Who's Funding the Mosque?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

By the way, the US 9th circuit court has ruled exactly that you can’t reject a religion just because you do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed.[/quote]

Well, then that is something new then. However, I still don’t like Islamic teachings, they are just a corrupted version of Catholicism.[/quote]
And you are free not to like them, you can write books about it, make TV shows about it, walk the streets talking about it. What you can’t do is stop them building somewhere to worship.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

But the slaughter and slave taking was condoned by God even encouraged.[/quote]

The only slaughter and slave-taking that was condoned was of the Cannanites.

The Cannannites sacrificed children to Molach and boiled infants in their mothers’ milk; a people so depraved the pagan Egyptians were horrified of their evil and vile ways.

And even the Cannanites captives were to be encouraged to repent and then be freed 7 years after repentance. Unheard of leniece in the Bronze Age.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[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?[/quote]

How is choosing to do something that is right and being killed for it and suicide by cop even remotely the same. The MO for sbc is usually that the person doesn’t have the fortitude to kill themselves. I do not think that is the MO for Martyrs.[/quote]

You are choosing death, it is assisted suicide. The motives are not what I was talking about.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
<<< 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]
<<< Please follow me here. (you can do it, you don’t even need the Spirit of God to get this part)
Christianity is from an earthly standpoint derived from certain historical sources. ALL, AAAAAAALLLLLLLLL Christians who have ever lived… in the history of the world… have agreed on a core of foundational ideas that objectively tell them whether to count someone as one of their own or not. Regardless of Brother Chris’s gracious ecumenical diplomacy, devout Roman Catholics like him and hard line committed reformation protestants like me disagree on a whole lot. We were killing each other a few hundred years ago. However (now stay with me here) one thing we unhesitatingly join hands on is in denouncing a raving shamelessly depraved flagrant heretic like Koresh.

Now did ya see that? Lemme try it again another way jist in case. Christians in all ages, (Christians… that’s us… who embrace Christ and actually take the time to learn what that means) all of us… comprehensively… agree with each other and disagree with you guys that some one like Koresh is one of us. It’s unanimous. See, I can declare myself a member of the congressional black caucus and even though I am neither black nor a congressman, according to you I should be recognized as a member because I say so. In spite of the fact that I fail to meet the defining qualifications and the existing members do not regard me as one of theirs.

I will go so far, because the bible does, to say that barring an authentic last second conversion, which is possible. Koresh is in hell.[/quote]

I think you will find that it is a teensy bit more recently than ‘a few hundred years ago’ that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other. It is still happening now.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
I wonder if someone is planning a pigfarm, or a ceremonial hall for gay weddings next door to this mosque.[/quote]

I would be willing to buy the land to build a pig farm up wind from the Mosque, not so much so they can smell the pigs, but so I don’t have to smell then. Har har har.[/quote]

Open a paypall account, I will make a donation :slight_smile: Real estate around there is probably pretty pricey though.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

But the slaughter and slave taking was condoned by God even encouraged.[/quote]

The only slaughter and slave-taking that was condoned was of the Cannanites.

The Cannannites sacrificed children to Molach and boiled infants in their mothers’ milk; a people so depraved the pagan Egyptians were horrified of their evil and vile ways.

And even the Cannanites captives were to be encouraged to repent and then be freed 7 years after repentance. Unheard of leniece in the Bronze Age.[/quote]

Think you missed a few

After bringing the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt, he ordered them to attack King Sihon of Heshbon. So the Israelites “put to death everyone in the cities, men, women, and dependents” and “left no survivor.”[14]

God then told them to do the same to King Og of Bashan. The Israelites therefore “slaughtered them and left no survivor.”[15] The book of Psalms cites these massacres as proof that the Lord’s “love endures for ever.”[16]

In resettling the Israelites after the Egyptian sojourn, God instructed them to steal the land of seven nations. And he told them to “not leave any creature alive. You shall annihilate them. . . .”[17]

As a result, the Israelites utterly wiped out various peoples. An example is when Joshua’s army attacked Jericho and “put everyone to the sword, men and women, young and old. . . .”[18] Later, the Lord told Joshua to do the same to the people of Ai.[19]

In obedience to the Lord’s commands, Joshua’s army did likewise to many other cities. The Israelites “put every living soul to the sword until they had destroyed every one; they did not leave alive any one that drew breath.”[20]

If the accounts given in the Bible are accepted, there were millions of men, women, and children exterminated in this conquest of the Promised Land.[21]

All of the carnage was ordered by God. And the Old Testament contains other stories depicting him as acting just as horribly.

At God’s command, the Israelites made war on Midian, slew all the men, and burned their cities.[22] Moses was angry, however, because they had spared the women and children.

So he ordered the soldiers to “kill every male dependent, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with a man, but spare for yourselves every woman among them who has not had intercourse.”[23] Shortly thereafter, God gave Moses instructions for distributing the captive virgins among the fighting men and the community.[24]

The prophet Samuel gave Saul these instructions from the Lord: “Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them. . . . Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and asses.”[25]

Isaiah reports that on the day of the Lord’s anger against Babylon: “All who are found will be stabbed, all who are taken will fall by the sword; their infants will be dashed to the ground before their eyes. . . .”[26]

Ezekiel claims that God appointed men to punish Jerusalem for its “abominations.” The Lord told them to “kill without pity; spare no one. Kill and destroy them all, old men and young, girls, little children and women. . . .”[27]

In the book of II Chronicles, there is another report of the Lord’s anger breaking out against Jerusalem. This time he “brought against them the king of the Chaldaeans, who put their young men to the sword . . . and spared neither young man nor maiden, neither the old nor the weak. . . .”[28]

Jeremiah denounces those who won’t do the killings desired by the Almighty. He declares: “A curse on him who is slack in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on him who withholds his sword from bloodshed!”[29]

The New Testament’s depiction of God is hardly more favorable. The book of Revelation states that in the end times, heavenly power and a sword will be given to a rider on a horse. He will be allowed to make men slaughter one another.[30]

Another rider will be granted similar divine authority, including power to kill with the sword over a quarter of the earth.[31] Later, four angels and their cavalry of 200 million will go forth to slay a third of mankind.[32]

This destruction is preliminary to Christ himself coming on a white horse, leading the armies of heaven. A sharp sword will extend from his mouth to smite the nations, whose armies will be killed by the sword.[33]

These acts by Christ are consistent with his teaching that he came “not . . . to bring peace, but a sword.”[34] And they show that he, like his father, supports the most extreme violence as a means of addressing problems.

[14] Deuteronomy 2:31-34
[15] Deuteronomy 3:1-7
[16] Psalms 136:17-21
[17] Deuteronomy 7:1-6;20:16-17
[18] Joshua 6:20-21
[19] Joshua 8:1-2
[20] Joshua 11:14
[21] Mattill, Jr., A.J, The Seven Mighty Blows to Traditional Beliefs (Gordo, Alabama: The Flatwoods Free Press, 1995), p. 141
[22] Numbers 31:7-12
[23] Numbers 31:14-18
[24]] Numbers 31:25-47
[25] I Samuel 15:1-3
[26] Isaiah 13:13-20
[27] Ezekiel 9:1-7
[28] II Chronicles 36:16-17
[29] Jeremiah 48:10
[30] Revelation 6:3-4
[31] Revelation 6:7-8

Dummy:

  1. Half your cut-and-paste job quotes the New Testament. I am Jewish.

  2. About half of the examples from the actual Torah concern the Cannanites or their fellow travelers, the Philistines, who were equally foul, but I wouldn’t expect you to be able to identify them

  3. The one exception was active war with Eqypt who had just enslaved us and is actually the subject of a post up thread.

I don’t have time or inclination to worry about silly pseudo-intellectuals like you. I do pity you.

[quote]espenl wrote:
I thought the wine was supposed to be the blood. 15 years since the confirmation ceremony, so I could be wrong.[/quote]

It is, but put it all together and you have the Eucharist, however you can either consume just the wine or just the wafer and it be considered taking Eucharist.

[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]

Go back and read the quoted text above. Virgins sacrificing themselves to Ba’al of their own free will. Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his country. How much more do men love their God than their nation?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Are the two not the same thing? If you are not Christian you can’t go to heaven right? Or am I missing something.[/quote]

It is the “no fault of their own clause.” It is usually one and the same, but because man cannot assess whether another man’s knew that he was wrong or doubted himself, then we can’t say he’s going to Hell. As well, saying someone is going to Hell will get you excommunicated. It’s serious.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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…[/quote]

No, he believed that he was going to father the Chosen one.[/quote]

That would in fact still make him God.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

By the way, the US 9th circuit court has ruled exactly that you can’t reject a religion just because you do not like that their sacrament is smoking weed.[/quote]

Well, then that is something new then. However, I still don’t like Islamic teachings, they are just a corrupted version of Catholicism.[/quote]
And you are free not to like them, you can write books about it, make TV shows about it, walk the streets talking about it. What you can’t do is stop them building somewhere to worship.[/quote]

Um, what if I buy the land from whoever want to buy the land from. Then what, just stopped them ;).

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[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?[/quote]

How is choosing to do something that is right and being killed for it and suicide by cop even remotely the same. The MO for sbc is usually that the person doesn’t have the fortitude to kill themselves. I do not think that is the MO for Martyrs.[/quote]

You are choosing death, it is assisted suicide. The motives are not what I was talking about.[/quote]

The only similarity is they both end in death. That is a far cry from being the same and choosing death.

One, you are choosing what you believe is right and the possible consequences are death, suicide by cop you are choosing to do something that has an expected purpose of being killed.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Dummy:

  1. Half your cut-and-paste job quotes the New Testament. I am Jewish.

  2. About half of the examples from the actual Torah concern the Cannanites or their fellow travelers, the Philistines, who were equally foul, but I wouldn’t expect you to be able to identify them

  3. The one exception was active war with Eqypt who had just enslaved us and is actually the subject of a post up thread.

I don’t have time or inclination to worry about silly pseudo-intellectuals like you. I do pity you.

[/quote]

You were the one talking about the Torah, I was talking about the Bible (which I know better)

Of course it is a cut and paste, it is from a book. If I made stuff up it would not make my point.

Why would you pity me? I am perfectly happy.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Are the two not the same thing? If you are not Christian you can’t go to heaven right? Or am I missing something.[/quote]

It is the “no fault of their own clause.” It is usually one and the same, but because man cannot assess whether another man’s knew that he was wrong or doubted himself, then we can’t say he’s going to Hell. As well, saying someone is going to Hell will get you excommunicated. It’s serious.[/quote]

Help me out on something. Is there somewhere else that you can go other than Heaven or Hell?

Something else I would like your views on, I think we would both agree that someone like Koresh is sick, he has a chemical imbalance in his brain leading him to have delusions that he is hearing God speak to him and also leading him to want sex with lots of underage girls. Now given that he is sick and given that his sickness is driving him to depravity he doesn’t have free will in his choice to sin. Therefore is he actually sinning?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Help me out on something. Is there somewhere else that you can go other than Heaven or Hell?

Something else I would like your views on, I think we would both agree that someone like Koresh is sick, he has a chemical imbalance in his brain leading him to have delusions that he is hearing God speak to him and also leading him to want sex with lots of underage girls. Now given that he is sick and given that his sickness is driving him to depravity he doesn’t have free will in his choice to sin. Therefore is he actually sinning?[/quote]

Yes, Purgatory and some believe Limbo. However, at some point, if you go Purgatory, you end up in Heaven after being cleansed. Limbo is a little tricky and I’m not exactly sure what it is besides when it comes to the Jews. However it is a subject of interest.

Yes, we agree. I’m not exactly sure what is wrong with Koresh (or much of his actions), but yes it wouldn’t be too far to say he was a sick man.

Well this would matter, let’s say he was possessed by demons, and it wasn’t a chemical imbalance, then yes he would be guilty, because just like vampires (even though vampires are not real) demons cannot enter without your permission. However, if it was in fact a genuine chemical imbalance, and he did in fact have no free will. Then logically he would have sinned, still, but only venial sin, not mortal.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Chushin 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]

Huh?

I don’t recall ANYONE saying “there is no space for Islam” in America.

Sorry, but I think it’s you who’s suffering from cephalocaudal inversion.[/quote]

So there is space, but you get to pick it. Maybe they should wear some sort of identifier in public as well a yellow crescent sewn onto their clothes should work…[/quote]

Oh, heaven forbid that we should expect Muslims to follow our laws and respect our customs and values!

That we react negatively to being bullied and threatened.

Because THAT’S the kind of “restriction” that some of us here are advocating.

As for your “some sort of identifier in public as well a yellow crescent,” WTF is wrong with you? Such hyperbole and histrionics are less than I’d expect from you.

And again, Americans and the US have a LONG history of accepting people of all races, creeds and religions.

But it gets kind of difficult when you’re dealing with Surah 9:29 believers, pal.[/quote]

If they own the land and there are no zoning laws that they are going to break, why can’t they build a mosque? That is all I want to know.

You are suggesting that they should only be able to build their Mosque in an area that US Christians deem appropriate. That to me is in breach of the laws around freedom of religious expression. It is also setting the US up as a Christian nation which it shouldn’t be.[/quote]

I’ll just be kind and chalk this post up to confusion on your part.

Otherwise, please quote where I said “they should only be able to build their Mosque in an area that US Christians deem appropriate.”

Actually, I haven’t said one way or another yet what I feel should be done. If you’re interested, I don’t think “prohibition” of the mosque is the answer, but they would have to be some profoundly stupid Muslims to follow through on this thing now.

And if they do, their (at a minimum) complete lack of sensitivity to the feelings of the community and most Americans should be rewarded with being made to feel quite unwelcomed there,

Again, if they choose to go ahead with this, they are some damn morons, becuase they can only lose by doing so.[/quote]

The whole fucking thread is about whether a group of (mostly) Christians have a right to tell a group of Muslims where they can build a Mosque.

Why is it insensitive? Lots of Muslims died in the attack it wasn’t a Muslim attack, it was a terrorist attack.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Help me out on something. Is there somewhere else that you can go other than Heaven or Hell?

Something else I would like your views on, I think we would both agree that someone like Koresh is sick, he has a chemical imbalance in his brain leading him to have delusions that he is hearing God speak to him and also leading him to want sex with lots of underage girls. Now given that he is sick and given that his sickness is driving him to depravity he doesn’t have free will in his choice to sin. Therefore is he actually sinning?[/quote]

Yes, Purgatory and some believe Limbo. However, at some point, if you go Purgatory, you end up in Heaven after being cleansed. Limbo is a little tricky and I’m not exactly sure what it is besides when it comes to the Jews. However it is a subject of interest.

Yes, we agree. I’m not exactly sure what is wrong with Koresh (or much of his actions), but yes it wouldn’t be too far to say he was a sick man.

Well this would matter, let’s say he was possessed by demons, and it wasn’t a chemical imbalance, then yes he would be guilty, because just like vampires (even though vampires are not real) demons cannot enter without your permission. However, if it was in fact a genuine chemical imbalance, and he did in fact have no free will. Then logically he would have sinned, still, but only venial sin, not mortal.[/quote]

Thanks for the reply, I wasn’t sure what the latest Catholic view on Limbo was (I thought they changed their mind recently)

Interesting on the second part, do you literally believe in Demons that possess people then? How would you tell it was a Demon and not a mental illness?

I’m a fucking Atheist, and I don’t want the memory of those people disrespected in this horrendous way.

It WAS a Muslim attack. Muslim terrorists = Muslims. The significance of their religion is that these fucking ANIMALS that think Allah wants them to kill me because I live in America.

If it was Christians or Buddhists or motherfucking Sikhists that were saying “god commands me to kill” and committing mass murder every chance they get then I would be saying this about THEM. FUCK ISLAM