[quote]Tokoya wrote:
You’re confused. “Attacking Christians” as you put it is a matter of complete indifference to me. [/quote]
Read closer. I made it clear that I had a problem with attacking Christianity in such a low and uncalled for manner, because it’s against my personal beliefs.
The world doesn’t revolve around you.
If you had any knowledge of Islam (besides what Spencer&co tell you), you’d know that God clearly asked Muslims to avoid offensive language when addressing Christianity issues. Hence, my ambivalence in posting that excerpt from the Bible.
Your level of hostility against Islam is unmatched on the politics forum. Hate-filled propaganda spreading isn’t doing anyone any good. Most threads you contribute to are related to Islam, and yet, you know almost nothing about the religion or the people who practice it.
Some of your concerns are indeed founded, but for the most part you try to blame them on Islam. That’s where most rational thinkers will disagree with you.
[quote]John S. wrote:
The ultimate sacrifice(Jesus) died to take all the sins of the world from past present and future. Meaning God was no longer vengeful for every sin as long as you ask for forgiveness.[/quote]
So, if I get this correctly, we could summarize thus:
The first little prototype couple in God’s oddly flawed creation made ONE mistake (an innocent one too, since they had no sense of right and wrong at the time) and “Mister Infinite Love and Mercy” threw a fit and, in anger, drove his own “children” out of their home and held a grudge for century after century.
His idea of clearing it all up was to climb into a virgin and pop out wearing a baby suit so that he could grow up and get nailed to a Roman torture device so he could pay some kind of “sin bill” back to himself before he “un-died” and flew back to sit at the right hand of himself so that whoever believed all this insanity wouldn’t have to go to Hell and suffer eternally because he loves us all sooo much.
How pathetic. You pray and ask forgiveness of an Omnipotent entity? You understand omnipotence, right? That entity has NO NEED for anything. You think it needs prayer, benedictions and sacrifices?
To placate human frailties within itself for your continued existence? You do see how utterly illogical this is right? Human frailties, in an omnipotent entity. What better example of paradox could there be?
Religion isn’t an opiate for the masses. It’s a disease. A virus of putrescence. It corrupts. It turns man from man, destroying any chance for brotherhood and peace.
I pity you fools for the prison you’ve placed yourselves.
[quote]John S. wrote:
I was under the impression in the middle east they where forced to be muslims. [/quote]
You must be kidding me! Where on earth did you get that impression from? The Taliban exception?
The M.E. has, and always had, a substantial portion of Christians and Jews. You have a de facto freedom of faith in the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries.
Putting aside the fact that many women convert to Islam from Christianity, Judaism or atheism, nobody’s preventing Muslim women from dropping their faith if they so wish.
I don’t know a single Hijab-wearing chick who wears it because of familiar pressure. All those acquaintances have chosen to do so out of personal conviction (e.g: not to be objectified, not to spend too much energy on their hair, etc…)
You have quite a distorted view of the Muslim world. I guess it’s a consequence of the media reporting on either Afghanistan, Iran, Al-Qaeda, or the occupied territories.
the person who microwaved their baby didn’t read the bible and say “God told me to do this”. There is no indication of that act being religiously motivated. Enless I am wrong, this person was just plain nuts.
And yes, jealous husbands kill wives in the US. Were these acts done in accordance to the Bible, I highly doubt it. Same explanation as above goes here.
Are you implying that we do not have to ask God for forgiveness? Im sure we do.
[/quote]
I could of swore I placed the correct behinds the forgiveness parts.
While your posts are well intentioned your explination of the law of the OT is lacking from many perspectives. You are also lumping too many theologcal points into one answer to explain away something that isn’t even theological.
The Law had a two pronged purpose.
was to establish a God run government.
To show that we can’t fully measure up to God’s requirement for salvation by works.
The question’s and problems that have been brought up with the Levitical passages should not be addressed from the second purpose. Since Livitical law pertains specifically to government that is run by God.
So when I said your answer retarded. I meant it does not address the point of that being in the Bible. Your answer is a sweeping one that lacks true thought, and consideration for the problem you are presented with.
Is it any wonder why the skeptics are all over you? You are not answering their question you are sweeping it under the rug. You should add some ANE anthropology to your Bible reading. It would help you understand why those things were written to those people at that time, and save the rest of us from the Sunday School answers you are giving.
[quote]
On the first part me and you will have to agree to dissagree.[/quote]
You’re confused. “Attacking Christians” as you put it is a matter of complete indifference to me.
You’re a muslim. Attacking other faiths is required of you because of your religion. Your “prophet” would be pleased.
I think this guy pretty much sums it up nicely about how “good muslims” view other faiths.
This last video was very disgusting. That dude should at minimum be kicked out of Britain. At maximum, someone should do the world a favour and blow his GD head off.
"009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Are you implying that we do not have to ask God for forgiveness? Im sure we do.
I could of swore I placed the correct behinds the forgiveness parts.
I was saying that thats what the sacrifices where for. But God was vengeful because of the sin.
While your posts are well intentioned your explination of the law of the OT is lacking from many perspectives. You are also lumping too many theologcal points into one answer to explain away something that isn’t even theological.
The Law had a two pronged purpose.
was to establish a God run government.
To show that we can’t fully measure up to God’s requirement for salvation by works.
The question’s and problems that have been brought up with the Levitical passages should not be addressed from the second purpose. Since Livitical law pertains specifically to government that is run by God.
So when I said your answer retarded. I meant it does not address the point of that being in the Bible. Your answer is a sweeping one that lacks true thought, and consideration for the problem you are presented with.
Is it any wonder why the skeptics are all over you? You are not answering their question you are sweeping it under the rug. You should add some ANE anthropology to your Bible reading. It would help you understand why those things were written to those people at that time, and save the rest of us from the Sunday School answers you are giving.
On the first part me and you will have to agree to dissagree.
Not surprised. Might I recommend a few resources?
[/quote]
Please do. The more knowledge I have in this subject the better.
1 Corinthians 11:3-9, 14:34-35
Can be answered in my other links.
There’s no “answer” there. At best there’s some weaseling, some “alternate interpretations” (which is the most common trick to pacify the passages with too much tooth and claw) and grasping at straws to try and soften the blow of the harshest passages.
If you really want to know about these passages please read these links I have provided you.
I have and it hasn’t changed what I knew about these passages a bit.
[/quote]
Pookie, Its obviouse you did not go into it with a open mind. What ever was said you did not take and have kept your own views, thats fine but I will no longer be debating this issue with you.
[quote]pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
The ultimate sacrifice(Jesus) died to take all the sins of the world from past present and future. Meaning God was no longer vengeful for every sin as long as you ask for forgiveness.
So, if I get this correctly, we could summarize thus:
The first little prototype couple in God’s oddly flawed creation made ONE mistake (an innocent one too, since they had no sense of right and wrong at the time) and “Mister Infinite Love and Mercy” threw a fit and, in anger, drove his own “children” out of their home and held a grudge for century after century.
His idea of clearing it all up was to climb into a virgin and pop out wearing a baby suit so that he could grow up and get nailed to a Roman torture device so he could pay some kind of “sin bill” back to himself before he “un-died” and flew back to sit at the right hand of himself so that whoever believed all this insanity wouldn’t have to go to Hell and suffer eternally because he loves us all sooo much.
Is that an accurate summary?
[/quote]
No thats not correct. You twist words so its obvious this post won’t affect you but I will give it a shot anyways. He created man, gave them one rule not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They where tempted and got kicked out. God told them what they had to do but also said he would send the savior(Jesus).
He died for are sins. Rose again 3 days later(beating death). Later he returned to God.
Are you people aware that it is in fact (or was until very recently) legal to beat women in some Christian countries?
In fact, I remember being taught that Italy has (or had) a law whereby a murder charge could be reduced if it could be proven that a husband had acted ‘in the heat of the moment’ e.g. he found her in bed with another man.
Surely that’s worse than a text written over 1000 years ago. As another poster mentioned attitudes change…
[quote]John S. wrote:
pookie wrote:
John S. wrote:
The ultimate sacrifice(Jesus) died to take all the sins of the world from past present and future. Meaning God was no longer vengeful for every sin as long as you ask for forgiveness.
So, if I get this correctly, we could summarize thus:
The first little prototype couple in God’s oddly flawed creation made ONE mistake (an innocent one too, since they had no sense of right and wrong at the time) and “Mister Infinite Love and Mercy” threw a fit and, in anger, drove his own “children” out of their home and held a grudge for century after century.
His idea of clearing it all up was to climb into a virgin and pop out wearing a baby suit so that he could grow up and get nailed to a Roman torture device so he could pay some kind of “sin bill” back to himself before he “un-died” and flew back to sit at the right hand of himself so that whoever believed all this insanity wouldn’t have to go to Hell and suffer eternally because he loves us all sooo much.
Is that an accurate summary?
No thats not correct. You twist words so its obvious this post won’t affect you but I will give it a shot anyways. He created man, gave them one rule not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They where tempted and got kicked out. God told them what they had to do but also said he would send the savior(Jesus).
He died for are sins. Rose again 3 days later(beating death). Later he returned to God.[/quote]
If god could do anything… why put the fruit there in the first place?
If god knew it was all going to happen from the beginning… why set up the conditions for imperfect beings to behave imperfectly, then punish them for being imperfect?
[quote]majicka wrote:
Are you people aware that it is in fact (or was until very recently) legal to beat women in some Christian countries?
In fact, I remember being taught that Italy has (or had) a law whereby a murder charge could be reduced if it could be proven that a husband had acted ‘in the heat of the moment’ e.g. he found her in bed with another man.
Surely that’s worse than a text written over 1000 years ago. As another poster mentioned attitudes change…[/quote]
I remember hearing that, at one point, here in America, black people were thought to be inferior and it was ok to enslave, beat, and rape them.
Shocking, isn’t it?
Now, imagine if a book was written by slaveowners in America, and they claimed that an almighty power had given them divine inspiration for the book… guess what… You’d have a bible that says black people are inferior! Imagine that!
It really comes down to this: Any religious text is affected by the social climate during which it was written. So, of course, in a time without any womens liberation or womens rights movements, the religious text will reflect that; this does not mean such practices should be continued today or were even morally right in their own time.
Whats scary is the reverse logic of “The bible is right so whatever the bible says is true.”
[quote]John S. wrote:
No thats not correct. You twist words so its obvious this post won’t affect you but I will give it a shot anyways. He created man, gave them one rule not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They where tempted and got kicked out. God told them what they had to do but also said he would send the savior(Jesus).
He died for are sins. Rose again 3 days later(beating death). Later he returned to God.[/quote]
John s. no offense, but pookie is one of the better educated skeptics. You are a little out of your league when dealing with him.
He is a true student when it comes to looking for real answers. IIRC, he has even said he would like to believe but does not feel compelled by the evidence.
Your efforts would be better served in reforming your agruments to a level that is more suited to either a skeptic that is not as demanding as pookie, or improving your arguments based off of pookie’s argument.
He isn’t twisting things as much as you think, but he is having fun at your expense.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Three times Jesus said he was not there to take back the old rules. Unless Jesus sepcifically said it was to be changed, all the Old Testament teachings still apply.
And have you read Timothy?
“No woman shall teach men, for woman should never hold power over men” (Paraphrase)
The bible, New and Old Testament is filled with disgusting garbage, encouraging the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. But we can just go ahead and ignore all that because “Jesus was good”.
Jesus didn’t write the goddamn Bible. He was dead two hundred years before they even began writing the New Testament books.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are ALL faiths based on Semitic tradition. Christianity just happens to have a greater mix of Pagan Indo-European influence.[/quote]
[quote]majicka wrote:
Are you people aware that it is in fact (or was until very recently) legal to beat women in some Christian countries?
In fact, I remember being taught that Italy has (or had) a law whereby a murder charge could be reduced if it could be proven that a husband had acted ‘in the heat of the moment’ e.g. he found her in bed with another man.
[/quote]
In many Latin American Catholic countries (Colombia and Peru come to mind) beating or even killing one’s wife can be excused by a judge if the perpetrator is able to prove that his wife “insulted or demeaned his manhood”.
In other words, if Conchita tells her friend Lupe that Juan’s pedro is muy peqeño, and Juan hears about it, Conchita just might be toast, and Juan just might walk free.
He isn’t twisting things as much as you think, but he is having fun at your expense.
[/quote]
He is not twisting things at all.
The serious twisting begins when men devote their lifes to reason why things do mean the opposit of what is clearly written.
However,
"The study of theology is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.