This arguement is so bad and embarrassing” all it takes is some common sense. Just because” Their was a WAR ordering the total extermination of the people, yet finding people who survived the onslaught does not mean the onslaught did not take place. That would be equivalent to say, if we found Holocaust survivers living in a place “still alive” it does not mean a ” Holocaust did not take place. In fact during WARS or say” WARS intended for genocide doesn’t mean the perpetrators are going to get ” Everybody. As you know during WARS people flee their home lands and even go into hiding. So to claim Because there were still Amelekites found living does not help at all ” Keiths arguement that vast majority of the Amelites did not get slaughtered in fact he only mentions their was 400 of them found still living which proves still that thousands and thousands of them got slaughtered and only 400 fleed the town or went into hiding makes just as a valid arguement.
Infact that’s a contradiction made Keith, because Saul was told why he didn’t destroyed the entire Amalekites….
“But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. (1 Samuel 15:20)
Keiths is clearly being deceptive. That’s not the language for that time it’s a literal statement when they said destroy all living things
When we even go to the (Christian Tefsir)
Mathew Henry commentary: Tells us that the Evil amoung them were Sacrafised to the Lord. What does Sacrafise mean?
Pulpit Commentary Tefsir: Tells us that ALL living things to be killed including Men and Cattle to be killed, and even the Gold and Silver taken off them and be put into a treasury and all their belongings Burnt down. Again how is this Non-Literal?
John Gills commentary Tefsir: Again John Gill talks about how all will be slaughtered Men Women Children Infants and Animals. Nothing about non-literal terms as Keith Suggest in all of the commentary here.
If Keiths arguement was ” True” then we would see the same consistency else where in the Biblical Wars. Take for example (Numbers 31) Where Moses and his Army killed many Women and Children and were orderd to kill the Non- virgin girls and leaving the Virgin ones alive to be distributed as spoils of War. Now how will Keith Thompson explain away keeping virgins girls to give away as spoils of War after Murdering their Parents? Literally? So his arguement fails on the premise of ” Inconsistency”. If 1 Samuel 15:3 is Non-Literal them so ought to be Numbers 31 which is clearly not.
Keith Thompson then went onto say that the War was Justified, yet how can Sticking Swords into babies be Justified blows ones mind. And claiming it’s not literal has no biblical bases at all.
“17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18).
Offering an Islamic distortion and misuse of this text is Zaatari who claims that in this text the Israelites “left all the virgins to themselves whom they obviously slept with.”(19) However, this inaccuracy or lie is refuted when 1) one realizes premarital sex (fornication) is condemned in Deuteronomy 22:13-21; and 2) one consults 25:1-4, 6 of Numbers for the context of 31:17-18.
Once task two is done one understands the Moabite and Midianite women had sexually enticed the Israelite men to worship false gods such as Baal. Hence, the reason God spared the young virgins among the Midianites in 31:17-18, instead of the older women who slept with the Israelite men, was because the young virgins were not guilty of this heinous crime. Only the older women were. It was therefore a kind and merciful gift that these young innocent virgins were spared by Moses and the Israelites in 31:17-18. As Old Testament scholar Ronald B. Allen relayed,
“Only young girls … would be saved alive; only they had not contaminated themselves with the debauchery of Midian and Moab in Baal worship (v. 18). The suggestion is that the participation of women from Midian in the debased orgiastic worship of Baal described in chapter 25 was extensive, not selective.”(20)
It is the Muslims who read into the text the false idea that the Israelites took the young virgin girls in order to sleep with them. The text does not actually say such a thing, however. Thus, it is not “obvious” that this occurred as Zaatari claims. This is the Muslim mindset and lifestyle (Muhammad slept with a child named Aisha. being read backwards into the text when the text itself does not actually say these things. Titus 1:15 gives the reason why Muslims such as Zaatari pervert this merciful act toward these innocent virgin girls turning it into something corrupt and perverse: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled” (Titus 1:15).
Here we go Keith Thompson yet again makes seriously bad arguements, he goes on to say” the Bible no where makes the claim that the virgin girls kept in this passage were ” Used” for sex. And the reason why they were kept alive and only the Non-virgin ones were killed because they defiled them selves meaning had illegal sex with the idols unlike the virgin ones who were spared. Not because they wanted virgin girls for sex he argues rather because they unlike the Non-Virgin ones did not commit fornication with Idols.
Now if this arguement was valid? One needs to ask “Keith” if the purpose of keeping the Virgins alive was not for sex, why was not the “little ones from amoung the males spared as well? Is Keith Suggesting that little male children like babies and infants and kids were also defiled themselves fornicating with Idols? Now how absurd would that be? And how come these virgin girls were given to a Priest as a tribute by Moses( Bible Numbers 31:40). What is a male priest going to do with 32 Virgin Girls? How come women are not given virgin girls and only Men get them? Sounds fishy does it not? Why doesn’t the same Priest not get virgin Male Children if it’s not about Sex?
So as you can see ” Keiths Non-sensical arguements do not add up. At all and only prove that virgin Girls were only taken for Men to enjoy them as concubines. Even King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines in the Bible for him to enjoy http://biblehub.com/1_kings/11-3.htm
Maybe thats Helal for Moses to follow that Example for why he gave the priest 32 virgins for cohabitation.
Finaly here is a response to Christians why try and throw the Old Testament under the bus to say; That was the Old Testament. Therefore the old testament no longer applies.
Saying that was the Old Testament, doesn’t make the bad moral judgments of the Biblical God go away. It just proves, the Biblical God, was unaware of making the right decisions, which begs the question about a deficiency in Gods wisdom and intelligence on morals, as presented by the Bible on the concept of God.
Critics of Islam including Feninists among Muslims bring this hadith up to try and attack Islam or attack the hadith in order to show Islam or Hadith belittles women.
I don’t understand, why critics or Muslim Feminists are saying this post is causing harm. And they want an explanation. With all due respect? I’m astonished that people are unaware of human development.
This has nothing to do with women being degraded or women made to look evil. Rather, what is one of the most treasured things to a man is women. Therefore women can be a great fitnah (Trial or Test) for men, because of Mens strong desire for women, which can cause Men to fall into great temptations and sin. It is commonly known that men watch more pornography than women
So it makes sense why women can be a great trial fitnah for Men. Remember even from a young age it’s predominantly boys chasing girls around as opposed to girls chasing boys around. So Islam forbids things like watching pornography and committing things like Adultery and Fornication or even touching non-mahrem women for the matter, therefore since this is a strong temptation especially for men based on even science and human development, it is why women are a servere test for men.
So interestingly they are too quick to dismiss the Hadith as being inaccurate or misogynistic remove your femiNazi spectacles it will help you see a lot clearer.
You said you will not advocate for violence of which ever kind?
Every law in every country advocates violence to restore public order. That’s how governments function.
The same people, who happened to give you humanism and human rights themselves under international law, advocate violence depending on the circumstance. That’s how they restore peace and order, and at times use the same measures to spread their values to the rest of the globe.
Perhaps you are an apostate from basic humanist values. The same humanist values, that murder by license human fetus. So you are in no way of lecturing Us on violence, by coming here and talking to us about the Quran. The fact that you invite people to hellfire through your Godless delusion, endangers the lives of many people, by sending them to eternal damnation. Your human rights values give more value to a dog than a human being. For example when humanist atheists agnostics were asked the Question? Would you save your drowning dog or your neighbour? But you had to pick one. These Godless humanists picked a Dog over a fellow human being.
God, I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be a humanist. He is more of a Dogist than a humanist, and this is the problem of Atheist humanists when humans are reduced to no different than any other Animal because again as Richard Dawkins a famous Atheist humanist puts it, there is no difference then a pig and a human fetus. Well, no wonder they support Murdering of a fetus by Abortion, that’s the price you pay when adopting the theory of Atheist, they con people into thinking that they are peaceful. When the reality shows depending on the circumstance they can be the most barbaric of all. A question was asked, to these same humanists if you were the only two people on the earth and had to choose between raping a women or allow the planet to go into human extinction. Most humanists justify raping that lady who refused to have a baby with him and continue human existence. To know wonder why a Humanist Atheist preacher known as Sam Harris who justified rape saying it helped pass genes from one species to another species.
Another question was asked, if there was a law that said we need to kill half the population of the earth which includes the youth, to save the planet from collapsing (hypothetically speaking) then these very same humanists would justify those killings to save the rest of humanity. What im merely showing is that these Humanists and Atheists are the biggest con-artists when they claim they are not violent. When shit hits the fan they are the first one to comprise cruelty and death, to justify the means. In Islam for example, if such circumstances occurred, we would allow the world to end, and murder is murder, even if that means it will cause the earth to end because we, unlike Humanist atheists, have principles. But for them, there are no principles, and pleasure comes before human life, self-interest comes before humanity. Humanist atheism is ruthless so don’t ever believe them when they claim they believe in peace to the World, and how under humanism everything is colourful rainbows 🌈
So to sum up;
Three Questions to ask these pretend humanists Atheists.
Atheists identify themselves generally as being Humanists and claim to be ethically upright people.
If you’re neighbour and you’re pet dog was drowning and you could only save 1 who would you choose?
If you had to save the planet from self destruction, but in order for this to happen you had to immediately exterminate 80% of the human population in order to save the planet. Would you order the killings of these human beings?
Wait and see their responses just let them keep talking and see how they self expose themselves on how much they really value human life!
Ask an Atheist if He could only save one at sea, would He prefer to save a 5-year-old drowning child. Or the last ever-existing female Panda Bear?
Which Would it Be?
Then ask them how exactly do they define themselves as “Humanists”. They are anti-human!
This is how these Atheists can not be moral people, they are against the human race, for they have made animals equal to humans. Beware of Atheists they are indeed cruel human beings, when shit hits the fan, you are certainly not on their saving list agenda.
These atheists probably donate more money to Animal Welfare organizations than they do towards donating to starving children around the world but then have the audacity to blame God for the condition of the human race.
In fact I kid you not, I remember one time listening to a interview of a British couple who by the way we’re extremely wealthy people. I’m talking say, millions and millions of dollars. The interviewing asked, you are old age and have no children, what will you decide to do with all this money once you are gone.
Of course one would have expected them to say, will be donating all this money for all the starving children of the world right?
No, she said she really loves Tigers. And she strongly believes in the conservation of animals, so she will be donating all her wealth towards Animal welfare programs.
There is a belief among Atheists, that believing in Religion is a form of indoctrination, and that when you are a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu, you are unable of thinking for yourself, and you are not free to think critically about your faith, and therefore those who believe in Religion are somehow brainwashed and therefore cannot think for themselves, and that’s the reason they say, why people who believe in organised religion or the concept of a God, it is because of this very reason.
I’ll be sharing why this fallacious arguement doesn’t make any logical sense, and in fact, I will share with you, points that can brush those who follow the free-thinking claim are not free-thinkers themselves and they too follow Atheistic indoctrination. Now here is the thing, these Atheists seem to suggest when you are in religion you can’t freely think for yourself. Well here is the one million dollar question? If it’s true that when you are a Muslim you can not think for yourself and make rational decisions then why do Ex-Muslims like Harris Sultan who was able to “Free think” for himself and leave Islam? Surely if this person under Islam was not able to think for himself because of all that religious indoctrination, then He shouldn’t have left Islam correct? The very fact that He did leave Islam proves in itself that when you are a Muslim you can critically think about your own beliefs. If Muslims could not critically think for themselves then why does people like Harris Sultan open platforms targeting the Muslim youth? Well, He does so because He knows that just like He was a free thinker, and left Islam then all these other Muslims to can think for themselves and therefore why He spends all his time and energy preaching to them. You see folks, this free-thinking concept is no more than a derogatory slur, and a colonialist inferiority complex of seeing Muslims less themselves, because they believe that when you believe in non-religious things that is when you become progressive and intelligent and “enlightened”, but this begs the Question was the Muslim not intelligent to think for himself when He left Islam? And what about Atheists who believed in all of those things like “reason” and critical thinking, and logic, despite this they left Atheism and have either become Muslim or Christian, are we now to believe that when you become an Atheist, you are now able to think critically and reason, now have to explain why those who lived that progressive thought process have come to Islam or who have converted to Islam or Christianity?
This now debunks the notion that only when you are an atheist is when you can think critically, because if that were the case then no Atheist would accept religion now would they? Nor would any Muslim or Christian leave Islam, the fact that they do does not mean you have to be first an Atheist to critically be able to think for yourself. Now that we have cleared that blunder, what about the claim that indoctrination hinders a person’s free-thinking abilities?
Well let’s show some points on how one can brush Atheists as those who have been indoctrinated and they can’t think for themselves as they want you to believe because they too receive indoctrination on a daily bases from Atheistic agents.
“Stop being a sheep and be an individual. Think for yourself. That’s the only way you can truly be ethical, intelligent, and free!”
The mantras of individualism are well-known today, for they are a staple of most people’s thinking. To be independent from the crowd is considered a sign of superiority compared to those who merely follow.
But individualism is a myth.
The idea that man is an island capable of separating themselves completely from the grasps of societal norms, values, and ideas is utterly delusional. Human beings think and act synthetically. What we call the “individual” is merely a reconfiguration of accepted norms and principles, much akin to phenotype. Differences are considered more genuine only by virtue of the fact that others have yet to determine particular combinations of dress, words, gestures, and yes, even concepts.
In other words, there is no such thing as non-conformity on some grand scale — a type of detachment born ex nihilo. Even so, the idea that one should detach themselves in such a way is absolutely absurd, because in order to survive in the world and be successful one needs to conform with their peers to a degree. A man in total isolation ultimately dehumanizes himself and runs the risk of insanity; for humans are social creatures. And in order to be ‘social’ one needs to conform to a society.
And this is why I find it ludicrous when certain people claim to now “think for themselves” as opposed to “following”. Whether you convert or deconvert from or to a religion/ideology the idea that you have become an individual as a result is an oxymoron — because all you’ve actually done is change what you conform to. Whether you adopt Islamic values or Western ones (or attempt a hybrid), you are conforming to something for which you had given no input prior. And even if your perspective is drastically different to others’, you’re still borrowing considerably from previous ideas in order to construct it.
We should not be so concerned with whether we’re “thinking for ourselves” as much as we should be concerned with what we’re thinking. Conformity or non-conformity means little if your ideas are invalid. Just because you grew up in a particular society doesn’t necessitate that said ideas become suspect; nor does it mean that said ideas are necessarily correct. And just because you move away from one society doesn’t mean you’ve left conformity all-together.
The reality is, when people say “think for yourself”, what they really mean is “agree with me”. And that’s a vacuous irony that needs to eventually be realized.
Topic: Atheist only panel?
Atheist: The only people on the Panel should be those non-indoctrinated, critical thinkers that can think for themselves. Forget religion, skin colour or politics. If they are educated, and can critically think, then they’re hired.
Me: of course Atheists are non-indoctrinated Critical thinker that can think for themselves.
A ExMuslim writes in response to a Muslim praising God He was born into a Muslim Family:
Responding to a ExMuslim Murat Mamkegh
Topic: You are a Muslim, because you were born into a Muslim family?
One can say the same about being born into a FAMILY whos parents happen to be Atheist. There children more then likely will be Atheist too. We are all, impacted by the environment we live in.
If Richard Dawkins had a son, I’m certain he will grow up to be like his dad, someone that he looks up to. And one can say, the son of Dawkins is gifted. He learns first hand from his father about the Atheist world view.
In fact before I started practising my faith. I grew up with a Turkish community that is from Corum. It is well known that if you are from Corum, you are either a Alaweeh, or more Atheist. Especially the Corum community here in Melbourne, Australia. Extremely rarely you will find Sunni Followers among them. In fact I grew up with most of them even during my teenage life. The boys among them were Atheist’s, and surprisingly they were Atheists, because there fathers were Atheist’s too. Usually though the eldest Grandma would be practising. I met tons of them like this in my Turkish community here where I stay.
So the point is, when you want to talk about convenience, and how we are Muslim because of where we were brought up, one can argue the same for a lot of the Atheists too.
By the way, it is a gift of God to be born into a Muslim family because its like a first hand advantage, however in our theology we believe, it could also be a disadvantage, let me explain.
The punishment could be much greater, for one who has been gifted an advantage and yet does not take upon that opportunity and disregards it. When He could have been born into a Hindu family and left in the distance.
In saying that, we still believe God is the most just, he can guide anyone know matter how disadvantage one may perceive. For a example, there are people who are born into families who are brought up to be great enemies of Islam, and yet they find guidance, like the Jews in Israel for example, I know a brother like this. And there is also stories of that Dutch politician who worked for Geert Wilder’s, and yet he left his organisation to convert to Islam. Also we believe Gods mercy is so great, that according to Islamic theology, if you dont hear the pure message of Islam come to you, then there is no sin upon you. And you will not be punished. Some Scholars say, this also includes a person now day who lives in United States, and only hears a distorded version of Islam from FoxNews. Then he will not be judged, because he didn’t hear the truth rather a distorded version. And if He dies, he will not be judged as a disbeliever. Also consider, that if a person is born to a family very distant to Islam. And yet he still converts to Islam. His conversion to Islam will be seen as a greater reward then the one who happens to be raised in a Muslim household. Therefore in (Jennah) he shall see a greater portion of reward for being put in a much more difficult position, thus the reward is greater. So we shouldn’t always look at it as a disadvantage but it could also have advantages.
Murat, you follow the tune, of Dawkins who says those very words. Your a Muslim because your parents are and so on….
But if you really think deeply one can argue, most Americans are democrats because they come from a country of demoracts, or most Russians or Chinese are communist because they come from a communist country, so this logic can apply to everything and anyone. It is true, that we can all be impacted by our environmental circumstances, but this doesn’t mean we can not think for ourselves.
Because that’s the primary argument. Well if that were the case, then you as a Atheist’s had the opportunity to think for yourself and leave Islam. And there are many stories of Atheist’s who were brought up as Atheist’s and thought about it, and converted to Islam. So you can still be a free thinker, and have faith. Or you can chose to disbelieve also.
In fact, i was brought up in a Muslim family, but they weren’t practising. There was very little connection between us and God. I lived the secular Atheist life style and didn’t care about God, or if I had to serve him, if He existed. Later in my life, I did my own research and began to realise the truth. I was about 23 years old at the time. I also did research into other faiths. So because I was born into a Muslim family, it didn’t mean we were practising, as a lot of Muslim families are cultural Muslims, you know Muslim by name, and devout only when it came to the month of Ramadan. Yeh those types.
Everyday that I’m a Muslim, I don’t sit there and close my eyes. I don’t shut myself away from the free thinking community, I engage them, so I can hear what they have to say, and in doing so I continue to test my beliefs against there’s and by doing so, I’m open to dialogue, and I enjoy it because it strengthens my faith even more that I know I’m on the haqq ( truth) again I’m old enough and wise enough to make my own decisions in life. So you need to stop, treating us as if you are the only “free thinker”.
Also about convenience; being born a Muslim is God bless, to remain a Muslim requires effort. It’s the opposite of convenience. When a Muslim starts practising, convenience goes out the window. We are not like Christians, who don’t have to worship, they just believe Jesus died for sins and they don’t even have to go to church. Whereas Muslims, you are told to give up on most Western lifestyles, and every day your battle with your (nefs) desires to obtain away from Haram and wake up early to pray your selah. One can argue, it’s more convenient to become an Atheist and not have to tire oneself, with these things.
Jews have a Torah set of Books not included in the Christian Old Testament. Why is that? If the Torah is preserved in it’s entirety?
Surely the Old Testament can not be the Word of Allah, in it’s complete original form and corruption has entered it.
These are Gods words
1 Samuel 15:3 New International Version 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally(A) destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
Are we going to accept this as Allahs preserved word?
To order your soldiers to stick swords into babies? Not even the Animals are spared.
Sure then Islam must be a Terrorist cult by claiming this is Allahs words?
The O.T portrays a Prophet of Islam to have sex with his daughters who their daughters got him drunk.
This can not be Allah words as it has been clearly tampered with.
Discussing with a Christian: Jesus TWO Natures one being Human the other God according to Triniterians, we also discuss Jesus being “sinless therefore divine”?
Christians tell us the Human nature of Jesus, is not like his divine nature. Only the human nature has flaws like, he needs to sleep, gets hundry, ignorant about the last hour, it can die. Etc.
They argue the divine nature has no flaws, because its the divine nature that is God. But then i ask them, can the human “nature sin” They say: no. It can’t sin and never has it sinned. So again tell me how is the human natures flawed?
Please clarify who said, “The human nature can’t sin and never has sinned,” and when they said it.
This sounds like something mis-quoted and/or taken out of context.
Hi Graham Harter, just about every Christian i have spoken to, say that Jesus has never sinned by his human nature nor divine nature, they have even gone to the extent to say his human nature was too perfect to fall into sin.
May i ask, do you believe Jesus sinned through his human experiences on earth?
Orthodox Christology is in many respects quite a subtle and nuanced doctrine. The nuances need to be distinguished quite carefully, otherwise we can easily end up saying things we don’t really mean, and/or people can take us to mean things we haven’t actually said.
How much of that has been the case, i.e., mis-statement, in things Christians have said to you, and how much has been misunderstood; and how much of it has been what Christians genuinely believed, and you’ve understood it correctly, is of course difficult to say.
For what it’s worth, here is my understanding of what the New Testament teaches about Christ in his human nature. I will word this carefully, and I would certainly appreciate it if others would be so kind as to read what I say carefully and endeavour not to understand it as saying something it isn’t.
Did Jesus ever sin?
Firstly, the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus never once sinned.
In order for the Messiah to bear the sins of his people (those who put their trust in him), theologically it’s necessary for him to be as it were an ‘unblemished’ lamb — like the unblemished lambs which were to be offered in the tabernacle as prescribed in the book of Leviticus (see, e.g., Leviticus 1:10 (context: whole chapter)).
Not only is this a theological point that Christians believe about Jesus, but the New Testament actually states it explicitly:—
“For we do not have a high priest [i.e., Jesus] who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet was without sin.” Hebrews 4:15
So then, it is clear that Jesus did not sin.
Didn’t he sin through his human experiences on earth?
Now, the New Testament is unashamed in attributing to Jesus Christ some very human experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement (Matthew 8:10), not knowing things (John 4:1 being an example).
Merely to undergo human experiences such as the above, is not sin.
Sin rather is turning away from God, disobedience toward God. Sin is not therefore entailed in any of the above experiences — hunger, thirst, amazement, not knowing — unless of course any of the above experiences arise out of some sinful course of action. For example, I might not know about God because I deliberately choose not to find out about him. But in and of themselves, the above experiences are not sinful.
This should in any case be clear from the foregoing points. If the New Testament says that Jesus underwent these human experiences, but the New Testament also says that Jesus did not sin, it follows that these experiences are not (of necessity) sinful.
Could Jesus have sinned?
I am firmly convinced that it was possible for Jesus to sin.
To be human is to have the aptitude to sin.
What then does it mean for the Son of God to take our human nature to himself, if that does not entail his taking on the possibility of sin?
Or to put it another way, how could Jesus be the Saviour of sinners if he did not so identify with us as to take on our aptitude to sin?
Hence I firmly believe that, though Jesus did not sin, it was possible for him to do so.
Once again, however, we are not reliant solely on philosophical reasoning to reach this conclusion. Scripture itself gives us a very clear clue.
In Matthew chapter 4 and parallels, Jesus is driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The devil actually tempted Jesus — three specific temptations are given in Matthew chapter 4, and a very similar list of three temptations in Luke chapter 4.
Now what does it mean that Jesus was “tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1), if in fact it were not possible for Jesus to succumb to that temptation? Surely, rather, the very fact he was tempted implies that it was possible for Jesus to sin.
God be thanked, Jesus resisted the devil. In this he did the opposite to what Adam had done. When Adam was tempted by the devil, he succumbed (Genesis 3:6-7); Jesus, however, resisted.
Such is my understanding of the answer to your question, Mustafa Muhammed Sahin, from the New Testament’s perspective. I believe that all three of the points I have demonstrated above are not only true and reasonable, but also demonstrable from the New Testament text.
I hope this has been helpful to you.
Hi Graham Harter thank you very much for your well written response, i do i must say understand your stance, that Jesus as you say had the possibility to “Sin” by his human nature.
However i will God willing point out the many inconsistencies even still by the many examples lets start for example with this one,
Many Christians that i know when they respond to the Muslim questions regarding, Jesus human nature for example he did not depend upon his own Godly powers to give him strength after being tempted by the devil, Jesus the the (God Man) suffered, at times “Angels” would come to give him healing( Luke 22:43), they would strengthen him. When Muslims would say, why did not Jesus if indeed he have TWO nature’s one being “divine” did not demand on that very “divine” nature to give him strength, rather looked else where for help?
Christian Apologist would say” oh but Jesus was teaching a lesson of humbling himself” as a Man.
Christian Apologist also say” God came down to earth as a Man so he can experience what its like to feel the pains of men, so he can be close to us and experience what we experience, this is why he went through human suffering. So it seems that “Jesus as a man God wished to experience all these human problems, feeling pain, suffering, choosed not to show him self to be “self sufficient”, this was all to prove how humble he is, Yet he never once wished to prove his ” Humbleness” to commit a Sin and the Humbleness of a sincere repentance was never achieved. If he did those things, that too me proves true humility and Humbleness, merely being a man proves nothing, as even man by nature can be cruel and arrogant.
I find that pretty bazzar. Is it possible the Gospel writers felt pretty un-comfortable to mention he was sinful? If it was so un-exceptable for Jesus to sin during his ministry, are we to believe he didn’t sin even during his youth, before his ministry? Are we to believe that Jesus wished to experience even ” death at the cross” yet never wished to experience even the smallest of the smallest sin, like a “swear word”.
Not even during his youth by the way, the bible leaves out much of his youth. Im really suprised ” Jesus” as a human being simply did not commit a sin. I mean why was he so “Shy” after all? The Christians would have said even if he did “Sin” well he was just humbling him self before God, and that was part of his “human nature”? If they had such a get out card for everything else why not allow him to sin, and use the same excuse it was just his ” Human nature” kapish!
Im thinking the Bible writers felt un-comfortable about it because they were i believe trying to prove this man was just to holy and God to even commit Sins. We even look at saintly figures today, who are so devout we think in our minds this guy is just to perfect to commit a sin, i believe this is how the Bible writers wished to write the Bible about Jesus. After all the Bible is just a perspective of man writing on behalf of Jesus, i don’t think Jesus ever said he never sinned, its more about what people thought to believe about him.
For example, the gospel writers were not there while Jesus was being tempted by the Devil. There were no eye-witnesses, Jesus was alone in the wilderness, and the bible account just says After 40 days he resisted Sin. No one can know this for sure, maybe Jesus did sin those nights and days in secret since he followed satan to begin with, and the Bible writers just proposed he over came not to sin any longer, but instead wrote, he resisted sin. In other words we are just getting the assumption of these gospel writers who were not there watching and observing each move of Jesus. As you know sins can also be commited in “Secret”. So how can they be sure from just a public observation? Well of course Christians then say, well the Bible is “inspired” but being “inspired” is not “enough” Christians like to convince themselves that there were many eye-witnesses to the crucified Christ and resurrected Christ, so then i ask where are these “witnesses to every secret move of Jesus? Well the answer is none.
Its interesting how this whole focus God made on Jesus in the 40 days and nights to overcome sin to prove the human nature resisted “Sin” why was God so interested in testing the man nature of Jesus? Its not as though the man nature of Jesus wil be going to heaven or hell, Jesus instead would be sitting on the throne as God no matter if Jesus resisted sin (via) his human nature or not. So why would God put Jesus through all that temptation? When its no value to the human nature of Jesus? Since there will be no human nature of Jesus in heaven rejoicing he passed the temptation. He will be fully God. Jesus only became Human nature to be slain on earth, in the hereafter he will be in his glorified body that is no longer, with the bad human qualities.
If Yahway was testing say, somebody else like, Judas then it would make sense in the wilderness, but to test Jesus who is just going to go to heaven regardless if he resisted sin or not makes no sense. Now i know what you will do, you may say well Jesus was teaching us a lesson to the rest of humanity no matter how tough it is we must resist satans temptations just to explain away these problems. However i would ask the Christian why then did you compare Jesus to Adam? Why did you try and compare Jesus is Greater then Adam for Adam failed and Jesus succeeded?
See its been all about Jesus to prove that he is better then everyone else, its not really about these stories being a lesson to everyone else. Thus why his God even in morality and even in human nature to resist sin, even though you dont wish to admit it, otherwise why compare Jesus human nature with Adams Human nature? Then blame adam not being as Good as Jesus human nature?
Like i said it would have been more, reasonable to test a person like Judas because its that very same human nature of Judas trying to prove obedience to obtain God’s salvation, Testing the obedience of Jesus is meaningless since he will end up in Paradise regardless since of course you believe his God. The only way it will make a little sense if he wasn’t God and thus God tested his 40 night obedience. And that Jesus did not in fact have these ” Two Natures”.
I think the bible writers are not being honest about Jesus and sin, we even have the story of the women brought to him for “adultery” Jesus said those “without sin” cast the first stone. Now Christians Apologist will tell you, Jesus didn’t believe she comited the sin, it was just a false charge.
My response would be suppose, she really did “Sin” would Jesus have been the first to frow the stone, since unlike her accusers, Jesus could have stoned her since he was without sin? So how does Jesus removing the law of stoning get based on a narrative that she was not guilty? If she was guilty then Jesus would have ought to submit to the mosaic law at the time. Well the interesting thing is Bible scholars are now telling us this passage is based on a “textural verience” which may indicate, that the law removing the stonning was just a interpolation invented by those who indulged in such behaviour and invented ideas about Jesus, to remove such a hefty punishment, in order to accommodate there evil desires.
Furthermore, was the bible writers at the same time trying to remove a harsh law for convenience for themselves at the same time trying, to de-value the rest of the jews trying to prove they are “not without sin” and only Jesus is sinless, Possibly! but this invented scribal deciete was based on a verience? Proving further exegerration.
Another point, if the condition of stoning a person in the O.T mosaic law for Adultery can only be applied by “Sinless people” then why would such a law be given by Yahway when the law can never be applied? Since the only one whom is ” Sinless” is apparently Jesus? To carry out this punishment, are we really to believe God reveals a law to Moses that can never be able to be applied unless Jesus turned up decades later, only to remove the law? How nonsensical, it makes no sense that this law is given to moses in a period where the law can’t be applied “since there are no sinless people since Jesus is the only without Sin
I believe if we went back to the Adultery Women event and asked ” Jesus himself if he was without sin along with the Jews. He would have testified he too is NOT without sin. If not he would have stood up and proclaimed it, instead sat silent.
There are two many contradictions. Im sorry if i got a little side tracked. It seems all these TWO nature ideas were invented in order to explain about the many problems when questioning the Divinity with Jesus. They did well but they unfortunately created more problems then solving them elsewhere.
All though Christians may say” its possible for Jesus human nature to sin in order to show the human nature has flaws, they even then still can’t imagine him sinning by that VERY nature because that would make his human nature no less then the human nature of Adam.
Jesus then wouldn’t be Greater in human nature then Adam thus there wouldn’t be proof he was more divine, thus Christians even still give special important emphasize to Jesus human nature to prove it’s greater then everyone else, thus make it equal to some what the nature of God, and nothing less when it’s convenient to do so, and that is exactly the attitude we see in Biblical Theology all about convenience and how to accommodate and super-impose my theory about Jesus to cherry pick a interpretation in order to prove Jesus is divine, and how do i wash down human flaws of Jesus when things are becoming to questionable about Jesus role in divinity. Well lets just Blame his human nature at the same time when its convenient will show how his human nature is more ” Godly” when it comes to the issues of the power to “resist sin” which apparently no human on earth was able to do so except for “Jesus” why is that?
No wonder, most Christians appeal to that very standard he must be God since he resisted “SIN”
Yet that very nature they appeal to ” is according the doctrine of the Trinity not divine”. Interesting!
Christians will say, O.k guys what will do is because we have been exposed on this, will just pretend Jesus was able to sin, but refused the sin.
I would argue, well isn’t the power of refusal every single time, divine in of its self, since no other human being can do like wise? Is this not a special quality only unique to God? Isn’t it true that Christians say Jesus was ” Too Perfect to Sin” which is another attribute of God!
Begs the Question do Christians really believe Jesus human nature is really equal to the Godly nature. It seems it is when its convenient, when its not and Jesus shows human errors as a Man God, will put another spin on it to cover up for our assertion Jesus is God.
A final absurdity, is that we are told Jesus is the “unblemished lamb” he came to take away all the sins he was a pure man, he never sinned yet we are told,
Christians say Jesus is faultless or sinless. But Jesus was the most sinful he took everyones sin on the cross. And paid the ultimate penalty. Even Jay smith admits Jesus the man sinned https://youtu.be/jbcIwmnimQw
Even Apostle Paul even said Jesus became a curse for us, for anyone hanged on a tree is cursed.
Galatians 3:13 ► Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”
Why because Jesus took everyones sins and put it on himself thus why he paid the ultimate price (i.e) to be killed, so if this pure holy man became the most curseful person of all who had to pay the price wasn’t he then the ” Most Sinful” of all? If not why did Paul one of the outmost Authorities on the Bible declare such a Holy Man a curse? Surelly only a pure man, un-sinful man would be un-cursed. Yet Jesus was cursed, he took everyone’s sins and put it on himself the repercussions of those “SINS” were the result of his death, in other words Jesus paid for it, if Jesus didnt then others would be judged for there own sins, and pay the price, they didn’t Jesus paid for those sins himself.
I believe “Paul” should have called Jesus instead “blessed on the cross” but he couldn’t say that, for he represented “sin on the cross” a curse! Makes you wonder now, how did this man get killed sinless? For he took all sins onto himself??
I hope this has uncovered for you the deeper questions that ought to be questioned, exposing the many levels of inconsistency when looking at the Two natures in order to prove divinity, it’s as though Christians just make things up as they go to trying to explain the many contradictions when trying to explain the Two natures, which by the way the bible “never” explicitly tells us “Jesus ” said he had TWO nature, its all clearly part of a conspiracy to invent untruthful lies about Jesus.