"Actually, what I choose to follow in the Bible is my choice. God gave us all a free will to do whatever we want."

See above argument.

Previous post you replied to I'd like to comment on...

>your church, for example, says that
>women can't wear pants.
>my grandma doesn't wear pants
>because she can point out
>in the bible where it
>says a woman should not
>wear the clothes of a
>man.

And then you said,

"two words: old convenant.

the place in the Bible where it says a woman cannot wear anything pertaining to a man (still don't agree--butt tight bellbottoms are not masculine) is in the old testament.

I'm not saying that all of the old testament is invalid because of Jesus' crucifixion. I'm saying that some of the practices (such as women not wearing pants, and even burnt sacrfices) are no loonger needed because of the Crucifixion in the New covenant--the New Testament."

I agree obviously that what was "masculine" then is probably not now, therefore, leaving this open for argument. My concern is your reasoning for not complying w/ said scripture.

"Old covenant."
Please expound on this.
And...

It seems to me that the latter of your two points on this matter are contradictory. At first you say, "I'm not saying that all of the old testament is invalid because of Jesus' crucifixion."

And then you follow it in the next breath saying, "I'm saying that some of the practices (such as women not wearing pants, and even burnt sacrfices) are no loonger needed because of the Crucifixion in the New covenant--the New Testament."

The phrase "no longer needed" would imply that the former is no longer necessary or invalid.

Maybe *I* just don't understand. But I guess you could say I'm like MC Lyte, 'cause I "cram to understand you."

Then the guy asks you..
>i know that there is the
>argument that interpretation has a
>lot to do with it,
>and there are a lot
>of things that are just
>out dated. but if
>you can say that about
>the way you dress, what's
>to say that key principles
>about Chirstianity aren't a matter
>of interpretation too?

And you replied...
"The Gospels record the Crucifixion of Christ. I don't think his death is open to interpretation. The filling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 isn't really open to interpretation. It's right there in black and white. You don't really need any further analysis about what the Last Supper meant. But I feel you. Some things--"Turn the other cheek", "Judge not lest ye be judged", etc. Are open to interpretation. But the actual happenings? Somehow I doubt that."

Hhmmmmm. I find it interesting that you say something like "speaking in toungues" which no one *I* know can interpret, is self explanatory (furthermore, you say it is'nt up for interpretation. If not, why?), yet a universal principal like "Judge not lest ye be judged" is up for intellectual grabs.

Hhmmmmm.


Now this part is my personal favorite. The person asks you...

>does that mean that where it
>says non-Christians are essentially going
>to hell is another thing
>that can be argued down
>too?

And you say...

"That's one of those things that isn't open to interpretaion in my opinion. --ALTHOUGH I think there are several people who call themselves Christians who are going to hell. Jesus even said it himself--and i'm paraphrasing-- 'Not all who say 'Lord, Lord', will enter the Kingdom of Heaven'."

One thing I find interesting in this part of what you said, actually, is what you DID'NT say. He engaged you w/ a direct ?. He (basically) asks 'are non-Christians going to hell?", and as opposed to saying 'Yes, they are going to hell' or 'No, they will be forced to watch re-runs of Welcome Back Koter (add Horshack laugh here) until their eyes fall out' or something, you sidestep the question *in my opinion*. Say what you mean and mean what you say!

This is the reason why ppl are rejecting religion as a whole. Because of statements like this. Not one place in the scripture did Jesus call himself a "Christian" or ask anyone else, for that matter to call themselves "Christians", yet you have the **opinion** (boy, I wish I could use italics) that "this is'nt open for interpretation."

No where in the scriptures is it found that to enter the Hereafter (heaven, as you call it) that being a "Christian" is the prerequisite. If so, please point it out to me. I could be wrong and If so, I can stand to be corrected. But until then, let us not put our narrow limitations on Allah.

Note: What I'm writing here is not in the spirit of just being ignorant and argumentative. To this day, I can call myself a Christian (in addition to being a Muslim) and be accurate because I now understand what this really means. This is to offend no one. I'm here to teach and learn...just like you!:7

Abduhu asks a very interesting ? I'd like to see answered, too.

***********************************************************
"When the Black Man of North America makes up his mind to be that which Allah has created him to be, which is a replica of Himself, then and only then can he call the universe into order."

-Me.