Two Ex-GTMO Inmates Appear in AQ Vid

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]

So the ten comandments don’t apply to you? All 14 of them are totally irrelevant to you because you are not from the time and place that they refer to.

Whereas the writings of Jewish people about a Jewish prophet living 2000 years ago in the middle east are totally relevant.

However you need to rationalise your faith is fine to me. Just don’t ever expect me to respect it.

OK, I just want to get something 100% clear before we go on here. You are stating that the Yawheh referred to in the old testemant of the bible is not in any way referencing the war god from a pollytheistic religion. I want to be clear because I don’t want you to try and wriggle out of it once you have been proven wrong.

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

Sure.

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

whatever floats your boat :wink:

62

[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.

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]

The god in the old testament is actually several differnt Gods that slowly evovle into one. It’s kind of the reverse of Hinduism where the various gods are supposed to represent different facets of one force, but over time they have diverged to the point that some people now worship them as separate gods.

The Greak and Roman gods did a similar thing.

63

[quote]So the ten comandments don’t apply to you? All 14 of them are totally irrelevant to you because you are not from the time and place that they refer to.

[/quote]

See my response to forlife. Be sure to actually read it.

[quote]I want to be clear because I don’t want you to try and wriggle out of it once you have been proven wrong.
[/quote]

I’m waiting. Hopefully not for too long…

64

How the fuck did this turn into a discussion about Christianity?

65

[quote]John S. wrote:
How the fuck did this turn into a discussion about Christianity?[/quote]

Moral equivalence b/w Islam and Christianity given by the usual atheist suspects.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

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

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. [/quote]

And we are off! This is excactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You should read a book called Misquoting Jesus, it’s not by a religion hater like Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens so don’t worry. It’s actually quite positive about Christianity. But it also covers this point in some detail.

67

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

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

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.

And we are off! This is excactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You should read a book called Misquoting Jesus, it’s not by a religion hater like Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens so don’t worry. It’s actually quite positive about Christianity. But it also covers this point in some detail.[/quote]

Why would I read a book about it? What controversial statement did I make?

68

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So the ten comandments don’t apply to you? All 14 of them are totally irrelevant to you because you are not from the time and place that they refer to.

See my response to forlife. Be sure to actually read it.
[/quote]

Am busy reading it now.

[Quote]
I want to be clear because I don’t want you to try and wriggle out of it once you have been proven wrong.

I’m waiting. Hopefully not for too long…[/quote]

So is that a yes or a no? I want your definitive answer before I proceed. (am also busy reading the 47 page document that you posted)

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

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

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.

And we are off! This is excactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You should read a book called Misquoting Jesus, it’s not by a religion hater like Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens so don’t worry. It’s actually quite positive about Christianity. But it also covers this point in some detail.

Why would I read a book about it? What controversial statement did I make?[/quote]

That the phrophecy that Jesus was of David’s line is fulfilled by the fact that someone who later married her mother was of David’s line.

And as for ‘why would I read a book about it?’ well, to learn something.

70

[quote]John S. wrote:
How the fuck did this turn into a discussion about Christianity?[/quote]

Because Christians decided to blame Islam in general for the problems in Guantanamo

71

[quote]John S. wrote:
How the fuck did this turn into a discussion about Christianity?[/quote]

I suppose it’s because of all the hate a certain self-declared Christian is spreading on this forum.

Read some of his threads.

72

[quote]Sloth wrote:
For man, they did apply forever. [/quote]

Obviously if they applied forever to man, they wouldn’t have stopped applying in the new testament. God said they were forever, so did god lie?

73

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
So the ten comandments don’t apply to you? All 14 of them are totally irrelevant to you because you are not from the time and place that they refer to.

See my response to forlife. Be sure to actually read it.

Am busy reading it now.

[Quote]
I want to be clear because I don’t want you to try and wriggle out of it once you have been proven wrong.

I’m waiting. Hopefully not for too long…

So is that a yes or a no? I want your definitive answer before I proceed. (am also busy reading the 47 page document that you posted)[/quote]

That’s a yes. I’m pretty sure I know what you’re going to say anyway, so I’m working on a response.

74

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
For man, they did apply forever.

Obviously if they applied forever to man, they wouldn’t have stopped applying in the new testament. God said they were forever, so did god lie?[/quote]

Did you read any other sentence but that one? Do me a favor forlife, when you’re ready to debate honestly, do so. But, if you’re going to pretend not to have or understood what I write, I’m just not going to bother with you.

75

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Classic rationalization:

“God meant his moral laws to last forever, but all the rest (you know, the ones we no longer want to follow) were only temporary ceremonial laws.”

The problem is that the scriptures I provided clearly relate to ceremonial laws, for example:

[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.[/b]

Obviously the writer was referring to ceremonial rites like the feast of unleavened bread.

76

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Did you read any other sentence but that one? Do me a favor forlife, when you’re ready to debate honestly, do so. [/quote]

I called out your statement that the laws applied forever to man. Your subsequent statements about god being able to change his mind don’t negate the earlier statement. If the laws forever apply to man, they forever apply to man.

What part of forever don’t you get?

But since you brought it up, here’s what your bible says about god changing:

[b]Malachi 3:6

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.[/b]

77

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

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

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.

And we are off! This is excactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You should read a book called Misquoting Jesus, it’s not by a religion hater like Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens so don’t worry. It’s actually quite positive about Christianity. But it also covers this point in some detail.

Why would I read a book about it? What controversial statement did I make?

That the phrophecy that Jesus was of David’s line is fulfilled by the fact that someone who later married her mother was of David’s line.

And as for ‘why would I read a book about it?’ well, to learn something.[/quote]

For all intents and purposes, Joseph was his LEGAL father. Claiming Joseph’s lineage obviously wasn’t a big shocker to the apostles. Of course, if one accepts Christ as God, conceived in flesh through an immaculate conception, who is to say that genetically the flesh wouldn’t, on a biological/genetic level, show relation to the house of David?

78

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Did you read any other sentence but that one? Do me a favor forlife, when you’re ready to debate honestly, do so.

I called out your statement that the laws applied forever to man. Your subsequent statements about god being able to change his mind don’t negate the earlier statement. If the laws forever apply to man, they forever apply to man.

What part of forever don’t you get?

But since you brought it up, here’s what your bible says about god changing:

[b]Malachi 3:6

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.[/b]

[/quote]

Yeah, he hadn’t changed his purpose, though the people had fallen short. So he didn’t allow them to be “consumed.” What do you do, look this stuff up, and not check to see the setting, the context, the intended audience, of the passage?

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

3:7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return

And, you’ve yet to call me out on anything.

79

[quote]forlife wrote:
I called out your statement that the laws applied forever to man. [/quote]

Wait, what?

80

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
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.

Classic rationalization:

“God meant his moral laws to last forever, but all the rest (you know, the ones we no longer want to follow) were only temporary ceremonial laws.”

The problem is that the scriptures I provided clearly relate to ceremonial laws, for example:

[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.[/b]

Obviously the writer was referring to ceremonial rites like the feast of unleavened bread.
[/quote]

It is being kept forever, inasmuch as Jesus was the true Israel and kept the all aspects of the Law perfectly.

Sorry you don’t like the historic Christian understanding of the Old Testament, but that’s what it is. You and CB keep trying to bring up the Old Testament and make it stick, but your argument basically attempts to throw out the entire New Testament. Like I said, as long as the NT is inadmissible to the discussion, there’s not really much I can say.