Two Ex-GTMO Inmates Appear in AQ Vid

[quote]hedo wrote:
Prisons are fall of innocent people. Just ask the inmates.[/quote]

New study examines false convictions

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/22/news/bar23.php

Study Suspects Thousands of False Convictions

http://truthinjustice.org/exoneration-study.htm

If defendants who were sentenced to prison had been freed because of innocence at the same rate as those who were sentenced to death, there would have been nearly 87,000 non-death row exonerations in the United States from 1989 through 2003, rather than the 266 that were reported, the study said.

“The main thing we can safely conclude from exonerations of falsely convicted defendants is that there are many other false convictions that we have not discovered,” said Gross, whose research has focused on the death penalty, false convictions and eyewitness identification.

Ahem…

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
BTW, CB, what do you actually know of what Islam teaches regarding jihad against infidels? Right now you’re just confirming the words of CAIR director Nihad Awad (he was speaking of Americans, but the British will do fine for this example):

“Address people according to their minds. When I speak with the American, I speak with someone who doesn’t know anything.”

Yep. That’s about right.

Very few religious texts that I have read from any religion are totally free from inflamatory demands that the followers of the religion go out and destroy the followers of other religions.

The Bible has plenty of hideous hateful passages.

Let’s discuss them. Put up or shut up.

You might try starting by reading up on the US bible wars in the second half of the 19th century. Groups of protestants rioting and burning down Catholic Churches and Catholic homes because Catholic children had been excused from reading protestant bible readings in public schools.

Baring in mind that Yaweh was origionally the war god of a pollytheistic religion it is no suprise that there are lots of references to violence in the bible. Lets start with Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, then we can move onto the slaughter of all of the Egyptian children at the passover, the israelites wiping out the followers of King Sihon of Heshbon and the followers of King Og of Bashan, in the new testament, Jesus approves of torture in the parable of the king forgiving his servants debt.

The whole religion is based on the tenet that if you do not believe you will be condemmed to eternal torture and hellfire. Christianity is a religion of exclusion, cannibalism, hatred and violence. Just because people today choose to just believe the love and forgiveness parts doesn’t wipe the other parts out of the good book.

Cock, Cock, Cock, you truly have an imbecilic streak to you. You have definitely (again) strayed into an area where you absolutely are clueless. Whatever you do, don’t play Bible scholar here unless you’re cutting and pasting from a source that is many furlongs ahead of you in biblical intelligence.[/quote]

What would possibly make you think that?

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Let’s discuss them. Put up or shut up.

You might try starting by reading up on the US bible wars in the second half of the 19th century. Groups of protestants rioting and burning down Catholic Churches and Catholic homes because Catholic children had been excused from reading protestant bible readings in public schools.

Baring in mind that Yaweh was origionally the war god of a pollytheistic religion it is no suprise that there are lots of references to violence in the bible. Lets start with Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son, then we can move onto the slaughter of all of the Egyptian children at the passover, the israelites wiping out the followers of King Sihon of Heshbon and the followers of King Og of Bashan, in the new testament, Jesus approves of torture in the parable of the king forgiving his servants debt.

The whole religion is based on the tenet that if you do not believe you will be condemmed to eternal torture and hellfire. Christianity is a religion of exclusion, cannibalism, hatred and violence. Just because people today choose to just believe the love and forgiveness parts doesn’t wipe the other parts out of the good book.

Given your drip, drip, drip of snide comments about the evils of Americans and their culture and society, I’m really going to enjoy watching PR expose you for the ass you are.[/quote]

What? Where do you get that from? I disagree with most of you on here about guns and I am an atheist who enjoys reading about the origins of religion in my spare time.

Aside from that there is lots that I love about American culture and many parts of American culture that I feel are far superior to UK culture (particularly when it comes to things like service culture which Brits typically suck at)

I have no personal issue with PR and if he wants to believe a set of fairy tales as part of his own personal belief system then that is his own decision and whilst I don’t respect it, I respect his right to it.

What annoys me is when he decides to post hypocritical and hateful remarks about someone elses set of fairy tales.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
You might try starting by reading up on the US bible wars in the second half of the 19th century. Groups of protestants rioting and burning down Catholic Churches and Catholic homes because Catholic children had been excused from reading protestant bible readings in public schools.
[/quote]
So no comment on the bible wars? You have repeatedly compared peace loving protestants to hateful muslims even going so far as to make sarcastic reference to Methodists rioting and attacking people of other faiths.

Ex 15:3 would be a start
Yahweh is a warrior
Yahweh is his NAME

or the fact that the full name Yahweh Sabaoth literally means ‘he musters armies’

There are plenty more references if you want, just ask for them I don’t want to overextend this unless I have to though because it is off topic for the thread.

If you want to talk about what is prescribed, lets just go with Exodus 20:2-17, Deuteronomy 5:6-21 and Exodus 34:11-27

I see you go with the fluffy King James version of ‘delivered him to his tormentors’ what this actually means is handed him over to be tortured. I would say that this advocates torture. And what it is referring to is that if you don’t forgive people in your heart then you will be tortured for eternity by God. This is pretty hateful.

I don’t throw out the peace and love message from the NT, it is there and it is clear. As are the messages of hate. the reason for the aparant discrepancy is that the current bible is made up from several different people’s viewpoint on the path that the fledgling religion should take.

By the way, has anyone done a study linking gun advocacy to religious belief? Or is it just that both of these things have a high incidence in the US?

This is not a swipe, it’s a serious question.

[quote]Ex 15:3 would be a start
Yahweh is a warrior
Yahweh is his NAME

or the fact that the full name Yahweh Sabaoth literally means ‘he musters armies’

There are plenty more references if you want, just ask for them I don’t want to overextend this unless I have to though because it is off topic for the thread.[/quote]

Right, that’s why I’m wondering if the New Testament is at all admissible in this discussion. Christians have historically believed that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, as Jesus says in numerous places and the apostles confirm in their epistles.

Christians, because of the person and work of Jesus, believe that we’re not obligated to keep the covenant God made with Israel since Jesus has kept it in our place. Therefore, we’re not obligated to wipe out any Canaanites (not that it was unjust for God to order them to), or sacrifice animals, etc. We also don’t bring in a tenth of our grain. In short, we’re not Israelites.

[quote]
I see you go with the fluffy King James version of ‘delivered him to his tormentors’ what this actually means is handed him over to be tortured.[/quote]

Same thing.

Well, it says that God will put you in hell for failing to forgive your brothers. Jesus talked about hell quite a bit. It still advocates charity towards one another, though. Why would an atheist care one way or another what God says he’s going to do? You don’t believe in him any way. You’re just getting offended because you want to be offended, like a typical whiterperson.

Where?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Ex 15:3 would be a start
Yahweh is a warrior
Yahweh is his NAME

or the fact that the full name Yahweh Sabaoth literally means ‘he musters armies’

There are plenty more references if you want, just ask for them I don’t want to overextend this unless I have to though because it is off topic for the thread.

Right, that’s why I’m wondering if the New Testament is at all admissible in this discussion. Christians have historically believed that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, as Jesus says in numerous places and the apostles confirm in their epistles.

Christians, because of the person and work of Jesus, believe that we’re not obligated to keep the covenant God made with Israel since Jesus has kept it in our place. Therefore, we’re not obligated to wipe out any Canaanites (not that it was unjust for God to order them to), or sacrifice animals, etc. We also don’t bring in a tenth of our grain. In short, we’re not Israelites.
[/quote]
Soooooo, it’s OK for you to pick and choose passages from the holy books of other religions as support for locking up all muslims but everyone else has to understand that in the Bible it’s only certain of the passages that people are supposed to follow.

And I take it from the above that you cede the point that the original god that developed into the modern god worshipped by Christians was a war god from a polytheistic religion.

But this is from the NT and it advocates torture, therefore not the same thing at all, but nice try.

I’m not at all offended, I very rarely get offended as I feel that one takes a decision to be offended by something. I choose not to take that decision most of the time.

I care about religion in that it is fascinating. I care about modern interpretations of religion due to the fact that the majority of the population of the planet professes to believe in some form or other and the leaders of most of the countries that have nukes take advice from an invisible man who talks to them in their heads.

Jesus is a scapegoat reflecting the evolving morality of the jews, and the desire to break away from old traditions that no longer had relevance to their lives. Nowhere in the earlier writings (now artificially categorized as the “old testament”) did they say the covenants they made with god would be changed. To the contrary, those covenants were presented as eternal commandments from their god.

How convenient that when you no longer want to follow a particular creed, you create a deity that magically “fulfills” the creed, and thus absolves you of any further responsibility.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Jesus is a scapegoat reflecting the evolving morality of the jews, and the desire to break away from old traditions that no longer had relevance to their lives. Nowhere in the earlier writings (now artificially categorized as the “old testament”) did they say the covenants they made with god would be changed. To the contrary, those covenants were presented as eternal commandments from their god.

How convenient that when you no longer want to follow a particular creed, you create a deity that magically “fulfills” the creed, and thus absolves you of any further responsibility.[/quote]

The really interesting thing for me about Christianity is the fact that it is actually several religions bustling for space within several versions of one set of books.

I particularly enjoy watching devout Christians explain away the contradictions in the Bible. Instead of taking the obvious path that it was two different people writing about two different things they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to tally them up.

Oh…man. So, Christ tells a PARABLE that is actually trying to make a point about forgiveness, and we’re told it’s actually about approving of torture.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I particularly enjoy watching devout Christians explain away the contradictions in the Bible. Instead of taking the obvious path that it was two different people writing about two different things they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to tally them up.[/quote]

Where is the Christian claim that the Bible has only one human author? Contradictions are going to arise because God’s relationship with man was vastly different between the covenants. The difference’s are exactly new to Christians folks. I hate to dissapoint.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Jesus is a scapegoat reflecting the evolving morality of the jews, and the desire to break away from old traditions that no longer had relevance to their lives. Nowhere in the earlier writings (now artificially categorized as the “old testament”) did they say the covenants they made with god would be changed. To the contrary, those covenants were presented as eternal commandments from their god.

How convenient that when you no longer want to follow a particular creed, you create a deity that magically “fulfills” the creed, and thus absolves you of any further responsibility.[/quote]

Well, if you’re one who believe Jesus is fully God, then it makes perfect sense theologically…

And if you’re an atheist, you’re not going to have an opinion of what this God may plan.

And you’re an agnostic, God may or may not exist. But if he does exist, that the possibility that he may forge a new covenant may or may not exist.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh…man. So, Christ tells a PARABLE that is actually trying to make a point about forgiveness, and we’re told it’s actually about approving of torture. [/quote]

The point is not about forgivness. The point is, do as I say or you will be tortured by my dad.

It shows a casual attitude to torture being acceptable.

Yes you can and should take from it a message of forgiveness but to ignore the torture is a bit disingeneous to say the least especially when you are prepared to take a random passage from another religious book and use it to damn all of the followers of that faith as evil and hateful.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I particularly enjoy watching devout Christians explain away the contradictions in the Bible. Instead of taking the obvious path that it was two different people writing about two different things they will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to tally them up.

Where is the Christian claim that the Bible has only one human author? Contradictions are going to arise because God’s relationship with man was vastly different between the covenants. The difference’s are exactly new to Christians folks. I hate to dissapoint.[/quote]

The claim is not that there was one author, (though if you are truly devout there is one author, god)

The point is that it was not just different authors but they were writing about different things for different reasons.

You don’t need to go any further than Jesus being the Son of David for proof of this. The bible traces Jesus’s relationship to David through his father, Joseph. Which is a bit problematic given that it was supposed to be an imaculate conception. The reason for this discrepancy is that the two authors were pushing different agendas in order to fulfill prophecies from seperate religious sects. They were also possiby writing about two seperate people.

It’s not until you put these two stories in the same book several hundred years later that you have an issue.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if you’re one who believe Jesus is fully God, then it makes perfect sense theologically…
[/quote]

It makes zero sense, because if Jesus really is “fully god” he wouldn’t have said his commandments applied forever and then changed them, as was claimed by the writers of the old testament:

[b]Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

Leviticus 23:14,21,31
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations … an everlasting covenant.

Psalm 119:151-2
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.[/b]

Not picking and choosing at all. I’m not an Israelite. Were I an Israelite living before the birth of Christ, I would be obligated to all of the things required in the Mosaic covenant. Were I an Israelite living at the time of Joshua, I’d be obligated towards genocide of the Canaanites. But I’m not. No Christian is. So as far as an atheist is concerned, it’s all good.

No, I asked you for proof of that. You didn’t provide any.

[quote]
But this is from the NT and it advocates torture, therefore not the same thing at all, but nice try. [/quote]

Sure.

Well, I’ve got a guy locked up in my basement for torture, so I’d better get to it.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
The really interesting thing for me about Christianity is the fact that it is actually several religions bustling for space within several versions of one set of books.
[/quote]

Most people are clueless to the influences of other religions on Christian doctrines and practices. They think it was all handed down straight from “god”, rather than seeing it as the melting pot that it is.

Even within the bible, the conceptualization of “god” evolved dramatically. The “god” of the old testament is hateful, jealous, and vindictive compared to the “god” of the new testament.

They explain the stark contrast by saying that “god” created different commandments at different points in time, but then they conveniently forget that these commandments were declared to be eternal at the time they were made.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if you’re one who believe Jesus is fully God, then it makes perfect sense theologically…

It makes zero sense, because if Jesus really is “fully god” he wouldn’t have said his commandments applied forever and then changed them, as was claimed by the writers of the old testament:

[b]Exodus 12:14, 17, 24
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. …

And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. … And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

Leviticus 23:14,21,31
It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations … an everlasting covenant.

Psalm 119:151-2
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.[/b]

[/quote]

For man, they did apply forever. Not one man would ever have the power to seize God, take his place, and institute his laws above God’s. But for God himself, the author, the permanence of those laws were subject to his will.

If the Old laws satisfied God for eternity, than they would stay, no matter what any man desired. But, see, I’m a Christian. So, I believe one who was God came and fullfilled the law. And, forged the new covenant.

You’re an agnostic. You don’t know the nature of God, if there is one. So, you must also be agnostic about the ability of a Christian God to fullfill his law and forge a new covenant.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
The really interesting thing for me about Christianity is the fact that it is actually several religions bustling for space within several versions of one set of books.

Most people are clueless to the influences of other religions on Christian doctrines and practices. They think it was all handed down straight from “god”, rather than seeing it as the melting pot that it is.

Even within the bible, the conceptualization of “god” evolved dramatically. The “god” of the old testament is hateful, jealous, and vindictive compared to the “god” of the new testament. [/quote]
I think the God of the New is probably worse actually, as far as how he views human sin and idolatry. Read the sermon on the mount.

[quote]
They explain the stark contrast by saying that “god” created different commandments at different points in time, but then they conveniently forget that these commandments were declared to be eternal at the time they were made.[/quote]

Not quite.

[quote]I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.

III. [b]Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[/b]

V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.

It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.[/quote]

Here’s a more in-depth explanation:
http://www.djmoophoto.com/articles/jesusandauthority.pdf

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[/quote]

There is one God who inspired, acted in and through, human authors.

[quote]
The point is that it was not just different authors but they were writing about different things for different reasons.

You don’t need to go any further than Jesus being the Son of David for proof of this. The bible traces Jesus’s relationship to David through his father, Joseph. Which is a bit problematic given that it was supposed to be an imaculate conception.

The reason for this discrepancy is that the two authors were pushing different agendas in order to fulfill prophecies from seperate religious sects. They were also possiby writing about two seperate people.

It’s not until you put these two stories in the same book several hundred years later that you have an issue.[/quote]

But again, you raise a point that Christians are aware of and have no issue with at all. Joseph actually lives the role of foster father.