Who's Funding the Mosque?

Cockney_Blue · August 10, 2010, 6:09pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

The freely chosen embrace of death in the cause of God is common to martyrs of all faiths. To suggest otherwise is to deny all validity to all religion.[/quote]

There is a difference between Martyrs and people that choose to kill themselves.[/quote]

Yes, Martyrs are a subset of people who choose to kill themselves. Jesus chose to be killed on the cross (if you believe that he existed) therefore he killed himself. No different to someone choosing suicide by cop. Was he insane?

apbt55 · August 10, 2010, 6:07pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[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.”

[/quote]
No seriously, he would be like ‘who is that white dude on the Cross? Who is the pretty white woman in the blue dress? Why are they handing out crackers?’[/quote]

no he would know what the crackers were for, they represent his body, he said so to his disciples.

Brother_Chris · August 10, 2010, 6:09pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:
<<< I imagine this passage requires some interpretation. Otherwise, imagine my surprise to learn that no Christian has ever sinned.[/quote]LOL! Quote so. LOL! I’m no Greek scholar, but suffice it to say the construction here is a bit more accessible in something like the ESV (English Standard Version)

1st John 3:1-10 (ESV)
1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.
4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

The Apostle in the 8th verse of the first chapter of this very same book says:
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

In ch.3 He’s talking about people for whom sin is their “practice”, their way of life. What they’re comfortable with. In the 7th of Romans Paul discusses in detail the Christian war with sin. Anyway, I only bring this up because my ol buddy Brother Chris there left this literal translation (I haven’t checked to see which one, I assume catholic)) of the passage kinda hanging out there and you mentioned it so there it is. The point he was making and quite rightly so is that in most cases who the children of God are is “manifest” in his translation, the ESV translate it “evident” in my opinion the NASB is even better with “obvious”.
[/quote]

I forgot not everyone studies the Bible, even though a lot of people here like to debate the Bible.

My point stands though, even though the verse from the 1st chapter helps others understand. Those that practice sin (for example hate, sleeping with underage children) can still be identified as not being Christians for obvious reasons. As well, there are other things I’ll could add, but I’ll leave it at that.

Douay-Rheims Bible, by the way.

Brother_Chris · August 10, 2010, 6:10pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You being a Christian or Koresh not being a Christian is a subjective argument , it is all a matter of opinion . And Koresh could have been close to a bean burrito, I do not know what his diet was like :)[/quote]

It’s not a matter of opinion, either he was or wasn’t. I won’t go so far as to say Koresh is going to Hell, but I’ll go far as to say he wasn’t a Christian.

Brother_Chris · August 10, 2010, 6:11pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

He recognised Christ as his saviour. As I understand it that is the one base requirement.[/quote]

He thought he was Christ…

apbt55 · August 10, 2010, 6:11pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

How so? Jesus chose to be killed on the cross (if you believe that he existed) therefore he killed himself. No different to someone choosing suicide by cop. Was he insane?[/quote]

wow you have horrible logical man, no it is more like accepting a sentence.

say your child commits some horrible act, but you are given the opporunity to spare their life and wipe the slate clean by accepting their punishment, in this case being crucified.

Jewbacca · August 10, 2010, 6:11pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
And there are multiple accounts of slaughter and slave taking in the bible. You cannot act all morally superior based on your religious texts. My point was that your comments had no relevance. I am not a supporter of Islam, I personally disagree with a lot of the tenets of the faith.

What I want to know however is why does the mention of slave taking in the Koran have any relevance to whether a Mosque should be built near to ground zero?[/quote]

There are lots of bad people in the Torah. Bad people who did bad things.

For example, King David ran around on his wife for a hot piece of ass, got a war started and many, many innocent people died, including his own son.

Those that did not end badly, repented of their evil, typically paid the consequences, and managed to do good things, with the help of G-d.

The Torah does not encourage taking of slaves. G-d attacks and limits the institution, knowing that men will do bad things, so here are the exact limits and consequences.

In short, the bad people are in the Torah to show that even useless, crappy, evil people can be redeemed by a loving G-d and turned to do good things when true to Him.

This is in direct contrast to the koran, where the taking of slaves and maltreatment of others is glorified and held up as an example of good behavior.

If you cannot see the difference, you are either a very silly person or evil yourself.

Brother_Chris · August 10, 2010, 6:14pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

He would turn up at Christmas and have no clue what was going on. Same with Easter.[/quote]

That’s different, you are talking about a certain type of church-goer. Of course there are many who say Lord, lord. But Jesus will not know them and send them away. However, that doesn’t mean he won’t recognize the service or the Church. Other denominations, probably. I got a story about a non-denominational church in Topeka, KS weirdest Christmas service I ever seen. Really weird.

Brother_Chris · August 10, 2010, 6:16pm