Who's Funding the Mosque?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
<<< You will have to point out where the Bible says David Koresh is not a Christian, I know it would make your argument easier if it did .

There are Radicals practicing Islam and there are Radicals practicing Christianity. Do you see the difference :)?[/quote]Galatians 1:8-9 '“8-But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9-As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” I could bury you in biblical evidence if you really cared along with mountains of documentation on Koresh demonstrating to any non brain damaged individual that whatever else that abomination he was running down there was, it was not Christian in any way that even a community college comparative religions professor would recognize.

He did not practice Christianity. He practiced Koresh-ianity and pasted disastrously tortured bible passages and concepts on top of it. Do YOU see the difference.

[/quote]

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent. Koresh practiced a form of Christianity. It might be different to yours but so is a large chunk of the worlds.

182

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

This is equivalent of saying the government can’t reject a religion just because we do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed. We can and have.[/quote]

No it isn’t

183

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

Ok so by your argument, we have no right to tell someone who worships bael and needs to sacrifice virgins as well as animals to stop them from building a place of worship in which they can plan this out or pursue it. I mean suppose these are consenting virgins will to die for their beliefs.

What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.

[/quote]

We have no right to stop someone building a temple to Bael, if they are planning to kill people without their consent in that temple we have a right to step in.

Personally, I think that if the virgins are consenting and of an age where they can make their own decisions then we should let them (though there should be careful investigation that it truly is free will) in practice the current laws of the US would block this.

[/quote]

Who in the right mind kills themselves? That’s right, No one, so free will doesn’t even play in here.[/quote]

I would disagree with that.

184

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I think the issue is that the Muslims did not attack us any more than the Christians attacked us at Oklahoma city. We were attacked by terrorists [/quote]

I wasn’t aware that Timothy McVeigh thought he was doing “God’s work”, that he did what he did in the name of Christianity, or that many Christians supported his actions.

Did I miss something, or is your comparison fatally flawed?[/quote]

Not to defend the Roman Church, but McVeigh’s stated his relgion was “science.” His writings were filled with typical anti-Christian and anti-Jewish scribblings.

Not to defend the Roman Church, but McVeigh stated his religion was “science” and filled his writings with anti-Christian and anti-Jewish rantings.

Not to defend the Roman Church, but McVeigh was an atheist. When asked what his religion he said “science.”

Actually he was raised a catholic and did think he was being guided by an unseen hand so the comparison is entirely valid.

By the way, everyone here is aware that it was not just White, Republican, Christian Americans that were killed on 9/11. Possibly that fact escaped you all.[/quote]
[/quote]

Actually he stated that he was agnostic though he felt that everything that happened was guided by a higher power. Not surprisingly for someone that was able to do what he did he was a bit all over the place. But then again, the guys who flew planes into the twin towers were also most likely a teensy bit unhinged.

The Anti Jewish stuff was definitely there, he was a white supremacist after all.[/quote]

Lawl. There is so much shady shit about OKC, that I won’t even make a comment.[/quote]

Yeah, some really odd stuff. Particularly the German Chancellor’s son.

185

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For all those banging on about the US being a Christian nation and having no space for Islam. Interesting that your founding fathers didn’t share your views.

There are numerous quotes supporting the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion in the US.

Here is a useful link for any of you prepared to pull your head out of your arse long enough

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html[/quote]

Do we forget that most of the slave traders on the west coast of Africa were Muslims, I’m sure that would hinder business if we wouldn’t let them come here and live here.[/quote]

Why do you only mention the west coast slave trade? The west coast slave trade was a minor side show compared to the east coast slave trade. Over a hundred million Africans died in the east coast slave trade. Many of them died from being marched across the Sahara desert without water.

Much like how millions of Hindu slaves died being marched across the Hindu Kush. Kush by the way comes from the Persian word Kushtar which means slaughter so in Persian Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter.

A major difference between the east and west coast slave trade is that in the Americas the slaves were allowed to have children that is why they have descendants in the Americas. But in the Arabian countries where the east coast slaves were sent to you can’t find their descendants because any children were killed as soon as they were born.

In islam the history of slavery goes all the way back to muhamad. Part of the muslim faith is the belief that muhammad was the perfect man who led the perfect life. That is why I cannot see how islam could ever be rehabilitated into something good. [/quote]

And slavery is condoned in the Bible. Your point is?

186

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ it is easy to prove that McVeigh’s beliefs did not mirror the traditional interpretation and doctrines of Christianity . . .[/quote]

I said nothing about tradition , Doctrines could be invented. Some one invented every doctrine there is .

I watched an interesting movie " The Invention of Lying " any body see it ?

187

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

And slavery is condoned in the Bible.[/quote]

Not really. And certainly not in the modern sense. In general, it was viewed as a fact of life in the Bronze Age — a contemptable condition that one should avoid inflicting or becoming, if possible.

188

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
<<< If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent. >>>[/quote]That’s correct. However, I’d like to believe He would find the mortally essential truths of His gospel under all that as I do. (Or at least hope I do, it can be tough) [quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Koresh practiced a form of Christianity. It might be different to yours but so is a large chunk of the worlds.[/quote] That is incorrect. I don’t have a form of Christianity. There is just Christianity and as I and others have said there is no historic definition of Christianity any where from any time that would recognize Koresh as one of their own. YOU can go ahead. You can also call people who worship Porky Pig Muslims if you want to, but NO Muslim of any variety will accept that nor should they.

189

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent.[/quote]

That’s absurd. Christ is alive and among us. So why the “if”? And Christ is surely capable of understanding “what the pictures and statues [are] supposed to represent.”

190

Islam is not a religion. Its a militant anti-west ideology parading as a religion, for the purpose of destruction.

191

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For all those banging on about the US being a Christian nation and having no space for Islam. Interesting that your founding fathers didn’t share your views.

There are numerous quotes supporting the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion in the US.

Here is a useful link for any of you prepared to pull your head out of your arse long enough

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html[/quote]

Do we forget that most of the slave traders on the west coast of Africa were Muslims, I’m sure that would hinder business if we wouldn’t let them come here and live here.[/quote]

Why do you only mention the west coast slave trade? The west coast slave trade was a minor side show compared to the east coast slave trade. Over a hundred million Africans died in the east coast slave trade. Many of them died from being marched across the Sahara desert without water.

Much like how millions of Hindu slaves died being marched across the Hindu Kush. Kush by the way comes from the Persian word Kushtar which means slaughter so in Persian Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter.

A major difference between the east and west coast slave trade is that in the Americas the slaves were allowed to have children that is why they have descendants in the Americas. But in the Arabian countries where the east coast slaves were sent to you can’t find their descendants because any children were killed as soon as they were born.

In islam the history of slavery goes all the way back to muhamad. Part of the muslim faith is the belief that muhammad was the perfect man who led the perfect life. That is why I cannot see how islam could ever be rehabilitated into something good. [/quote]

And slavery is condoned in the Bible. Your point is?[/quote]

Cock you are so predictable. When I wrote that I knew that you or someone else would come back with a reply like that. Grow up! You are bringing the reasoning abilities of a six year old to this discussion. You are doing exactly what a young child does when an adult points out that they have done something wrong. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions they start pointing out all the other kids who are doing the same thing in order to weasel out of taking responsibility for their actions.

In life the way to deal with problems as an adult is to identify, then accept that you have a problem, take responsibility for the problem and then personally deal with it. The way to not deal with a problem is to start making comparisons to everyone else who more or less has similar issues and then rationalize that you don’t need to deal with your problem when they have or have had the same problem.

It is because of people like you who want to play Jewish mother to the muslims by making comparisons to turn this into a childish pissing match that these discussions end up going nowhere.

Now that I have dealt with your childishness, I’ll reply to your childish retort. I am not aware of any references in the new testament of Jesus owning slaves or forming and participating in raiding parties that went out and kidnapped slaves. Also while I am not as familiar with Buddhism (so I could be wrong)I don’t think any of the holy men known as Buddha did either. Enslaving another human being is something that a truly spiritual person would not do.

As the ahadith tell us, when muhammad attacked the quayrashi Jews he killed all the men and boys, then took 300 women and girls as slaves. The Nuremberg principles classify such an act as crimes against humanity. You cannot sugar coat, white wash or minimize such a history. Especially when you are telling everyone that you are Gods final messenger and generations later your followers are going around saying you were the perfect man who lived the perfect life.

Despite what you liberals want to force upon everyone else it is not racism or hatred for non muslims to confront muslims with their history and ask difficult questions that force them to think about what they are perpetuating. In fact it is quite the opposite. For if we cannot challenge them to think about what they are doing so that they can face up to what they are doing and change themselves then there will be no resolution until eventually something will happen where it is going to come to a fight.

When that time comes it will be the fault of people like you.

192

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For all those banging on about the US being a Christian nation and having no space for Islam. Interesting that your founding fathers didn’t share your views.

There are numerous quotes supporting the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion in the US.

Here is a useful link for any of you prepared to pull your head out of your arse long enough

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html[/quote]

Do we forget that most of the slave traders on the west coast of Africa were Muslims, I’m sure that would hinder business if we wouldn’t let them come here and live here.[/quote]

Why do you only mention the west coast slave trade? The west coast slave trade was a minor side show compared to the east coast slave trade. Over a hundred million Africans died in the east coast slave trade. Many of them died from being marched across the Sahara desert without water.

Much like how millions of Hindu slaves died being marched across the Hindu Kush. Kush by the way comes from the Persian word Kushtar which means slaughter so in Persian Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter.

A major difference between the east and west coast slave trade is that in the Americas the slaves were allowed to have children that is why they have descendants in the Americas. But in the Arabian countries where the east coast slaves were sent to you can’t find their descendants because any children were killed as soon as they were born.

In islam the history of slavery goes all the way back to muhamad. Part of the muslim faith is the belief that muhammad was the perfect man who led the perfect life. That is why I cannot see how islam could ever be rehabilitated into something good. [/quote]

The reason I mentioned this was because the business men (mostly protestants) and politicians were more forward in dealing with Muslims, and did most of their trading on the West Coast, reasons for tolerance of Muslims.

193

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Did he say he is not ?[/quote]
He doesn’t have to, there is clear signs if he was a Christian or not…he was not.[/quote]Look at that. Chris n I agree on something. I keep trying to tell him this, but it doesn’t do any good. Even by the very broadest and most generous definitions of orthodoxy, definitions agreed on even by you and I who are on opposite ends of the Christian universe, Koresh was closer to being a bean burrito than a Christian.
[/quote]

I know, we agree on most stuff, just not everything. I don’t think we are necessarily on the opposite sides of the spectrum either, however if anyone is a “Christian” and on a the Christian spectrum, then McVey and Koresh are on the opposite sides, and yet still clearly wrong.

I’m a radical when it comes to my faith, however my radicalism isn’t about false prophecies, it is not even about debate, it’s about following Jesus’ commandments and charity to widows and orphans and the poor and sick.

195

IN the end It will be very odd to have a Muslim shrine built on the 911 grounds. LOL! Talk about America having an open mind, lol, so open everyone’s brains fell out.

196

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know the scripture but as I recall it goes Judge not lest thee be judged . To say McVey is not a Christian is what I believe to be out of your Realm

I also know there is a scripture that says judge a man by his works.

I think Mc Vey might have been a hero if that building were vacant. That was in the Clinton administration and we had just about as many right wing kooks as we have today
[/quote]

1st Epistle Of Saint John Chapter 3, 6-10. I’m not going to speak on McVey because I hold certain opinions on the subject that are not held as popular.

However, scripture says…

Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him. Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother.

197

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
<<< You will have to point out where the Bible says David Koresh is not a Christian, I know it would make your argument easier if it did .

There are Radicals practicing Islam and there are Radicals practicing Christianity. Do you see the difference :)?[/quote]Galatians 1:8-9 '“8-But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9-As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” I could bury you in biblical evidence if you really cared along with mountains of documentation on Koresh demonstrating to any non brain damaged individual that whatever else that abomination he was running down there was, it was not Christian in any way that even a community college comparative religions professor would recognize.

He did not practice Christianity. He practiced Koresh-ianity and pasted disastrously tortured bible passages and concepts on top of it. Do YOU see the difference.

[/quote]

If Jesus Christ himself walked into a modern catholic church he would have no concept of what was going on and no idea what the pictures and statues were supposed to represent. Koresh practiced a form of Christianity. It might be different to yours but so is a large chunk of the worlds.[/quote]

Oy Vey, this argument. It holds not substance but I’ll refute it quickly. Jesus is omnipresent, of course he would know what was going on and know exactly what the pictures and statues were supposed to present. Jesus was Jewish, he was a Rabbi. Talk to Jewish people that have been in a Catholic Mass and they’ll tell you it reminds them of their rituals. That’s because it comes from their rituals.

198

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

This is equivalent of saying the government can’t reject a religion just because we do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed. We can and have.[/quote]

No it isn’t[/quote]

Yes it is.

199

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know the scripture but as I recall it goes Judge not lest thee be judged . To say McVey is not a Christian is what I believe to be out of your Realm

I also know there is a scripture that says judge a man by his works.

I think Mc Vey might have been a hero if that building were vacant. That was in the Clinton administration and we had just about as many right wing kooks as we have today
[/quote]

1st Epistle Of Saint John Chapter 3, 6-10. I’m not going to speak on McVey because I hold certain opinions on the subject that are not held as popular.

However, scripture says…

Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him. Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother. [/quote]This may not be the thread for this, but you do realize there is some definite exegetical clarity required for this passage as translated above. Which is not inaccurate, but it’s VERY literal. Incidentally I just quoted this exact passage to somebody who asked me something in a PM today.

200

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Or you could be a secular nation that has separation of religion and politics. Just saying, it is an option…[/quote]

Religion is part of who people are, they have every right to be who they are in politics, voters, politicians and the like. It is Anti-American to try to forcibly separate the 2. It would be like trying to get homosexual issues out of politics. A gay person has every right to have their sexuality influence their vote or their politics. So do Christians.[/quote]

I think you will find that your constitution (which I guess defines what it is to be American) actually does forcibly separate politics and religion. Telling people they cannot build a place of worship on some land that they own is massively unamerican.[/quote]

I’m kind of personally divided on the issue. It pisses me off that something like this will be a victory for those who committed the acts on 911, BUT at the same time allowing it is why we are better than them. I honestly wish that the Muslims would see how insensitive it is and not do it, But I’m not for gubament stopping them.

BUT the constitution does not separate religion and government.[/quote]

Lots of Muslims died in the Twin Towers as well you realise?

I agree with most of what you wrote here however would the First Amendment not typically be agreed to separate religion and government?[/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?

How do you get, “politics and religion have to be separate?” Congress can’t make a state religion, but politicians can absolutely be religious and let religious beliefs influence them.[/quote]

Of course a politician can be influenced by his religion however he cannot pass a law that impinges on someone else’s religion such as stopping someone building a place of worship just because they don’t like the particular religion (which is what we are referring to in the first place.)[/quote]

Ok so by your argument, we have no right to tell someone who worships bael and needs to sacrifice virgins as well as animals to stop them from building a place of worship in which they can plan this out or pursue it. I mean suppose these are consenting virgins will to die for their beliefs.

What about the bubble law in chicago, a man can’t even pray outside a planned parenthood, does this not fall under the same category.

[/quote]

We have no right to stop someone building a temple to Bael, if they are planning to kill people without their consent in that temple we have a right to step in.

Personally, I think that if the virgins are consenting and of an age where they can make their own decisions then we should let them (though there should be careful investigation that it truly is free will) in practice the current laws of the US would block this.

[/quote]

Who in the right mind kills themselves? That’s right, No one, so free will doesn’t even play in here.[/quote]

I would disagree with that.[/quote]

Well so did the Catholic Church until the Psychologists made a convincing argument that someone that kills themselves would not be the right mindset.