Two Ex-GTMO Inmates Appear in AQ Vid

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

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

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?

Keep wriggling. When the Bible was written they believed that the child took everything from the father and the mother was just a vessel.

What wriggling? And yet, for all intents and pursposes Jesus was seen as the son of Joseph and the source of his lineage. To non-believers, because he wasn’t immaculately concieved. To the believers in his divinity, because Joseph was given, and accepted the role.

And you don’t address our belief that God, if so inclined, could draw forth sons of David from stone, as far as we’re concerned. Meaning, if the data were available, the flesh by any human measurement would show a lineage to David.

[/quote]

Though interesting, this is off topic. The topic is what to do with Guantanamo, to which I would have to answer God knows, or doesn’t because he doesn’t exist but, hell it’s difficult!

102

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
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.

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.

No, both OT AND NT are admissable but only if the entire koran is admissable and Muslims are allowed to claim at any point that any part doesn’t actually apply today and is being taken out of context.

The entire Qur’an is admissible. Of course it is. Muslims, like Christians, have a view that newer surahs abrogate the older ones, except that they don’t believe their older ones were fulfilled, but merely replaced:

Not only is naskh an epistemological nightmare, but from an infidel viewpoint, the problem is that (lately revealed) surahs 9:5 and 9:29 abrogate earlier, more peaceful surahs.

At least that’s what the 4 Schools teach. [/quote]

I would not even begin to argue that the Koran does not contain some pretty nasty stuff.

I would put it on a par with telling a small child that they have to do what they are told otherwise they are going to be tortured in the burning pits of hell for eternity.

That’s about where I stepped off religion.

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
No, both OT [b]AND[b] NT are admissable but only if the entire koran is admissable and Muslims are allowed to claim at any point that any part doesn’t actually apply today and is being taken out of context.

One problem. Abrogation.[/quote]

Explain. Then read the document that PRCal posted, then try again.

105

Were I told the same thing, I’d give up on it as well. Fortunately, this is not the Christian argument.

106

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
No, both OT AND NT are admissable but only if the entire koran is admissable and Muslims are allowed to claim at any point that any part doesn’t actually apply today and is being taken out of context.

One problem. Abrogation.

Explain. Then read the document that PRCal posted, then try again.[/quote]

Here is what PR posted, with emphasis added by me.

"The entire Qur’an is admissible. Of course it is. Muslims, like Christians, have a view that newer surahs abrogate the older ones, except that they don’t believe their older ones were fulfilled, but merely replaced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Naskh_(tafsir)

Not only is naskh an epistemological nightmare, but from an infidel viewpoint, the problem is that (lately revealed) surahs 9:5 and 9:29 abrogate earlier, more peaceful surahs."

The emphasis is the problem. I’m not objecting to admitting the entire Koran.

107

[quote]Sloth wrote:
We do observe the sabbath through the Sacrifice of Christ. Again.[/quote]

Who said anything about the sabbath? I’m talking about all the ceremonial laws, like the feast of unleavened bread, that people were commanded to keep forever.

108

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We do observe the sabbath through the Sacrifice of Christ. Again.

Who said anything about the sabbath? I’m talking about all the ceremonial laws, like the feast of unleavened bread, that people were commanded to keep forever.
[/quote]

Are you just completely unaware of the role Christ plays in the Christian religion? I think PR said something similar to this early on…Go find yourself an Israelite and ask him why he’s not holding to all Old Testament law, forever.

109

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

It was obvious to tell that you are an atheist just from the way you lump all religions together as the same. If you spend time reading about the origins of religions why are you so ignorant about Jesus?

[quote]
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) [/quote]

Another aspect of British culture that I have noticed is British atheists like to lump all religions together as idiots believing fairy tales. You seem like one of them.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

I knew you would say something like this. You are a stereotype. People like you are a danger. Here is why.

Being an atheist doesn’t make you dangerous per se, but your beliefs have caused you (and a lot of other atheists) to develop a standard set of prejudices that are dangerous.

The reason why your prejudices are dangerous is because we are currently in the most dangerous phase of a religious war that has been raging since the seventh century.

There are decisions that need to be made as to how we wage this war. Because we live in democracies people like you get to vote and thereby have a say on how we deal with this war.

A basic martial arts philosophy is you try to get inside the other guys head. But since the depth of your understanding of all religions is just a shallow “it’s a bunch of stupid sods believing fairy tales” you don’t have the ability to know what is going on inside the heads of religious people or understand their thinking.

Then your lack of understanding is compounded by the fact that you think all religious people are idiots believing fairy tales while you, then, are by default smarter than any of them. Because you are not an idiot believing fairy tales.

That is why even though you don’t know what you are talking about you come here and spout off like you know and understand this stuff better than anyone else.

That is why people like you are dangerous. Because you have the ability to affect decision making but you are doing it from a position of extreme ignorance.

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

This is a perfect example of what I saying. Religious scriptures are not fairy tales. People aren’t killing each other over the Brothers Grimm or Cinderella or Snow White or 101 Dalmatians.

People haven’t learned moral codes that affect the way they live their lives and treat their fellow man form fairy tales.

Last but not least you are making some slanderous remarks about PRCal without backing them up.

110

I think I should’ve just said I’m not an Israelite, but a Christian. And then, let forlife figure it on his own. If he ever could.

111

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

You really are a clueless twat. Jesus was a very peaceful person who taught his followers to be peaceful and have forgiveness in their hearts. He lived and died by that.

Mohammad on the other hand was a vicious mother fucker, who enslaved, tortured, raped and murdered innocent people.

These two religions have two completely different role models as their founder.

The Bible wars you mention are manifestations of the kind of bad aspects of human nature which Jesus spoke out and taught against. While Mohammad exemplified and encouraged the worst of human nature.

[quote]
Baring in mind that Yaweh was originally the war god of a pollytheistic religion

Proof?

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.

it is no suprise that there are lots of references to violence in the bible.

There are. What is at issue is what is prescribed vs. what is described.

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 [/quote]

That is old testament you idiot. The old testament is Judaism.

[quote]
, Jesus approves of torture in the parable of the king forgiving his servants debt.

You’re referring to this:
Matt 18:23-35 Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn?t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ?Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!? The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ?Pay me what you owe!? "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ?Have patience with me, and I will repay you!? He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due.

So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ?You wicked servant!

I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn?t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?? His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.

So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don?t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds." [/quote]

You really are an ignorant retard. Read the last sentence.

“So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds.”

Jesus is saying have forgiveness in your heart. The rest of that was a parable. It was the setup for the punchline at the end which was the lesson.

[quote]
Can you point out to me where this advocates violence towards one another? It seems to be advocating the exact opposite, actually: forgiveness.

What about all the passages where Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor? Are those thrown out of your understanding of the NT?

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. [/quote]

You are desperately trying to prove a point and failing miserably. Your saying “forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds.” is advocacy of torture is absurd.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

You are nuts.

112

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
We do observe the sabbath through the Sacrifice of Christ. Again.

Who said anything about the sabbath? I’m talking about all the ceremonial laws, like the feast of unleavened bread, that people were commanded to keep forever.

Are you just completely unaware of the role Christ plays in the Christian religion? I think PR said something similar to this early on…Go find yourself an Israelite and ask him why he’s not holding to all Old Testament law, forever. [/quote]

LOL.

forlife is proposing a Christian religion without Christ.

This conversation is starting to follow a familiar pattern.

forlife, you were a Mormon, correct?

114

Well while I was at work looks like PR gave the smack down.

Tho I do admit it is comical the way they bash Christianity with the old testament all the while completely forgetting the new one.

115

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Muslims, like Christians, have a view that newer surahs abrogate the older ones, except that they don’t believe their older ones were fulfilled, but merely replaced[/quote]

Of course, it is logically impossible for something to be either fulfilled or replaced if people are commanded to practice it forever.

I wonder if the Muslims painted themselves into a theological corner with similar declarations in the Qu’ran?

116

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you just completely unaware of the role Christ plays in the Christian religion? I think PR said something similar to this early on…Go find yourself an Israelite and ask him why he’s not holding to all Old Testament law, forever. [/quote]

Yes, I’m aware of the Christian belief that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses. I’m calling out that belief, because it logically contradicts the clear requirement that people follow the ceremonial laws of the old testament forever.

117

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Religious scriptures are not fairy tales. People aren’t killing each other over the Brothers Grimm or Cinderella or Snow White or 101 Dalmatians.

People haven’t learned moral codes that affect the way they live their lives and treat their fellow man form fairy tales.[/quote]

Fairy tales/fables often have moral messages. The point of calling religious scriptures fairy tales is that these scriptures, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, make claims that aren’t factual.

What I find dangerous is when people base their belief system on fairy tales rather than facts, and then proceed to vote based on those beliefs. It’s like Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist before making major decisions. WTF?

118

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
forlife is proposing a Christian religion without Christ.

This conversation is starting to follow a familiar pattern.

forlife, you were a Mormon, correct? [/quote]

See my post above. I understand the Christian belief that Jesus “fulfilled” the law of Moses (Mormons share this belief, btw). I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of that belief vs. the crystal clear declarations of the old testament.

119

[quote]John S. wrote:
Tho I do admit it is comical the way they bash Christianity with the old testament all the while completely forgetting the new one.[/quote]

I find it comical that you conveniently forget the old testament (which is very similar in tone to the Qu’ran, btw) in the name of it being “fulfilled”, despite the declarations of the old testament that the ceremonial laws must be followed forever.

120

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
forlife is proposing a Christian religion without Christ.

This conversation is starting to follow a familiar pattern.

forlife, you were a Mormon, correct?

See my post above. I understand the Christian belief that Jesus “fulfilled” the law of Moses (Mormons share this belief, btw). I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of that belief vs. the crystal clear declarations of the old testament. [/quote]

No inconsistency. Jesus, the true Israel, fulfilled the Law. By faith, we are united to Jesus (the true Israel), and are adopted into the kingdom as sons (and daughters). So, by faith, we are the true Israel’s spiritual offspring, and thus we keep the ordinances forever, because Jesus kept them.