Two Ex-GTMO Inmates Appear in AQ Vid

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Which people forlife? Which people? Those who reject Christ as the messiah, but hold to the old covenant, considering themselves God’s chosen people? Do you know who I might be speaking of? Who the audience was? What SPECIFIC nation/people/group was given this covenant?

Do you understand that there is now a people of the new covenant?

I don’t know forlife, looks like you need to head to Israel, get up on a soapbox, and start harrassing jews you see not living by the covenant.

You can’t wrap your head around a set of laws being handed to a specific nation/religious people (Do you see God handing the law down to every nation/people on earth in the OT? No, you don’t), and fullfilled laws handed to all nations and all people through Christ.

Your inability to draw even simple distinctions shows up in every arguement we have. Why do I bother?

122

[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:

Your inability to draw even simple distinctions shows up in every arguement we have. Why do I bother?

[/quote]

Because you like me still have some faith left in humanity that someone can’t possibly be that stupid.

124

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

No. The point of calling them fairy tales is so atheists can stroke themselves and convince themselves that they are much much smarter and superior than religious people because they aren’t believing fairy tales.

It is an ignorant attitude to take and here is why. Fairy tales are always pure fiction and people know that. Religious scriptures are not all purely works of fiction, they can involve real people, real places, real times, real events.

Some of them can be tall tales that are not impossible but they seem like such tall tales that people say they are bullshit and dismiss them out of hand because they don’t conform to their understanding of the world around them.

Some can be misinterpretations of real events where a metaphysical explanation got added to something that has a down to earth explanation.

Whatever happened they are not fairy tales. So to dismiss religious people as backwards idiots believing fairy tales so you can feel better about yourself is a very ignorant attitude to take. Because you have to live in the same world as these people and they can affect your life.

But you are never going to understand them if all you ever do is diss them about something they take seriously just to make yourself feel better. You are never going to understand the motivations of these people and what makes them tick. You are going to have a very hard time understanding what is possible with them and what is not.

If all you can do look at jihadists is tell yourself they are just idiots believing fairy tales because it makes you feel smarter than them you are not going to be able to understand why efforts to make them stop being jihadists aren’t working.

[quote]
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? [/quote]

What is also dangerous come election time is being completely ignorant about what the motivations of the jihadists are.

ie If a politician says backwards people who believe fairy tales like shiny things. The entire island of Manhattan was bought for a handful of beads. So I propose to give all the Muslims a handful of beads to buy their friendship and end their jihad. It might make a lot of sense if all you can think of them is they are backwards children believing fairy tales.

Now that analogy might sound very far fetched and ridiculous but to some extent that is what has been proposed to deal with the war on terror. There are people who want to believe that we can just give them something they like and they will go away. A lot of voters can’t understand that there are some things that are more cherished than money.

ie. Osama Bin Laden is or was worth several hundred million dollars. He could have had any material need he wanted fulfilled and a long happy life. But it all means nothing to him next fulfilling a role that his religious beliefs tell him is superior to that.

If you can’t understand how religious beliefs can make a person value a place in heaven over a life here on earth, you won’t be able to understand why the old cold war policy of M.A.D. which worked very well with the godless commies in Russians may not work at all with the Ayatollahs in Iran.

That is why dismissing religion as idiots believing fairy tales is a dangerous attitude. Because it prevents you from understanding why people can take it so seriously. If you can’t understand why they take it so seriously you will not be able to understand why you can’t change their mind.

125

[quote]pushharder wrote:
forlife wrote:
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.

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.

I don’t think there’s any problem with Jews, even those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah, from continuing to observe ceremonial laws even now or “forever”. Those laws were given to the Hebrews; they were not to be practiced by Gentile Christians then or now.

So what’s the problem?[/quote]

It does sound quite racist.

126

[quote]lixy wrote:
pushharder wrote:
forlife wrote:
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.

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.

I don’t think there’s any problem with Jews, even those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah, from continuing to observe ceremonial laws even now or “forever”. Those laws were given to the Hebrews; they were not to be practiced by Gentile Christians then or now.

So what’s the problem?

It does sound quite racist.[/quote]

Do you have anything of substance to add to this conversation, or are you just trying to shut it down with the ‘racist’ label? For an Arab follower of the religion of Arab supremacism to be running around calling people ‘racist,’ as you’ve done in past conversations of this nature, is a bit too much.

127

[quote]Chushin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

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.

Mr. Cockney,

If you can’t refute THIS point, you lose this debate.[/quote]

bump

CB,

Are you going to answer this or are you just going to continue to muddy the waters on other threads?

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

I was referring to the theological document discussing the applicability of the OT to modern Christians.

129

[quote]Sifu wrote:
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]
Why should I not lump them together? I do not believe in any of them for pretty similar reasons. I do understand some of the differences between them but at the core the issue with all of them is the same. A set of rules from a different era that was codified and enforced by claiming that they came from a supreme power applied to the modern age.

No it’s Atheists in general who do this. Try reading Sam Harris.

Whereas someone who actually believes that the Earth was created in 6 days by a supreme being who loves us all but treats us like shit is a far better person to try and solve global issues?

someone who is prepared to disengage their own congitive abilities and settle for ‘god did it’ as an answer to some of the biggest questions that the world faces?

Someone who will pick and choose rules to follow from a set of badly eddited badly translated books gathered together over a thousand years ago?

But they were killing each other over Greek and Roman religious texts a couple of thousand years ago, these days those stories are told to our kids as fairy tales.

No morality comes from within, some people overlay that with religion but you do not need religion for morality. Otherwise your argument is that it is only your religion that is holding you back from killing, stealing, raping etc. which would be a worrying state of affairs.

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

No I am not, firstly saying without backing them up is redundant. If you back something up it cannot be libelous, that is the point. Secondly my comments are in a fixed form not a transitory form therefore the claim would be libelous not slanderous. Though there are lawyers specifically employed in arguing the contrary at the moment.

130

[quote]Sifu wrote:
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]
But according to PRcal Christians don’t do that sort of thing. I was pointing out examples of when they had.

Mohammad lived in different circumstances to Jesus (if you accept that Jesus was a real person) during his life he lead conflict against the Meccans though it can be argued it was in self defence (something we know that you support.) He also improved the lot of Arabs alive during and shortly after his lifetime, something you could argue Jesus was unable to do.

[quote]That is old testament you idiot. The old testament is Judaism.
[/quote]
So why is it part of the Christian bible then?

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are different flavours of the same religion. You believe in the same god, have overlapping prophets, stories and history.

I am constantly amazed at how little many Christians know about Christianity. Actually it helps to explain how the numbers of believers is so high, avoids them having to ask themselves tough questions.

The last sentence says if you do not forgive your brother from your hears for his misdeads then God will torture you in the same way as the debtor was tortured in the parable. This is, in so many words, supporting torture.

The whole of the Christian faith is based on the concept that torture is acceptable regardless of that torture being carried out by a supreme being, it is still condoning torture.

Your inability to see that Christianity being based around doing good for fear of eternal torture condones toture by definition is what 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.

You are nuts. [/quote]

So according to you, who wrote the Bible? Were they all in total agreement?

131

[quote]Chushin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

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.

Mr. Cockney,

If you can’t refute THIS point, you lose this debate.[/quote]

Why? The debate is not about Islam it is about Christianity

132

[quote]John S. wrote:
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.[/quote]

Not at all, I have given examples from the new and old testament. All PR has come up with is that Christianity is totally peace and love and the fact that the OT is not relevent, which he supported by posting a link to a document that talks about why and how the OT is relevent.

133

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

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.

Mr. Cockney,

If you can’t refute THIS point, you lose this debate.

Why? The debate is not about Islam it is about Christianity[/quote]

So you have no response? I posted an excerpt from a historic Protestant document finished in 1646 that explains the Protestant Christian view of the Law. The Savoy declaration and the 3 Forms of Unity (written 90 years earlier), agree. Protestant Christianity, as it is understood by Protestant Christians, understand the Law as is explained in the church confessions of Protestantism. Further, I don’t seem to see even Roman Catholics dragging rams, bulls, goats, and sheep in to be sacrificed, nor do I see them advocating that we follow the Law of Moses (Leviticus and all that other unpleasantness).

On the opposite side of the discussion (Islam), I posted an explanation of the doctrine of abrogation (naskh in Arabic), which explains how newer surahs abrogate numerous older ones, including surahs 9:5 and 9:29 which are understood by the 4 Sunni schools of jurisprudence to advocate warfare against non-believers and harsh treatment of Scripturaries, respectively. Your moral equivalence between the two respective religions, therefore, falls on its face.

134

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Chushin wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

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.

Mr. Cockney,

If you can’t refute THIS point, you lose this debate.

bump

CB,

Are you going to answer this or are you just going to continue to muddy the waters on other threads?[/quote]

Sorry, bad stomach infection had me feeling pretty low for a week. Was not avoiding the conversation, was feeling like death.

But this really was not the point was it? I have fully accepted that there are schools within Islam who have some pretty dangerous ideas.

This doesn’t change the fact that there are also peace loving rational muslims (in the same way that there are dangerous radicals and peace loving people within the Christian faith.)

Your argument is that the modern Christian faith doesn’t contain anything that might incite violence. But to me, this is plainly ridiculous given that even within and between different groups of Christians there is violence.

135

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

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.

Mr. Cockney,

If you can’t refute THIS point, you lose this debate.

Why? The debate is not about Islam it is about Christianity

So you have no response? I posted an excerpt from a historic Protestant document finished in 1646 that explains the Protestant Christian view of the Law. The Savoy declaration and the 3 Forms of Unity (written 90 years earlier), agree. Protestant Christianity, as it is understood by Protestant Christians, understand the Law as is explained in the church confessions of Protestantism. Further, I don’t seem to see even Roman Catholics dragging rams, bulls, goats, and sheep in to be sacrificed, nor do I see them advocating that we follow the Law of Moses (Leviticus and all that other unpleasantness).

On the opposite side of the discussion (Islam), I posted an explanation of the doctrine of abrogation (naskh in Arabic), which explains how newer surahs abrogate numerous older ones, including surahs 9:5 and 9:29 which are understood by the 4 Sunni schools of jurisprudence to advocate warfare against non-believers and harsh treatment of Scripturaries, respectively. Your moral equivalence between the two respective religions, therefore, falls on its face. [/quote]

Not at all, I have not in any way claimed that there is no violence within Islam.

You are the one claiming that indiscriminately locking up Muslims in Guantanamo Bay and torturing them, and continuing to keep them locked up for years without charge is fine because Muslims deserve it for being Muslim.

And this from a Christian who is trying to argue that his faith is about peace, love, forgiveness and in no way promotes war.

We don’t even need to go to the scriptures to spot that there is something a bit screwy in this argument.

136

This is called ‘lying’ - your deliberate fabrication my position. In Christianity it’s considered wrong. I’m not sure what your particular code of conduct dictates, but most atheists I know consider lying wrong as well.

137

Listen, I don’t think it is a tiny minority in some areas it seems more like a majority (though a lot of this is based on mass hysteria and people going along with the crowd similar to the situation in Nazi germany.)

Guantanamo and situations like it are just powder for the keg though, it gives the Madrasas something to rally the crowds against.

I am constantly amazed that the West (for want of a better term) has repeatedly lost the PR and Spin battle against countries where they use football stadiums to stone women to death for adultary.

If you were not arguing that what has happened in Guantanamo was deserved by all of the inmates due to their being Muslim, then please could you clarify your various sarcastic posts? This was the clear message I took from them.

And are you seriously trying to say that there are no high profile members of the Christian church in the US preaching messages of hate?

138

OK, question for you Mr happy fluffy loving Christian.

I do not believe in God. I try to live a good life, I try to treat others as I would like to be treated, I try to help out those less fortunate than me. But I do not accept the God into my heart, I do not believe in him and I resent Christianity for the blinkers it puts on the world and the retardation of scientific development in the world that it causes.

What will happen to me when I die?

139

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
the retardation of scientific development in the world that it causes.
[/quote]

Yeah, there hasn’t been much in the way of scientific development in the last 2000 years, has there?

Are you an aborigine?

What do you mean by such a statement?

140

I mean that if you tell someone that at whatever stage their understanding of a system breaks down then it is acceptable to use the answer that God did it, then you are stifling the search for knowledge. This is a bad thing.

When people are pushing for Christian religion to be taught in science lessons then this is a bad thing.

When kids in Iran are taught in Madrasas by Imams instead of in schools by teachers, this is a bad thing.

The very basis of religious faith is that you should not look for the answers, you should just believe. This is the opposite of what we should be teaching our kids. We should be teaching them to question everything.