frozen fire wrote: EmperorPenguin wrote: MiChuhSuh wrote: frozen fire wrote:
My priest told me God told him to touch my No-No bits, is he a prophet or a pedophile? Now THAT'S a good question.
People like that will face the worst wrath
Though the story isn't true, I was trying to highlight the difference between a wacko and a prophet. How do you tell the difference? How do you disprove someones message? How do you say Jesus' message was right and the actual word and say that some perverted priest's message is wrong and a false prophet?
It's quite easy for me, all i have to do is look through the Quran and sunnah....and use some commen sense. Confusion occurs when there is nothing to refer too.
Manso wrote:"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them"
Let me combine the two because they work together. By "their fruits," this does NOT mean that a rich, successful, popular man is in any way a true servant of God - in fact, his earthly material success could be an indication of him being a corrupt individual!
"His fruits" means the result of the effort towards doing God's work. Many people will only look at physical, global success, and not to downplay their importance, but it is more crucial that the morals and the message they are spreading and putting into people's hearts bear fruit. Thus, as the original question stated, a man proclaiming unquestionably immoral behavior as the work of God is contradicted by the very words he claims to preach!
Now some may pick and choose certain laws and try to use them to discredit true servants of God, which is basically always done. So one must understand the "big picture." I went to Sunday school in a Christian church and my friend went to a Sunday school in a mosque and later taught there, and it's really the same story with kids. They ask about weird situations where morals seem to conflict. For example, my friend told me when he was teaching about the laws to never even touch alcohol, kids started asking stuff like "What if there was a river of alcohol and someone was drowning in it - should we jump in and save him or not?" This is where the "common sense" frozen fire mentions comes into play. The moral weight of saving a drowning man not only outweighs but completely nullifies the "not touching alcohol," especially as the intention is to not intoxicate yourself. However, under most ordinary circumstances the moral choice is clear.