View Full Version : Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?
Brian4Liberty
11-25-2015, 01:30 PM
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly? (http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/25/why-cant-we-talk-about-islam-honestly/)
The Left is trying to chill another debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
By David Harsanyi - November 25, 2015
Islam is not a race. Islam is not an ethnicity. Islam is a religion and a political philosophy. And it is distinct from other religions and political philosophies.
Pointing this fact out does not make a person obsessed with hatred or racism. A Muslim might hold moderate views or he might hold extreme ones. If we act as if the color of people’s skin rather than their beliefs define them, we’re engaging in a curiously narrow-minded discussion about one of the world’s great faiths—one that is comprised of all races and many ethnicities.
Yet this is exactly the formulation many on the Left demand.
I bring this up after reading Charles Blow’s latest overwrought piece, in which he wishfully contends that “Anti Muslim is Anti America.” Conflating a bunch of insane Trumpisms and GOP overreactions with completely legitimate concerns about illiberalism within Islam, Blow asserts we should put “a lid on this corrosive language.” What he means is that we should accept his ahistorical interpretation of what America and Islam means—though he gives no indication that he comprehends either.
...
Now, you might argue that politicians have no reason to tweak the brittle sensibilities of fundamentalists. We don’t want the president to create more terrorists by saying stuff that’s offensive to terrorists, after all. But do the rest of us have to embrace this dishonesty? Why do we keep doing it?
...
But, as Bill Maher recently said on “Real Time“: “This idea that all religions share the same values is bullshit and we need to call it bullshit. If you are in this religion, you probably do have values that are at odds [with American ones]. This is what liberals don’t want to recognize.” We see this in Pew poll of the Islamic world, which shows vast numbers of Muslims philosophically opposed some our basic liberal notions, but also in polls closer to home.
...
The GOP may well be overreacting to the Syrian refugee question, though its concerns are well within the bounds of reasonable discourse. American Muslims should never have their freedoms and protections undermined. But Islam does not deserve special immunity from criticism, any more than Seventh-Day Adventists or Mormons or anyone else.
...
What is “un-American,” though, is trying to chill debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
...
More: http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/25/why-cant-we-talk-about-islam-honestly/
Ender
11-25-2015, 01:42 PM
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly? (http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/25/why-cant-we-talk-about-islam-honestly/)
The Left is trying to chill another debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
By David Harsanyi - November 25, 2015
Why don't we start by treating terrorists as individuals or specific groups instead of making them all Muslims first, terrorists second? There are almost as many Islamic sects as there are Christians; people are continually screaming that all Muslims are terrorists, when in fact, very few are.
We should also be much more honest about the subject of BLOW-BACK.
Most so-called "terrorism" is blow-back for bombing countries and killing innocents by self-righteous so-called "Christian" nations.
Why don't we start by treating terrorists as individuals or specific groups instead of making them all Muslims first, terrorists second? There are almost as many Islamic sects as there are Christians; people are continually screaming that all Muslims are terrorists, when in fact, very few are.
We should also be much more honest about the subject of BLOW-BACK.
Most so-called "terrorism" is blow-back for bombing countries and killing innocents by self-righteous so-called "Christian" nations.
Your right. We should explain that these 'radical Islamic fundamentalist jihadists' are in actuality only those who actually follow Islam as Muhammed taught it, and unlike the other moderate peaceful Muslims, are only acting like how the great apostles of Islam have spread the faith since the beginning, namely with threats of violence, fear, and with the sword.
fisharmor
11-25-2015, 02:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbKLkg-5sGY
Your right. We should explain that these 'radical Islamic fundamentalist jihadists' are in actuality only those who actually follow Islam as Muhammed taught it, and unlike the other moderate peaceful Muslims, are only acting like how the great apostles of Islam have spread the faith since the beginning, namely with threats of violence, fear, and with the sword.
Do you want to have talk christian terrorism?, Secular terrorism? , Irish terrorism? , Quebec terrorism? or the definition of terrorism?
Do you want to have talk christian terrorism?, Secular terrorism? , Irish terrorism? , Quebec terrorism? or the definition of terrorism?
I'm sorry. I don't understand.
I'm sorry. I don't understand.
I am just skeptical? Can't you figure what I am arguing about?
I am absolutely disgusted at the recent string of racism and religious hatred I have seen lately. Hating others based on their religion, or hating their religion, shows as much of a lack of intelligence as racists / culture warriors do.
I am a Christian. I don't hate Muslims. I do hate Islam however, for the satanic teachings it has which has brought many to condemnation.
I am just skeptical? Can't you figure what I am arguing about?
No? Can you ask it more clearly?
tod evans
11-25-2015, 02:21 PM
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?
I can't because I don't know anything about Islam.
I'm not interested in learning either.
No? Can you ask it more clearly?
The idea that one religion is superior over another?
But Islam teaches people another way to reach the same God that Christianity is trying to reach. Do you hate God, or just people who approach Him differently than you?
I am Hindu, but not by birth. Do you hate my faith? I worship the same God as you, whether you agree or not.
Do you worship the Holy Trinity? If you do not, then we do not worship the same God.
This does not mean I hate you, so please stop accusing me of that. I do hate Islam and any other religion which teaches to kill the infidel and subjugate them and leads them straight to hell.
The idea that one religion is superior over another?
Are you saying that all religions are equal?
Ender
11-25-2015, 02:32 PM
Your right. We should explain that these 'radical Islamic fundamentalist jihadists' are in actuality only those who actually follow Islam as Muhammed taught it, and unlike the other moderate peaceful Muslims, are only acting like how the great apostles of Islam have spread the faith since the beginning, namely with threats of violence, fear, and with the sword.
Mohammad did not teach that. Try reading the Qu'ran- it is much less violent than the OT.
Mohammad taught to respect the Children of the Book- Jews & Christians. While the Christians were engaging in the Crusades, St Francis was allowed inside the tents of the captains of the Islamic armies because he was kind and thoughtful; he became their friend.
LibertyEagle
11-25-2015, 02:38 PM
But Islam teaches people another way to reach the same God that Christianity is trying to reach. Do you hate God, or just people who approach Him differently than you?
I am Hindu, but not by birth. Do you hate my faith? I worship the same God as you, whether you agree or not.
No, don't agree. My God is part of a trinity. Your god is not. Neither is the Islamic god. No offense, but it's just the fact. But, I will also defend your right to worship as you choose.
Mohammad did not teach that. Try reading the Qu'ran- it is much less violent than the OT.
Mohammad taught to respect the Children of the Book- Jews & Christians. While the Christians were engaging in the Crusades, St Francis was allowed inside the tents of the captains of the Islamic armies because he was kind and thoughtful; he became their friend.
I have many Muslim friends. One of my groomsmen is a Muslim. (He eventually married a Christian, thanks be to God.)
I have also read the Quran. The same verses used by the jihadist to justify their evil. It's written in black and white. Should I reference them?
The Old Testament had violent episodes, because Christ had not yet come to reveal the Father. So using those examples of a gone time under a different covenant does not justify the evil done by Christians or non Christians. As for the history of how Islam has spread from the beginning, that too can be found in the history books.
Muhammed was a cross dressing pedophile who was deluded by a demon. That he 'respected' the Children of the Book while taxing them and cutting off their heads is a joke.
My Muslim friends are very good people, who treat me with respect and who I treat with respect back. But to the devout follower of Muhammed, who actually follow his version of missionary work (IOW, those 'radical fundamentalist jihadists), they would be considered substandard Muslims. They realize that. Too bad others don't.
Anti Federalist
11-25-2015, 02:46 PM
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?
Because in this current climate of double speak and everybody walking around with sticks up their asses, nothing can be talked about honestly or seriously.
Which is, of course, the whole point.
To have a whole society "go tharn", become mentally and spiritually constipated to the point of not being able to lift a finger against its own demise.
Contumacious
11-25-2015, 02:46 PM
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly? (http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/25/why-cant-we-talk-about-islam-honestly/)
The Left is trying to chill another debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
By David Harsanyi - November 25, 2015
The Left should apologize - this NOT racism.
We are talking about ETHNIC CLEANSING.
The zionuts have a right to invade Palestine , circa, 1925 . BUT the "Islamofascists" had NO RIGHT TO RETALIATE
The US had a right to recognize Israhell and declare that the opposing Palestinians had no right the US has to recognize;
The US had a right to invade Iraq and parked itself there for 18 fucking years - while there the US had the right to systematicall kill women and children and if the "islamofascists" don't like it, too bad
The US had a right to wipe out Syria in its entirety - The US needs to make Israhell a massive regional power - if the "islamofascists" don't like it or if they seek refuge in the US , well, too fucking bad
.
I worship Jesus' father, you can't love Jesus' father without loving Jesus so I worship Him too, and my faith has another word for the Holy Spirit but the same concept, and so I can answer yes to that.
I suppose it is reasonable to hate the sects that find it acceptable to kill non-believers or those who leave the faith, because killing is an act of aggression, which is immoral / against the NAP / against ahimsa.
The reason I think people might hate me for my faith is because I see Christians on here who act like they hate me for my faith, but not all Christians are like that however. I think it's mostly the Calvinists on here, and that may be because they tend to reject and hate everyone.
Well, I don't hate you, and neither does Christianity teach to hate you. But we are taught to hate sin, and the acts which cause men to fall from grace, starting with our own sins and sinful acts.
fisharmor
11-25-2015, 03:21 PM
I worship Jesus' father, you can't love Jesus' father without loving Jesus so I worship Him too,
How?
and my faith has another word for the Holy Spirit but the same concept, and so I can answer yes to that.
In Christianity, the Holy Spirit is not a concept. So we have a bit of trouble with the "same god" theory there.
I am monotheistic though, to be clear.)
Well I'm not sure how this can be... I don't know much about Hinduism but I'm fairly certain I've heard of at least (edit) four different gods by name, and my understanding is that there are hundreds. Can you be more explicit in how that jives with monotheism?
Sola_Fide
11-25-2015, 03:23 PM
I worship Jesus' father, you can't love Jesus' father without loving Jesus so I worship Him too, and my faith has another word for the Holy Spirit but the same concept, and so I can answer yes to that.
I suppose it is reasonable to hate the sects that find it acceptable to kill non-believers or those who leave the faith, because killing is an act of aggression, which is immoral / against the NAP / against ahimsa.
The reason I think people might hate me for my faith is because I see Christians on here who act like they hate me for my faith, but not all Christians are like that however. I think it's mostly the Calvinists on here, and that may be because they tend to reject and hate everyone.
When have I ever expressed hatred toward anyone here? I never have.
Ender
11-25-2015, 03:24 PM
I have many Muslim friends. One of my groomsmen is a Muslim. (He eventually married a Christian, thanks be to God.)
I have also read the Quran. The same verses used by the jihadist to justify their evil. It's written in black and white. Should I reference them?
The Old Testament had violent episodes, because Christ had not yet come to reveal the Father. So using those examples of a gone time under a different covenant does not justify the evil done by Christians or non Christians. As for the history of how Islam has spread from the beginning, that too can be found in the history books.
Muhammed was a cross dressing pedophile who was deluded by a demon. That he 'respected' the Children of the Book while taxing them and cutting off their heads is a joke.
My Muslim friends are very good people, who treat me with respect and who I treat with respect back. But to the devout follower of Muhammed, who actually follow his version of missionary work (IOW, those 'radical fundamentalist jihadists), they would be considered substandard Muslims. They realize that. Too bad others don't.
Jihad in the Qu'ran is PERSONAL. It means to wage war on one's own faults and sins; it is NOT about war with others. Because some interpret it that way, does not make it so.
BTW- as far as "cross-dressing"- everyone wors skirts in those days- hate to tell you so. ;)
jllundqu
11-25-2015, 03:30 PM
Let's stick to the OP...
debating religious philosophies like Hinduism is cool and all.... do it via chat or PM... This is already spiraling into "I'm more Christian than you and you're all going to hell" type of thread....
Ender
11-25-2015, 03:31 PM
I worship Jesus' father, you can't love Jesus' father without loving Jesus so I worship Him too, and my faith has another word for the Holy Spirit but the same concept, and so I can answer yes to that.
I suppose it is reasonable to hate the sects that find it acceptable to kill non-believers or those who leave the faith, because killing is an act of aggression, which is immoral / against the NAP / against ahimsa.
The reason I think people might hate me for my faith is because I see Christians on here who act like they hate me for my faith, but not all Christians are like that however. I think it's mostly the Calvinists on here, and that may be because they tend to reject and hate everyone.
Love the Hindu religion. One of my favorite all-time books is "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yoganada. It is beautiful and filled with love for all mankind.
Many Hindus believe in Christ- it is called Christ Consciousness and is a integral part of some Hindu sects.
Ender
11-25-2015, 03:33 PM
Let's stick to the OP...
debating religious philosophies like Hinduism is cool and all.... do it via chat or PM... This is already spiraling into "I'm more Christian than you and you're all going to hell" type of thread....
Agree.
ARealConservative
11-25-2015, 03:34 PM
Jihad in the Qu'ran is PERSONAL. It means to wage war on one's own faults and sins; it is NOT about war with others. Because some interpret it that way, does not make it so.
BTW- as far as "cross-dressing"- everyone wors skirts in those days- hate to tell you so. ;)
the Qu'ran - like all religious texts - are open to wide ranging opinions. There is always someone like you to come around claiming to have the one true interpretation.
Jihad in the Qu'ran is PERSONAL. It means to wage war on one's own faults and sins; it is NOT about war with others. Because some interpret it that way, does not make it so.
BTW- as far as "cross-dressing"- everyone wors skirts in those days- hate to tell you so. ;)
Skirts had nothing to do with it.
You forgot the pedophile part, interestingly.
As for personal jihad, yes, there is that. There is also genocide, beheading the infidel and subjugating other religions to second class status with a special tax. Would you like to defend that as well?
Cabal
11-25-2015, 03:39 PM
Benefits of being a non-believer
http://24.media.tumblr.com/6cc05aad326608ddb0adfa84ac8b9422/tumblr_mtni4wGnxI1r9xanlo1_500.gif
Sola_Fide
11-25-2015, 03:52 PM
The way that I worship may be different, but that does not mean I do not worship the same God.
I did not mean that the Holy Spirit is a concept. I was saying that the concept of the Holy Spirit is the same. Not that the Holy Spirit is a concept.
There is more than one branch of Hinduism. The branch I follow is monotheistic. My understanding is that there is only one God, and I see no reason to not believe that I worship the same God as Christians. As a side note, I was born into a Christian family and was a Christian. In Hinduism there are demi-gods, but they are not God, they are more like angels. Some Hindus worship demi-gods, but that is recommended against by God in the Bhagavad Gita 9.23 "Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way."
Yieu, it's not even close. Read the first 5 chapters of the book of Romans. That is what Christian soteriology is. There is no way you can affirm substitutionary atonement while believing in Hinduism. It's a different religion. TER doesn't even believe in subsitutionary atonement and he says he's a Christian.
Alright then. I think the reason there is backlash against people criticizing Islam is because there are some Christians who are intolerant (hateful) of others' faiths.
I felt that what I said was related because it was about that. Not all Christians are like that. Some can admit that I worship the same God as them, and others reject in order to feel superior.
I thought you argued that Christians must be intolerant of other faiths, but Search isn't returning results. (By the way, I worship the same God as you.)
I don't reject your claim to worship the same God in order to feel superior. I reject it because it is not the faith of God handed down by Christ's beloved Apostles and preserved within the Church the Lord has established.
fisharmor
11-25-2015, 05:00 PM
Let's stick to the OP...
debating religious philosophies like Hinduism is cool and all.... do it via chat or PM... This is already spiraling into "I'm more Christian than you and you're all going to hell" type of thread....
I actually am trying to have a conversation about Islam. The point to be made here is that they are not all the same god. That's the claim on the table that I think needs to be discussed. It doesn't really matter what great religious philosophers like George W Bush have to say on the topic. They are not the same, and therefore we need to examine each individual religion based on who it thinks god is and how mankind is to approach god.
If I am at a party and I meet somebody I've never met before, and that person claims to know a friend of mine named Mike Smith, I am probably going to ask followup questions about this Mike Smith in order to determine whether it's the same person.
If the person I'm speaking to ends up telling me that Mike Smith is a celestial mechanism and not really a person, I might want to take note of that.
And we're not even talking about the creator aof the entire universe there. We're just talking about some dude at a party. And yet many of us would feel it at least somewhat important to verify who that guy is if he's the topic of conversation.
Well Islam is not at this party right now so to demonstrate the point I'm going to ask Hinduism.
I see no logical reason for that to be the case. I believe that God has revealed Himself to varying degrees to different cultures based on what they could accept at the time. I see no logical reason for that not to be the case.
God's fullest revelation is in the Incarnation of the Logos of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, through Whose Blood our sins are forgiven and through Whose resurrected Body we find salvation from death.
I too believe God revealed Himself to different cultures based on what they could accept at the time (especially before His incarnation and the establishment of man's new covenant with God through Christ's blood). So, those who did not know Christ as the Messiah of Israel (on account of lack of knowledge, country of origin, upbringing, etc) will be judged differently compared to those who have heard of Him and rejected Him and His Body, the Church, which He established. God is Just and He knows the hearts of men. But men should not be so naive and ignore certain truths which Christ established on earth, and think by cherry picking and choosing and creating their own version of religion they can fool God, make an excuse and, ultimately, find mercy.
Sola_Fide
11-25-2015, 05:18 PM
God most certainly is a person. He is the Supreme Person. If He did not have personhood, I do not think He could be God. We would then have something more than him, and we cannot be superior to God.
Yieu, the God of the Bible does not have a physical form.
That is good to hear. I feel more assured that He will treat me kindly.
He will treat you justly, not necessarily what you believe is kindness.
I am glad that I do not create my own form of religion, then. The Lord established the faith that I try to follow. And I don't reject Jesus, either.
If your reject His Body, the Church, you reject Him as well. St. Paul thought he was serving God justly by persecuting the Church. And he learned that by persecuting the Church, he was indeed persecuting Christ Who said to him 'why do you persecute Me?'
Many will call Jesus 'Lord' on the Day of Judgement, who will be shut out of the Kingdom. Not saying this applies to you, just restating what Christ said.
thoughtomator
11-25-2015, 05:25 PM
All you really need to know about Islam is that Mohammad is the person whose behavior all Muslims are supposed to emulate, and he was one of the most criminally insane individuals ever to walk the earth, engaging in genocide, slavery, rape (including children), pillage (the genuine article), piracy, and assassinations, among other horrors. It requires absolutely NO interpretation to come to this conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
It is not in anyway an accident that those that are reading from the source ("fundamentalist") are behaving in the same way.
"I am Muslim" == "If you are not also Muslim I want to see you dead".
It should be treated as an open threat of violence and murder, because that's exactly what it is.
Other religions are NOT like that, except the kinds that do human sacrifice. Islam is a remnant of a dark side of primal humanity, the blood and power lust of humans-as-animal.
Sola_Fide
11-25-2015, 05:27 PM
The Lord's form is spiritual, not physical. He created us in His image, and Jesus is described as having form.
When the Bible says man was created in God's image, it means nothing about physical attributes. It means that man, unlike the animals, is endowed with the ability to reason.
The second person of the Trinity putting on flesh does not change the nature of God, which is Spirit. God's nature never changes.
The Lord's form is spiritual, not physical. He created us in His image, and Jesus is described as having form.
Do you believe Jesus at this time has human nature which includes a human body?
thoughtomator
11-25-2015, 05:32 PM
the Qu'ran - like all religious texts - are open to wide ranging opinions. There is always someone like you to come around claiming to have the one true interpretation.
The only way one could have a "range of opinions" on Islam is through ignorance or deliberate deception. Most of what is told to Westerners is the latter, and by the former they repeat it.
fisharmor
11-25-2015, 05:37 PM
The Lord's form is spiritual, not physical. He created us in His image, and Jesus is described as having form.
See this is exactly what I was getting at. Jesus is described as having form, true. If that's as far as you go with that statement then you are not talking about the same Jesus professed by Christianity.
Likewise with Islam (jilundqu) if Jesus is not God then we are not talking about the same god.
Christ is both fully man and fully God. Not was, is: not partially, fully. These are non-negotiable for Christians.
When you get into hair splitting at the level of the council of Chalcedon I'd concede some ground for argument. But we really are getting into hair-splitting there: way beyond "who is Mike Smith" and more like "does Mike Smith know how to drive a manual".
PierzStyx
11-25-2015, 05:39 PM
The Left is trying to chill another debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
By David Harsanyi - November 25, 2015
"The GOP may well be overreacting to the Syrian refugee question, though its concerns are well within the bounds of reasonable discourse. American Muslims should never have their freedoms and protections undermined. But Islam does not deserve special immunity from criticism, any more than Seventh-Day Adventists or Mormons or anyone else."
At one time the US government also tried to exterminate Mormons as well. This isn't about having "special immunity" but individual liberty. And in that regard eveyrone, no matter what race, creed, or culture, has equal rights.
That is all I can hope for. It is through the Lord's mercy and not my own power that we are saved and can go to Him. I trust in the Lord to make the right decision. Whatever He does to me, I desire to keep the mentality of a kitten carried in its mother's mouth with regards to love for and faith in the Lord.
It is good to believe this way. The problem is when we think we are keeping the mentality of such a kitten, though in reality, deny to be carried in the mother's mouth, insisting instead to dictate they way we should be carried, which happens to be foreign to the way the mother has instructed.
For example, do we partake of the Lord's Supper as the Lord commanded?
ghengis86
11-25-2015, 06:01 PM
All you really need to know about Islam is that Mohammad is the person whose behavior all Muslims are supposed to emulate, and he was one of the most criminally insane individuals ever to walk the earth, engaging in genocide, slavery, rape (including children), pillage (the genuine article), piracy, and assassinations, among other horrors. It requires absolutely NO interpretation to come to this conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad
It is not in anyway an accident that those that are reading from the source ("fundamentalist") are behaving in the same way.
"I am Muslim" == "If you are not also Muslim I want to see you dead".
It should be treated as an open threat of violence and murder, because that's exactly what it is.
Other religions are NOT like that, except the kinds that do human sacrifice. Islam is a remnant of a dark side of primal humanity, the blood and power lust of humans-as-animal.
Interesting that of the three Abrahamic regions, only one doesn't instruct followers to treat non-believers differently.
Non-Muslims are infidels. You can basically do whatever you want to them and it's A-OK. Rape, murder, whatever. And children and women are just marginally above the infidel.
Non-Jews are goyim. You can lie, cheat, steal and deceive and use at will. Sure, you might not be able to kill goy with impunity, but you can sure get them to die for you while doing your bidding!
Non-Christians are...what are they again? Oh yeah, people who should be treated with love and kindness in the hope that they can one day come to the Lord through faith in Jesus Christ.
See this is exactly what I was getting at. Jesus is described as having form, true. If that's as far as you go with that statement then you are not talking about the same Jesus professed by Christianity.
Likewise with Islam (jilundqu) if Jesus is not God then we are not talking about the same god.
Christ is both fully man and fully God. Not was, is: not partially, fully. These are non-negotiable for Christians.
When you get into hair splitting at the level of the council of Chalcedon I'd concede some ground for argument. But we really are getting into hair-splitting there: way beyond "who is Mike Smith" and more like "does Mike Smith know how to drive a manual".
Great point. To deny God came into the flesh, died, and rose again in the same flesh, is to deny Christ as Lord and God. This was the docetist Gnostic heresy which the Apostles and early Church had to contend against. If Christ does not now have human nature, we are all lost, there is no salvation for man, and the entire faith is in vain.
thoughtomator
11-25-2015, 06:06 PM
At one time the US government also tried to exterminate Mormons as well. This isn't about having "special immunity" but individual liberty. And in that regard eveyrone, no matter what race, creed, or culture, has equal rights.
Which brings us to a fundamental coexistence conflict with Islam, which insists that only it has rights, and everyone else must submit.
Interesting that of the three Abrahamic regions, only one doesn't instruct followers to treat non-believers differently.
Non-Muslims are infidels. You can basically do whatever you want to them and it's A-OK. Rape, murder, whatever. And children and women are just marginally above the infidel.
Non-Jews are goyim. You can lie, cheat, steal and deceive and use at will. Sure, you might not be able to kill goy with impunity, but you can sure get them to die for you while doing your bidding!
Non-Christians are...what are they again? Oh yeah, people who should be treated with love and kindness in the hope that they can one day come to the Lord through faith in Jesus Christ.
Love for enemies is what distinguishes the three. It is this love, which is in fact divine love, which has allowed any real progress and lasting beauty in the world.
thoughtomator
11-25-2015, 06:09 PM
Non-Jews are goyim. You can lie, cheat, steal and deceive and use at will. Sure, you might not be able to kill goy with impunity, but you can sure get them to die for you while doing your bidding!
That's not actually what the laws of Judaism say, so they are not equivalent. The laws of Islam DO say that Muslims should do horrible things to others.
This equivalency is exactly the kind of thing that stems from profound ignorance about what Islam really teaches its adherents.
Yes, there is a Sanskrit word for that -- shaktivesa avatara, and that is who I believe Jesus is.
Are there others in Hinduism, or is Christ alone the Theanthropos (God-man)?
ghengis86
11-25-2015, 06:15 PM
That's not actually what the laws of Judaism say, so they are not equivalent. The laws of Islam DO say that Muslims should do horrible things to others.
This equivalency is exactly the kind of thing that stems from profound ignorance about what Islam really teaches its adherents.
Well, I understand that. My most basic point was that 2 out of 3 don't have an obligation to treat non-adherents with love. One gives explicit instructions to kill the infidel if they don't convert. The Jews and Christans will at least let you live.
Dr. Dog
11-25-2015, 06:15 PM
But Islam teaches people another way to reach the same God that Christianity is trying to reach.
Islam does not teach that at all. It rejects that Christ is God, therefore rejecting God completely.
PierzStyx
11-25-2015, 06:17 PM
I have many Muslim friends. One of my groomsmen is a Muslim. (He eventually married a Christian, thanks be to God.)
I have also read the Quran. The same verses used by the jihadist to justify their evil. It's written in black and white. Should I reference them?
Just because evil people warp words to justify their cause doesn't make those words or teachings evil. By your logic freedom is evil because Republicans so often use that concept to justify international war and Democrats use it to justify welfare servitude. When read in context the Verse on the Sword clearly is talking about what makes lawful self-defense. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/muslimagorist/2013/12/the-verse-of-the-sword/
The Old Testament had violent episodes, because Christ had not yet come to reveal the Father. So using those examples of a gone time under a different covenant does not justify the evil done by Christians or non Christians. As for the history of how Islam has spread from the beginning, that too can be found in the history books.
According to you. Plenty of Christians use Abraham's promise of land to support Israel's war of extermination, or use Joshua to justify extermination of Muslims. If you can say that they don't represent Christians or Christianity then by what logic do you justify it for Muslims? You can't even argue that a large percentage of Christians don't do this when every major Protestant and Evangelical group does, at least the terrorist population of Islam is only about 0.025%.
Muhammed was a cross dressing pedophile who was deluded by a demon. That he 'respected' the Children of the Book while taxing them and cutting off their heads is a joke.
The charge of cross-dressing is a translation error, nothing more. Translators mistranslated Muhammad being in his wives tent for being in his wives clothes. http://www.answering-christianity.com/prophet_muhammad_cross_dressing_lie.htm
Pedophile? This is just a charge of presentism. And it ignores the realities than even in modern society people get married at young ages. If you're going to start condemning people who married young girls, then you had better be ready to call St. Joseph, the husband of the Virgin Mary. Mary was most likely around 13 and Joseph was probably in his twenties, at the very least, if not older, considering he had an established trade and was apparently a known craftsman. http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/mary-a-teenage-bride-and-mother
So, if you're prepared to denounce Muhammad for being a man living in his times, fine. Just don't be a hypocrite and spare others from the same judgment for the same crimes just because you like them more.
Better taxed than what the Orthodox Church and Eastern Emperor were doing to minority Christians- that is to say condemning them as heretics and killing them. There is a reason so many Christian minorities and even Jews accepted Muslim rule a hundred years later with open arms.
My Muslim friends are very good people, who treat me with respect and who I treat with respect back. But to the devout follower of Muhammed, who actually follow his version of missionary work (IOW, those 'radical fundamentalist jihadists), they would be considered substandard Muslims. They realize that. Too bad others don't.
I understand that going all the way back to 634 AD the Orthodox have had beef with Islam. But that really provides very little excuse for painting all Muslims or even Islam with a big blood red brush, especially since Muslims have been no more or less bloody that Christians when in control of a state. And that of course is the key- it is statism corrupting religion, not religion redeeming the state.
PierzStyx
11-25-2015, 06:22 PM
Interesting that of the three Abrahamic regions, only one doesn't instruct followers to treat non-believers differently.
Non-Muslims are infidels. You can basically do whatever you want to them and it's A-OK. Rape, murder, whatever. And children and women are just marginally above the infidel.
Non-Jews are goyim. You can lie, cheat, steal and deceive and use at will. Sure, you might not be able to kill goy with impunity, but you can sure get them to die for you while doing your bidding!
Non-Christians are...what are they again? Oh yeah, people who should be treated with love and kindness in the hope that they can one day come to the Lord through faith in Jesus Christ.
And that is why The Inquisition happened right? Loving conversion? Kindness? /s The Gospel of Jesus Christ is wonderful. Christianity has problems.
I don't reject your claim to worship the same God in order to feel superior. I reject it because it is not the faith of God handed down by Christ's beloved Apostles and preserved within the Church the Lord has established.
I see no logical reason for that to be the case. I believe that God has revealed Himself to varying degrees to different cultures based on what they could accept at the time. I see no logical reason for that not to be the case.
Logic would not deny that Christ chose Apostles, filled them with the Holy Spirit, in order to bring men to salvation as members of His Body. Your logic would not have been welcomed by those Aposltes who would not commune to you the Holy Eucharist. While your piety would be commended, your profession of faith apart from what the Holy Spirit revealed to these Apostles and those they ordained as teachers would not have been commended and in fact would have disqualified you from approaching the Holy Gifts. Do you think the Apostles would be wrong for doing this? Should they have simply embraced religious pluralism and political correctness, and allowed those who professed a different faith to worship and commune with them? Does logic make truth relative? If so, then there is no such thing as truth.
Islam does not teach that at all. It rejects that Christ is God, therefore rejecting God completely.
'Whosever reject me, rejects Him Whom sent me'.
PierzStyx
11-25-2015, 06:25 PM
"Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?"
Mostly because most of you have no idea what Islam is, judging from this thread. You all ignore the big elephant in the room that gets to the heart of why there has been so much bloodshed in Muslim and Christian history- statism. Statism is the religion that is the enemy.
I understand that going all the way back to 634 AD the Orthodox have had beef with Islam. But that really provides very little excuse for painting all Muslims or even Islam with a big blood red brush, especially since Muslims have been no more or less bloody that Christians when in control of a state. And that of course is the key- it is statism corrupting religion, not religion redeeming the state.
Pierz, your post has many errors which needs correcting, but I am not interested tonight. I would like to finish my discussion with Yieu.
I would commune with them if they came to me. I have nothing against them. It is not about political correctness. It is about accepting our brothers and sisters under the Lord.
Would you? Are you more illuminated with what God's will is then the Apostles? Where did all that humility go?
Christ said not throw pearls to dogs for a reason, and it wasn't to protect the Holy Spirit. It was to protect the baptized members of the Church from lies and distortions, and from falling away from the true worship of God.
There are others. The Hindu texts cover history from before the Bible was written, and so it includes things that people in the biblical region might not know about.
So do you believe when Christ says He is the only begotten Son of God, that He is the gate and that no one enters into the Kingdom than through Him?
PierzStyx
11-25-2015, 06:35 PM
Pierz, your post has many errors which needs correcting, but I am not interested tonight. I would like to finish my discussion with Yieu.
I can finish that discussion for you. Yieu probably doesn't believe in a perfect, perfect, Bible. Without that the whole discussion is pointless.
Yieu can claim Jesus was another Avatar of Brahman, just like Vishnu, Kali, Shiva, and all the rest were/are. Like Islam, all Yieu has to do is say that the Apostles either messed up the message or Paul was a liar trying to manipulate the faith for power and your discussion is over. You cannot prove empirically that the Bible is without error, it is a matter of faith. So you cannot prove anything about this discussion.
Without it the Trinity fits perfectly with Hindu concepts of a Supreme God who manifests in individual beings who are also gods (The Father is God nut not the Son, The Son is God but the Father, etc.) all separate but of the same substance, etc. In fact the way Christians describe God sounds very much like Hindu concepts for the Supreme God in general. So it is unsurprising a Hindu would think that the two worship the same God. For Hinduism there is no "one way" for everyone. Different groups and people have the way they need revealed and all journey up the mountain. Jesus may be the One True God, and The Way, Truth, and Life for Jews and Westerners, but to a Hindu that doesn't mean it contradicts Hinduism.
I never said I was better than anyone. Just that I would recognize that they are my brothers under the Lord and would commune with them.
But you are saying that you are better then the Apostles, no?
Brian4Liberty
11-25-2015, 06:36 PM
Because in this current climate of double speak and everybody walking around with sticks up their asses, nothing can be talked about honestly or seriously.
Which is, of course, the whole point.
To have a whole society "go tharn", become mentally and spiritually constipated to the point of not being able to lift a finger against its own demise.
Let's stick to the OP...
debating religious philosophies like Hinduism is cool and all.... do it via chat or PM... This is already spiraling into "I'm more Christian than you and you're all going to hell" type of thread....
Yep, this thread is an example of exactly the point the author was trying to make.
I can finish that discussion for you.
Thank you for speaking for Yieu, but I would rather hear what he believes from him, thank you.
If I did, I would call myself Christian. I believe that we worship the same God, just not in the same way.
But if you reject what Christ said, then you reject Him, and if you reject Him, you reject the Father Who sent Him.
How does one worship God when they reject Him?
No.
But you are indeed saying you are greater than the Apostles when you take the position that God's will would be to commune those of different confessions and beliefs of the Holy Gifts, while the Apostles themselves would not.
Brian4Liberty
11-25-2015, 06:50 PM
"Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?"
Mostly because most of you have no idea what Islam is, judging from this thread. You all ignore the big elephant in the room that gets to the heart of why there has been so much bloodshed in Muslim and Christian history- statism. Statism is the religion that is the enemy.
Agree, but that opens a whole can of worms. What happens when statism and religion merge? The church-state is what the radical Muslims want to implement. And even when a person is not a radical Muslim and do not want to kill others, if they are of the same sect that wants to create the state, often they will sympathize and silently support it. Case in point was the ease with which ISIL swept across Iraq.
So when the issue is security, suddenly not only are the radical killers a security risk (let's call them Salafi Jihadists), the other, non-violent types of Salafi's may be enablers, and the same even with some of the other Sunnis.
The elephant in the room that everyone ignores is Salafi Jihadism. The media, pundits and politicians dare not speak of it. Sometimes, they don't go into the detail because they want to keep it simple, and other times, it's because they want to demonize a larger group. But the biggest overall reason is Saudi Arabia. They are the source, and the establishment will squelch any conversation that gets to the heart of the matter faster than they can redact 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report.
pcosmar
11-25-2015, 07:05 PM
Damn it.
It is not about religion.. It is about empires.. and the kingdoms of this world.
It does show how easily religion can be manipulated to any cause though.
The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”
All Authoritarian power in this world belongs to Satan. Period..
put any religious face on it that you choose.
I don't believe that is the case.
But just because you don't believe, doesn't mean you are correct. You can believe whatever you want, but when you, a non Christian, who denies the very words of Christ, says that you worship Him, you are mocking Him and making Him a liar. I cannot understand how one calls Christ a liar and then tries to profess that they worship Him.
I am not saying that I am better than them. I am just trying to recognize what seems plainly obvious. To reject my brothers and sisters under the Lord would be unconscionable, to me, personally. I want to see as many as possible be successful. I do not claim to know how the apostles would feel about me.
They would have casted you out of the assembly for introducing falsehoods and threatening the true worship of God. That is exactly what they would have done to you, just as the Holy Spirit guided them. And it is not from lack of love, but to protect the flock God entrusted to them and fulfill the commission He gave them. Indeed, out of love for truth and the gifts given to them would they have excluded those espousing different beliefs. It was also, ironically, to protect the nonbeliever from communing the Body and Blood of Christ to their own condemnation.
The Bhagavad Gita states (18.66): "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."
All I can do is try not to judge others (who am I to judge?), and hope that their surrender brings them to the Lord. I have no good reason to reject others who worship the Lord. That makes me better than no one. I am sinful. I actually judge myself rather harshly, though I am not sure that is healthy and maybe I should be kinder.
But then why do you think yourself to be more in accordance to the truth then the Apostles? Where is the humility in that?
liveandletlive
11-25-2015, 07:10 PM
Islam is very specific when it comes to violence. Muhammad had his commandments, and it wasnt turn the other cheek. Thats the problem with Islam. Now, the majority of Muslims obviously dont take these things too literally much to their credit. But the lowlives unfortunately do. Stop arming them. Stop enabling them. Unfortunately we wont stop.
Damn it.
It is not about religion.. It is about empires.. and the kingdoms of this world.
It does show how easily religion can be manipulated to any cause though.
All Authoritarian power in this world belongs to Satan. Period..
put any religious face on it that you choose.
Wrong. God has blessed many authorities in this world, including Bishops, kings, and queens. The problem becomes when people forget who gave them such worldly power, and misuse the gifts God gave them.
Islam is very specific when it comes to violence. Muhammad had his commandments, and it wasnt turn the other cheek. Thats the problem with Islam. Now, the majority of Muslims obviously dont take these things too literally much to their credit. But the lowlives unfortunately do. Stop arming them. Stop enabling them. Unfortunately we wont stop.
It is not the lowlives who take the teachings of Muhammed literally. It is actually the ones who most sincerely follow the teachings of Muhammed. Islam is not a mere 'personal' jihad, as the modern apologists and religious pluralists like to claim, but rather includes the goal of the conversion of the entire world under a Caliphate, under Islam, with Sharia Law. Sorry to break it, but that is the eschatological teaching of Islam, and that's why the reaction of the Muslim world with regards to modern day events are so muted and impotent. After all, it was by the sword which the religion has spread from the beginning.
It is astounding how anyone who has read the Quran, learned about the life of its inventor Muhammed, and studied how the religion has spread from its inception, can have such complete disconnect and cognitive dissonance regarding what the root cause of the problems with Islam today, which in fact is the same cause as it has always been (and why it needs fear and force in order to keep its adherents and to grow and spread). It ultimately has everything to do with their theology and fundamental beliefs.
thoughtomator
11-25-2015, 07:46 PM
Well, I understand that. My most basic point was that 2 out of 3 don't have an obligation to treat non-adherents with love. One gives explicit instructions to kill the infidel if they don't convert. The Jews and Christans will at least let you live.
There's a world of difference between an absence of an obligation to treat others with love, and explicit commands to subjugate, terrorize, and kill them.
enhanced_deficit
11-25-2015, 08:03 PM
Ofcourse there is a strong racial element to it and part of it is probably natural, otherwise majority of US Christains/GOP would not have supported invasion of a liberal/secular Arab country like Iraq that had not attacked America. 8 years of Barack Hussein Obama probably have caused some education of these US demographics although it may have been more of a collecvtive punishment at some level.
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly?
The Left is trying to chill another debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
By David Harsanyi - November 25, 2015
Islam is not a race. Islam is not an ethnicity. Islam is a religion and a political philosophy. And it is distinct from other religions and political philosophies.
...
The GOP may well be overreacting to the Syrian refugee question, though its concerns are well within the bounds of reasonable discourse. American Muslims should never have their freedoms and protections undermined. But Islam does not deserve special immunity from criticism, any more than Seventh-Day Adventists or Mormons or anyone else.
...
What is “un-American,” though, is trying to chill debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
Using excerpt to comment on religion-race nexus.
"GOP"/"Church Going Christians" sort of lost that right at least temporarily after supporting bloodbath of Iraqi Freedom Invasion based on lies because secular Saddam was of same race as 9/11 attackers. They did not even attack an radical Islamic ideology country like Saudi Arabia. They look at mideast from racial angle more so than from religious angle. Not sure if OT influence/"chosen race" dogmas play a role but very large part of US White Conservative tend to confuse race-religion connection. If religion has nothing to do with skin color, hard to explain current/past parts of American history when Black Churches are/were attacked by "White Christians".
Many in US media still calling blowback by its wrong name "religious extremism" probably have some racial motives involved.
If anyone disagrees, which created greater outcry/calls for action from GOP/Christians of US, A or B?
A) slaughter/exile of hundreds of thousands of brown Christians of Iraq/Syria
B) slaughter of 129 liberal/secular white Parisians
Belief does play a part in actions of violence but it is more of a tool rather than primary motivator in most recent cases of mideast related violence that is in focus lately. There is an article posted in History section that a US F-16 pilot was ready to become a suicide attacker to defend America (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485622-F-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-Sept-11&p=6049586&viewfull=1#post6049586) from foreign attackers on 9/11.
Close to home, what drives this belief of GOP majority about a man who goes to Church and not Mosque for his meetings with God:
54% of GOP Believe 'Deep Down' Obama Is a Muslim (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472016-54-of-GOP-Believe-Deep-Down-Obama-Is-a-Muslim-Only-45-of-Dems-Believe-Obama-Is-Christian&)
https://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/new-yorker-magazine-obamas.jpg?w=226&h=300
All that said, Islam cannot monopolize "Religion of Peace" label; Islam and Christianity can both claim to be Religions of Peace.. even if in last 100 years people calling themselves Muslims have killed less innocent civilians by a huge margin than people calling themselves Christians.
Related
How President Reagan managed to have great friendship with Islamic militants but others can't? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485378-How-President-Reagan-managed-to-have-great-friendship-with-Islamic-militants-but-others-can-t&)
Terrorism's Christian Godfather (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485321-Jeb-Bush-We-should-focus-on-screening-for-refugees-to-be-Christian-before-letting-them-in&p=6045057&viewfull=1#post6045057)
http://workerspartynz.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/khaled10.jpghttp://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/101/120/605_001.jpg
heavenlyboy34
11-25-2015, 08:06 PM
Agree, but that opens a whole can of worms. What happens when statism and religion merge? The church-state is what the radical Muslims want to implement. And even when a person is not a radical Muslim and do not want to kill others, if they are of the same sect that wants to create the state, often they will sympathize and silently support it. Case in point was the ease with which ISIL swept across Iraq.
So when the issue is security, suddenly not only are the radical killers a security risk (let's call them Salafi Jihadists), the other, non-violent types of Salafi's may be enablers, and the same even with some of the other Sunnis.
The elephant in the room that everyone ignores is Salafi Jihadism. The media, pundits and politicians dare not speak of it. Sometimes, they don't go into the detail because they want to keep it simple, and other times, it's because they want to demonize a larger group. But the biggest overall reason is Saudi Arabia. They are the source, and the establishment will squelch any conversation that gets to the heart of the matter faster than they can redact 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report.
Statism IS a religion. "Democracy too is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses". H.L. Mencken(ditto for every form of Statecraft) Those Statists who would claim to eliminate religious influence in systems of authority fill the vacuum left by religion with another arbitrary system of beliefs to answer questions of "ought", political/legal dilemmas, etc.
I was born in a Christian family, and I felt that I was lacking in knowledge of other faiths, which was a problem. Definitely, information should be freely available and presented.
I would like to believe that they would not react hatefully as you suggest they would, but at the least I don't think we can presume what they would do. I think what you said here about them "casting me out" like some kind of demon (and you think that is not being hateful?) is more a reflection on your own beliefs than theirs.
I am not humble. If I claimed to be, then I wouldn't be. I want to be. And I do not think myself to be more in accordance to the truth than the apostles. I just have knowledge of different parts of it. I am not mocking Jesus or calling him a liar. I think it might be better if we stop here. You're starting to put words in my mouth and using language reserved for demons while claiming not to hate.
Yieu, you can believe whatever you want, but when you deny Christ's own words about Who He is, and then claim publicly to worship Him, you are either trying to fool others or you are fooling yourself.
I am having this discussion with you so that you can see you are fooling yourself, because I think you are a sincere person and I don't think you are intentionally trying to fool others (though, unfortunatley, your words may indeed be doing exactly that).
Tell me you honor Christ, that you respect Him and many of His teachings, but don't tell me and others that you worship Him.
And I didn't mean to say that the Apostles would cast you out because you are a demon. But the simple humbling truth is that back then, as with now, after having denied your Christian faith in order to find a faith more pleasing to your sensibilities and rejected the fundamental truths of our salvation through Christ, you would indeed need to repent, confess and be exorcized any of demons before you were allowed to approach the Holy Eucharist and partake of the life giving Body and Blood of Christ. Before entering into the communion, you would need to take the necessary steps, which are the true marks of humility and obedience to God. These are not my decisions or my designs, but the faith of those who have always worshiped Christ.
So tell me you are Hindu who adores Christ, and I will say good luck and may He grant you mercy! But don't tell me you worship Him and not expect to present proofs of why your worship is more God-pleasing than the Apostles who Christ said He gave the keys of the Kingdom to and Who He sent the Holy Spirit to know all truths. If you know the correct worship of Christ, then present it so that I too may learn. But when you start denying obvious historical proofs and fundamental aspects of worship of God according to Christ and the Apostles, then I fear you are not saying the truth, but creating a new faith apart from the one Christ revealed and handed down.
HVACTech
11-25-2015, 08:33 PM
I was born in a Christian family, and I felt that I was lacking in knowledge of other faiths, which was a problem. Definitely, information should be freely available and presented.
I would like to believe that they would not react hatefully as you suggest they would, but at the least I don't think we can presume what they would do. I think what you said here about them "casting me out" like some kind of demon (and you think that is not being hateful?) is more a reflection on your own beliefs than theirs.
I am not humble. If I claimed to be, then I wouldn't be. I want to be. And I do not think myself to be more in accordance to the truth than the apostles. I just have knowledge of different parts of it. I am not mocking Jesus or calling him a liar. I think it might be better if we stop here. You're starting to put words in my mouth and using language reserved for demons while claiming not to hate.
heh,
words of wisdom.
" I think it might be better if we stop here. You're starting to put words in my mouth and using language reserved for demons while claiming not to hate."
when I looked at the timeline of these two faiths. islam and christian.
I discovered that they both occurred very close together. (figuring 6000 years or so, they both occurred at about the mid-point))
35BC and 570AD.
the crusades started around 900AD. and these two groups have been going at it, tooth and nail ever since.
I think the founders understood this..
the only way to diffuse them is to make freedom of religion a requirement.
in a federation of states of course! :D
HVACTech
11-25-2015, 08:46 PM
Statism IS a religion. "Democracy too is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses". H.L. Mencken(ditto for every form of Statecraft) Those Statists who would claim to eliminate religious influence in systems of authority fill the vacuum left by religion with another arbitrary system of beliefs to answer questions of "ought", political/legal dilemmas, etc.
:rolleyes:
(you are a trip dudette)
the question was,
"What happens when statism and religion merge?"
correct answer.
the 3rd Roman Empire. (the Holy one)
The Pope ruled northern Europe for about 500 years. are you proud of that? :confused:
(colloquially known as the DARK or MIDDLE ages)
I said I worship Jesus, but that I am not a Christian. If I believed the things I said I do not, that would make me a Christian. I appreciate that it seems you are trying to speak sincerely, but you are saying there are demons in me and I am doomed. Well, that's your opinion, but I'll trust the Lord's. I say I worship Jesus because I worship his Father and so I therefore must love Jesus too. I worship Jesus by loving him and being thankful for bringing people to his Father and other ways. I worship his Father in traditional Vaishnava ways.
I have demons as well, Yieu! I battle them everyday and most times fail.
What I am saying is that you claim to trust the Lord, to love Him, but at the same time deny what the Lord said and taught and what He inspired His Apostles through the Holy Spirit. If you worship Him, then you should listen to Him, no? Now I admit I do not know much about Vaishnava, but if it claims that there existed others like Christ, then it certainly denies Who Christ said and proved He is. And whosoever rejects the Son, rejects the Father Who sent Him.
Again, I have no problem with you saying you love Christ and adore Him (though I cannot understand how given my reasons above), but it is because you say that you worship Him which is the reason I speak up. True humility and worship to God according to the Lord is to submit to the Son with Whom the Father has given all authority to, in heaven and on earth.
I reject neither. :)
I am afraid you do, and have done so, by your abandonment of the Christian Faith and denial of the gospel.
That doesn't mean I hate you, or that I want to kill you.
heavenlyboy34
11-25-2015, 08:56 PM
I said I worship Jesus, but that I am not a Christian. If I believed the things I said I do not, that would make me a Christian. I appreciate that it seems you are trying to speak sincerely, but you are saying there are demons in me and I am doomed. Well, that's your opinion, but I'll trust the Lord's. I say I worship Jesus because I worship his Father and so I therefore must love Jesus too. I worship Jesus by loving him and being thankful for bringing people to his Father and other ways. I worship his Father in traditional Vaishnava ways.
Edit: I do not think you can rightfully claim that I am fooling others. There is nothing that proves your religion is more correct than mine. If by discussing information about my own faith, others decide on their own that they want to join it, then there has been no harm. I am not trying to claim that by spreading information about your faith, that you are misleading others.
That is more accurately called "veneration" than "worship", IMHO.
That is more accurately called "veneration" than "worship", IMHO.
Good point HB. I have no issue if he says he venerates Christ (though, again, I cannot understand how when he denies what Christ revealed), but when he says that he worships Him, I find it difficult not to speak up and have him explain this. Perhaps he is using 'worship' in another way than I understand the word to mean?
idiom
11-25-2015, 09:06 PM
Why Can’t We Talk About Islam Honestly? (http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/25/why-cant-we-talk-about-islam-honestly/)
The Left is trying to chill another debate with frivolous accusations of racism.
By David Harsanyi - November 25, 2015
Meanwhile back on topic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y
The real reason we don't talk about political Islam. This is a lecture that is well worth the time.
idiom
11-25-2015, 09:08 PM
Good point HB. I have no issue if he says he venerates Christ (though, again, I cannot understand how when he denies what Christ revealed), but when he says that he worships Him, I find it difficult not to speak up and have him explain this. Perhaps he is using 'worship' in another way than I understand the word to mean?
Worship and follow are quite different. Worship just means to honor or regard very highly.
It is quite possible to hold a teacher in high regard even if you disagree with them entirely.
Dr. Dog
11-25-2015, 09:16 PM
It sounds like you're implying that only the Christian faith is correct.
He would be 100% correct in saying that.
Worship and follow are quite different. Worship just means to honor or regard very highly.
It is quite possible to hold a teacher in high regard even if you disagree with them entirely.
Holding a teacher in high regard is veneration, not worship. I cannot understand how one can worship someone and not follow them and submit to them.
Dr. Dog
11-25-2015, 09:18 PM
There is nothing that proves your religion is more correct than mine.
Actually, there is. Jesus Christ proves it.
Dr.3D
11-25-2015, 09:22 PM
No, we can't talk about Islam because we are too busy arguing about religion again.
It sounds like you're implying that only the Christian faith is correct. In case it was missed:
I read what you posted. There are proofs, such as the words and acts of Christ and the Holy Spirit bearing Apostles, that there is one way to salvation, and that is ultimately solely through Jesus Christ and the fact that He alone joined the divine with the created and destroyed death by His death on the cross.
I think that by worshiping his Father, I am worshiping both, because they are connected.
And who else do you worship, if there are any others?
That is possible, but I don't know for sure.
Wouldn't worship include to submit to one's teachings and commandments?
HVACTech
11-25-2015, 09:29 PM
No, we can't talk about Islam because we are too busy arguing about religion again.
ya. I was trying to talk about it...
the way that I figure it... it started about 570AD.
is that a reasonable supposition? or a statement of fact?
(technical things confuse me..:))
I know you say you worship Jesus' Father, but you also claim to worship Jesus Christ. Are there any others whom you worship?
Did your book prophecize about a coming Messiah Who would save the world?
Dr.3D
11-25-2015, 09:35 PM
ya. I was trying to talk about it...
the way that I figure it... it started about 570AD.
is that a reasonable supposition? or a statement of fact?
(technical things confuse me..:))
I don't really know, but I've been told it started in the year 610.
Dr.3D
11-25-2015, 09:36 PM
Maybe it would be a good idea to get back on topic.
Yeah, you guys could start another thread for your discussion.
Edit:
It's actually a very interesting discussion and I would enjoy reading it.
Maybe it would be a good idea to get back on topic.
I am happy to let this discussion rest if you want Yieu. God bless you.
Sola_Fide
11-25-2015, 10:15 PM
The issue isn't "Christianity (whatever that is) vs. Hinduism".
The issue is "what the Bible teaches vs. everything else (including many people who say they are Christians but don't believe the propositions of the Bible)".
The people here who are defending "Christianity" don't even believe the propositions of the gospel. They don't believe the Word of God is the rule of faith. It's a wasted conversation.
UWDude
11-26-2015, 12:01 AM
The bible says Jesus Christ is coming back as a lion, not a lamb. It also says god will pour his wrath upon the earth. the sign of the beast will be 666, it is plainly stated in a book with 66 books within it. How much clearer do you have to be shown? Your bible is the work of Satan. It is the work of the so-called anti-christ. Christ will be so hated when he returns, because of the masses of bloody purges of humanity he will engage in, that people will not know that he is actually the sword of God. After all, how could one who wipes out so many humans be anything but the anti-christ?
People who hate other people in the world, and think they can lawyer their way out of it with god by claiming they love them, but hate their actions, will be the Laodecians god will spit from his mouth. He would rather you be hot or cold. God loves me more than you. Because at least I am cold.
The Bible, in its current version, is a test of God's faith. You are clearly told the mark of the beast is 666, yet you read, worship and quote a book of 66 books, in which a God demands you love him or be punished for eternity.
The Christ and the anti-Christ will be one and the same. He will be the Machdi, he will be the messiah. And everybody will get what they wish for, the destruction of those they hate in the name of God. And there is only one way that can happen. Total, worldwide destruction of all.
It is quite clear that most people claiming to be Christians will be destroyed by god because they are liars. Every time you claim to hate anyone, or their actions, because your god told you to, you are using his name in vain. God told you to love. And not the god of the bible... the God within you. The God you are.
I feel the fire God is preparing for you all. He tried to drown you all for being so self-centered the first time. This time he will burn you all with fire and brimstone with the very hatred you have created within your wicked and despicable souls, for gladly destroying a race that could have been so much more. A race that could have surpassed angels by now if it had learned to get along and progress. But no, you had to fight over your stupid fucking wars, and your stupid fucking religions, your stupid flags and borders, and your stupid fucking things you felt you deserved but your neighbor did not. For shame. For shame.
Death to Islam. Death to Judaism. Death to Christianity.
All hail Satanic Victory.
Support all wars.
Support all genocides.
Embrace the abortions of your foes.
Embrace the anti-christ. Embrace the Christ.
Embrace the mahdi, embrace the messiah.
Become the sword of retribution.
Ruin comes for you all.
heavenlyboy34
11-26-2015, 12:13 AM
The bible says Jesus Christ is coming back as a lion, not a lamb. It also says god will pour his wrath upon the earth. the sign of the beast will be 666, it is plainly stated in a book with 66 books within it. How much clearer do you have to be shown? Your bible is the work of Satan. It is the work of the so-called anti-christ. Christ will be so hated when he returns, because of the masses of bloody purges of humanity he will engage in, that people will not know that he is actually the sword of God. After all, how could one who wipes out so many humans be anything but the anti-christ?
People who hate other people in the world, and think they can lawyer their way out of it with god by claiming they love them, but hate their actions, will be the Laodecians god will spit from his mouth. He would rather you be hot or cold. God loves me more than you. Because at least I am cold.
The Bible, in its current version, is a test of God's faith. You are clearly told the mark of the beast is 666, yet you read, worship and quote a book of 66 books, in which a God demands you love him or be punished for eternity.
The Christ and the anti-Christ will be one and the same. He will be the Machdi, he will be the messiah. And everybody will get what they wish for, the destruction of those they hate in the name of God. And there is only one way that can happen. Total, worldwide destruction of all.
It is quite clear that most people claiming to be Christians will be destroyed by god because they are liars. Every time you claim to hate anyone, or their actions, because your god told you to, you are using his name in vain. God told you to love. And not the god of the bible... the God within you. The God you are.
I feel the fire God is preparing for you all. He tried to drown you all for being so self-centered the first time. This time he will burn you all with fire and brimstone with the very hatred you have created within your wicked and despicable souls, for gladly destroying a race that could have been so much more. A race that could have surpassed angels by now if it had learned to get along and progress. But no, you had to fight over your stupid fucking wars, and your stupid fucking religions, your stupid flags and borders, and your stupid fucking things you felt you deserved but your neighbor did not. For shame. For shame.
Death to Islam. Death to Judaism. Death to Christianity.
All hail Satanic Victory.
Support all wars.
Support all genocides.
Embrace the abortions of your foes.
Embrace the anti-christ. Embrace the Christ.
Embrace the mahdi, embrace the messiah.
Become the sword of retribution.
Ruin comes for you all.
I know you're probably just playing stupid...but only the Protestant canon has 66 books. The rest of this post is utter garbage not intelligent enough to merit conversation.
UWDude
11-26-2015, 12:15 AM
I know you're probably just playing stupid...but only the Protestant canon has 66 books. The rest of this post is utter garbage not intelligent enough to merit conversation.
You're one of the real Christians, right? You'll be one of the ones spared the sword of God?
Maybe. Maybe.
There are a select few here who are.
The rest are like everyone else.
Doomed.
Dr. Dog
11-26-2015, 12:21 AM
I know you're probably just playing stupid...but only the Protestant canon has 66 books. The rest of this post is utter garbage not intelligent enough to merit conversation.
I think he forgot his meds at another OWS protest.
UWDude
11-26-2015, 03:06 AM
The Bible clearly says god will wipe out billions. You think Assad or Stalin or Hitler was bad? Just wait until humanity realizes how much God hates them, and pours his wrath upon them. He will be the mass murderer history will never forget. And this is the good guy of the Bible.
He is clearly a bloody murderer, and he clearly hates what he has created.
I would too.
LibertyEagle
11-26-2015, 03:48 AM
When did you start hating God, UWDude?
UWDude
11-26-2015, 04:21 AM
When did you start hating God, UWDude?
See, it has already begun. I point out the truth.
Look, you want to talk mass murderers, God once killed everyone except a family. He has nuked cities for sodomy.
And the Bible says he is going to wipe out most of humanity first, then hand over the world to Satan, and then wipe out almost all of humanity during armageddon. the Bible clearly says the armies of man will mass against him.
So, who would the world perceive to be the big bad guy? And who would they think was their savior?
If god is going to destroy the world, most people would see him as the anti-christ, and would see the anti-christ as the savior.
This is just like the old adage about never being able to tell if someone is lying, because a liar and a truth teller will say they are truth tellers.
But there are ties when the liar needs his allies, so he drops hint. he says "look out for this silly number, 666.... ....then he says, but believe in this book, with 66 books.
I find it funny people say I hate God. You are not the first. What I find funny, is I am going to enjoy watching him tear the world to shreds. Because humanity deserves it. No, no, you will find me cheering the nuclear weapons, when all others are weeping for their fallen babylon, and asking why.
Why?
Because you all secretly prayed to him in your hearts to destroy those around you you hated! And he will answer your prayers! Both God and Allah will answer the prayers of their followers!
No, the ones hating god will be the ones who dont want their world destroyed. The Bible clearly says he shall.
God is a psycho-social construct. A powerful one. "He" exists, and "his" effects shall soon be felt in the war between "him" and "Allah"!
Can you not see, in these times, the end times, the Bible clearly says GOD HATES MAN. THEY ARE AN ABOMINATION IN HIS EYES.
Who do you think it is talking about?
Look at muslims, now look at the west. Who is more pious? Who follows biblical teachings more? Who looks like the whore of babylon, and who looks like they are the followers of God?
Look at Muslims... ...now put them next to your average american!
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Americans are the epitome of biblical evil! Everything the bible preaches against, they have become the antithesis of! America is the CENTER of Biblically defined WICKEDNESS! Not fucking SYRIA! Not Russia. Not Pakistan or Saudi Arbia or Iran!
The worshipers of "God" hate what America is and represents more than anyone else in the world. Yet it is in their subconscious. What do you think the hatred of "liberals" is? It is the hatred of America. America is the cornerstone of the new Satanic empire. Look at the pentagon!
ghengis86
11-26-2015, 08:07 AM
There's a world of difference between an absence of an obligation to treat others with love, and explicit commands to subjugate, terrorize, and kill them.
Yeah, that's my point.
We can't talk about Islam, because if we do, we're forced to confront the truth.
Ronin Truth
11-26-2015, 09:49 AM
Because honestly, Islam is just not really a very interesting subject?
robert68
11-26-2015, 11:36 AM
"No, The World Isn’t Better Off Because Of The Iraq War " (http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/27/no-the-world-isnt-better-off-because-of-the-iraq-war/) by David Harsanyi
A quick survey of the writings of the OP tells you he's a neocon (in addition to his premises).
Brian4Liberty
11-26-2015, 11:54 AM
"No, The World Isn’t Better Off Because Of The Iraq War " (http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/27/no-the-world-isnt-better-off-because-of-the-iraq-war/) by David Harsanyi
A quick survey of the writings of the OP tells you he's a neocon (in addition to his logic).
I'm not familiar with the author or the general trend at The Federalist. The Federalist has quite a few contributors and writers (http://thefederalist.com/contributors/). My initial take is that the author is probably teo-con rather than neoconservative.
Another piece by the same author:
Why I’m Not A Neocon (http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/10/why-im-not-a-neocon/)
idiom
11-26-2015, 04:38 PM
Holding a teacher in high regard is veneration, not worship. I cannot understand how one can worship someone and not follow them and submit to them.
Worship
verb
1.
show reverence and adoration for (a deity).
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"
synonyms: revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honour, adore,
Wouldn't worship include to submit to one's teachings and commandments?
No. English has this book, with word definitions in it.
Note that it also follows quite logically that one can follow the teachings of Christ without worshiping Him, or even venerating Him.
idiom
11-26-2015, 04:45 PM
The people here who are defending "Christianity" don't even believe the propositions of the gospel. They don't believe the Word of God is the rule of faith. It's a wasted conversation.
There are people here who don't know there were 13 Tribes of Israel, or that there were 13 Disciples or 13 Apostles. They got told '12' in Church and just believed it. Never even read their own Bible. The also don't know there are 13 Zodiac signs, or that the Jewish calendar has 13 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
Yes.
Sola_Fide
11-26-2015, 08:43 PM
The bible says Jesus Christ is coming back as a lion, not a lamb. It also says god will pour his wrath upon the earth. the sign of the beast will be 666, it is plainly stated in a book with 66 books within it. How much clearer do you have to be shown? Your bible is the work of Satan. It is the work of the so-called anti-christ. Christ will be so hated when he returns, because of the masses of bloody purges of humanity he will engage in, that people will not know that he is actually the sword of God. After all, how could one who wipes out so many humans be anything but the anti-christ?
People who hate other people in the world, and think they can lawyer their way out of it with god by claiming they love them, but hate their actions, will be the Laodecians god will spit from his mouth. He would rather you be hot or cold. God loves me more than you. Because at least I am cold.
The Bible, in its current version, is a test of God's faith. You are clearly told the mark of the beast is 666, yet you read, worship and quote a book of 66 books, in which a God demands you love him or be punished for eternity.
The Christ and the anti-Christ will be one and the same. He will be the Machdi, he will be the messiah. And everybody will get what they wish for, the destruction of those they hate in the name of God. And there is only one way that can happen. Total, worldwide destruction of all.
It is quite clear that most people claiming to be Christians will be destroyed by god because they are liars. Every time you claim to hate anyone, or their actions, because your god told you to, you are using his name in vain. God told you to love. And not the god of the bible... the God within you. The God you are.
I feel the fire God is preparing for you all. He tried to drown you all for being so self-centered the first time. This time he will burn you all with fire and brimstone with the very hatred you have created within your wicked and despicable souls, for gladly destroying a race that could have been so much more. A race that could have surpassed angels by now if it had learned to get along and progress. But no, you had to fight over your stupid fucking wars, and your stupid fucking religions, your stupid flags and borders, and your stupid fucking things you felt you deserved but your neighbor did not. For shame. For shame.
Death to Islam. Death to Judaism. Death to Christianity.
All hail Satanic Victory.
Support all wars.
Support all genocides.
Embrace the abortions of your foes.
Embrace the anti-christ. Embrace the Christ.
Embrace the mahdi, embrace the messiah.
Become the sword of retribution.
Ruin comes for you all.
Um.... Huh?
idiom
11-26-2015, 08:47 PM
There's a world of difference between an absence of an obligation to treat others with love, and explicit commands to subjugate, terrorize, and kill them.
Right.
And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
And Moses said unto them...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded. ...every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe. As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.
There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.
Note that Yaweh actually takes credit for making 100% sure that Genocide was going to happen by hardening the hearts of the inhabitants so that they could not surrender or repent.
3 “Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and all their possessions. Don’t have any pity. Kill their men, women, children, and even their babies. Slaughter their cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys.”
A world of difference.
Zippyjuan
11-26-2015, 08:58 PM
The Old Testament is more about wars and vengence and killing. The New Testament is more about forgiveness.
fisharmor
11-26-2015, 09:19 PM
the crusades started around 900AD.
Why can't we talk about Islam honestly? We can't seem to be able to talk about anything honestly in this thread.
Facts are facts. If we can't hammer out facts the discussion is moot.
1096.
Zippyjuan
11-26-2015, 09:26 PM
In the old police "ten code" a 1096 was a "mental subject".
fisharmor
11-26-2015, 09:54 PM
In the old police "ten code" a 1096 was a "mental subject".
Interesting. They obviously don't need that anymore, amirite?
For those of you who didn't get where I was going, the first crusade is well documented as having started in 1096 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade), a full two centuries after the date claimed previously in the thread.
idiom
11-26-2015, 10:08 PM
Interesting. They obviously don't need that anymore, amirite?
For those of you who didn't get where I was going, the first crusade is well documented as having started in 1096 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade), a full two centuries after the date claimed previously in the thread.
And well after the Saracens had ripped civilization a new ass hole
Worship
verb
1.
show reverence and adoration for (a deity).
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"
synonyms: revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honour, adore,
No. English has this book, with word definitions in it.
Note that it also follows quite logically that one can follow the teachings of Christ without worshiping Him, or even venerating Him.
As I suspected, it is a difference in definition. Namely, semantics. When I use the word worship, I am thinking of the older term called latria:
Latria is a theological term (Latin Latrīa, from the Greek λατρεία, latreia) used in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology to mean adoration, a reverence directed only to God. This is divine eros towards God.
Worship (in the sense of latria) is therefore only directed to the Holy Trinity.
Dulia is veneration, honor and respect that is for others such as the saints or for teachers/parents/loved ones.
I agree with your last statement that one can follow Christ's teaching without worshiping or knowingly venerating Him.
Note that Yaweh actually takes credit for making 100% sure that Genocide was going to happen by hardening the hearts of the inhabitants so that they could not surrender or repent.
Yes. There was much violence in those harsh days before Christ came to save the world. Difficult commands in a time of darkness before the Light of God came to reveal the Father in Heaven and the will of God. But that was an old covenant between God and man, in a different time of man's return to God, and before God came to establish a new covenant. So when you incorrectly use the harsh events in the Old Testament to discredit the people of the New and Everlasting Covenant, you accuse Christians falsely.
thoughtomator
11-26-2015, 11:32 PM
Right.
Note that Yaweh actually takes credit for making 100% sure that Genocide was going to happen by hardening the hearts of the inhabitants so that they could not surrender or repent.
A world of difference.
A fine exhibition of trained ignorance, but everyone who actually looks at the texts knows that the quotes you presented are about events in a historical context, NOT commands to followers of the religion in the present day, which is the key difference. In other religions, this kind of thing is history - in Islam it is their desired present and future.
Nothing in Judaism says that Jews should behave like Moses or Joshua or David. If you're not quoting Leviticus then chances are pretty good you're referring to something that hasn't been applicable for thousands of years. In contrast, Mohammad's commands in Islam are binding upon adherents right here, right now.
Uriel999
11-27-2015, 12:52 AM
Muhammad married a 6 year old girl, consumating the marriage at 9. Even in backwards Tusken Raiders days they knew that was fubar.
Child rapist, pirate, warmonger, that was also potentially "demon possessed" (if you believe in that sort of thing he admits he was possessed by a demon).
The guy was a luneytunes thug that made up a religion as he went to profit himself.
Islam is a ugly cancer on the world that needs to be anniliated.
Islam has no place in modern society.
Now, the problem is...how do we get rid of the cancer without killing millions of "patients."
The American foreign policy is abhorrent. We need a policy that is willing to deal death without ROE's and makes the 4 Horsemen blush, but only when the dove fails.
Bottom, line child rapist, pirate, warmonger religions have no business in the modern world.
I am just a little fish in a big, big world, and don't know how to fix the problem, but I do know that the lesson learned from Japan in WWII was sometimes you need to fuck your enemy up so much that he breaks entirely. Then you can fix them. We fixed Japan. Japan went from genociding China, war criminality, to becoming the most peaceful, respectful, intelligent, productive and technologically advanced people in the world. (On a side note I wish we could kick our own asses to fix ourselves!).
idiom
11-27-2015, 01:22 AM
A fine exhibition of trained ignorance, but everyone who actually looks at the texts knows that the quotes you presented are about events in a historical context, NOT commands to followers of the religion in the present day, which is the key difference. In other religions, this kind of thing is history - in Islam it is their desired present and future.
Nothing in Judaism says that Jews should behave like Moses or Joshua or David. If you're not quoting Leviticus then chances are pretty good you're referring to something that hasn't been applicable for thousands of years. In contrast, Mohammad's commands in Islam are binding upon adherents right here, right now.
Almost nothing is binding on Gentile Christians. $ rules, 2 commandments, 1 commission. That's it.
The same Yaweh that makes up the Trinity was in charge then. The Covenant may have changed but you are still talking about a flatly genocidal moral system, unless you think Yaweh's moral compass has changed somehow.
Paul quite clearly teaches that Yahweh has no regard for whether or not something is your fault before condemning you for it.
Jesus was a bit more open to interpretation, but the founders of the Canon appear to have quite enjoyed the idea of everyone being guilty by default.
I mean if everyone deserves to go to Hell any way, then Ethnic MotherFucking Cleansing isn't really much of a crime. More like "doing God's ministry".
It is also widely considered to be present day binding on Israel which is why American Christians give Israel a total fucking pass on being racist, sexist, and generally brutal to anyone who isn't Jewish, and basically assume Israel does in fact have a responsibility to God to cleanse the Promised land of "Philistines (whose name was changed to Palestinians in ~300AD)".
idiom
11-27-2015, 01:25 AM
I am just a little fish in a big, big world, and don't know how to fix the problem, but I do know that the lesson learned from Japan in WWII was sometimes you need to fuck your enemy up so much that he breaks entirely. Then you can fix them. We fixed Japan. Japan went from genociding China, war criminality, to becoming the most peaceful, respectful, intelligent, productive and technologically advanced people in the world. (On a side note I wish we could kick our own asses to fix ourselves!).
Japan is massively fucked up now as it had the emasculation of its culture written into its Constitution. Basically all traditional expressions of masculinity in their culture are gone, leaving their menfolk to get really fucking twisted and weird. That's not really 'fixing'.
twomp
11-27-2015, 01:29 AM
Muslims were used by the government and the media in the 80's as anti-communist heroes to promote a war against the Russians:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5117fe5deab8ea355300000e/that-time-ronald-reagan-hosted-those-freedom-fighters-at-the-oval-office.jpg
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/52a1c37869bedd476f5aaefd-960/independent-1993%20(1)-1.jpeg
Nowadays they are used by the government and the media to support their wars in the middle east.
http://www.islam21c.com/wp-content/uploads/osama_bin_laden-620x330.jpg
In both cases, they are not as good or as bad as the media portrays them. But it does help in shaping the minds of idiots. Some of which are found in this thread.
robert68
11-27-2015, 03:34 AM
"The Battle of the Frigidus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus), also called the Battle of the Frigid River, was fought between 5–6 September 394, between the army of the (Christian) Eastern Emperor Theodosius I and the army of Western Roman ruler Eugenius."
An enormous list of wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_wars) or external conflicts fought pre and post Islam during the history of the Christian Eastern Roman Empire (330–1453).
idiom
11-27-2015, 03:35 AM
While we are talking about how humans are just cunts when they band together:
http://i.imgur.com/myFJetr.png
UWDude
11-27-2015, 06:08 AM
The Old Testament is more about wars and vengence and killing. The New Testament is more about forgiveness.
Yeah, like good old Revelations. Where God destroys the world and everyone living in it, (except some christians) because gay.
UWDude
11-27-2015, 06:12 AM
"The Battle of the Frigidus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus), also called the Battle of the Frigid River, was fought between 5–6 September 394, between the army of the (Christian) Eastern Emperor Theodosius I and the army of Western Roman ruler Eugenius."
An enormous list of wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_wars) or external conflicts fought pre and post Islam during the history of the Christian Eastern Roman Empire (330–1453).
And Don't forget the 30 years war. the most devastating war in the history of humankind, in terms of deaths per capita. No Muslims in that one. That was all Christian.
Oh yeah, and Muslims weren't the ones breaking treaties with the natives as they marched to purge America of all those damn red pagans.
It's always amazing to me Christians are always the most zealous anti-muslims, when Christians are the most like them.
Stupid religions.
liveandletlive
11-27-2015, 07:56 AM
Japan is massively fucked up now as it had the emasculation of its culture banned in its Constitution. Basically all traditional expressions of masculinity in their culture are gone, leaving their menfolk to get really fucking twisted and weird. That's not really 'fixing'.
if being emasculated means not committing another Rape of Nanking, then maybe thats a good thing for them.
liveandletlive
11-27-2015, 07:57 AM
And Don't forget the 30 years war. the most devastating war in the history of humankind, in terms of deaths per capita. No Muslims in that one. That was all Christian.
Oh yeah, and Muslims weren't the ones breaking treaties with the natives as they marched to purge America of all those damn red pagans.
It's always amazing to me Christians are always the most zealous anti-muslims, when Christians are the most like them.
Stupid religions.
if this is a competition to see who causes the most devastation, we all win.
tod evans
11-27-2015, 08:07 AM
Japan is massively fucked up now as it had the emasculation of its culture banned in its Constitution. Basically all traditional expressions of masculinity in their culture are gone, leaving their menfolk to get really fucking twisted and weird. That's not really 'fixing'.
Is this what you meant to type?
emasculate
verb emas·cu·late \i-ˈmas-kyə-ˌlāt\
: to make (a man) feel less masculine : to deprive (a man) of his male strength, role, etc.
: to make (something) weaker or less effective (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emasculate)
William R
11-27-2015, 08:56 AM
Islam is not compatible with liberal tolerant societies and in the West their numbers should be kept small. I fear for the future of Europe. That crazy woman in Germany will be defeated in the next election cycle. It's sickening to be driving near the University of Texas campus and see a woman dressed in full burka in August standing behind her husband who's wearing t-shirt, shorts and sandals. It is a misogynist cult.
Contumacious
11-27-2015, 12:22 PM
Islam is not compatible with liberal tolerant societies and in the West their numbers should be kept small. I fear for the future of Europe. That crazy woman in Germany will be defeated in the next election cycle. It's sickening to be driving near the University of Texas campus and see a woman dressed in full burka in August standing behind her husband who's wearing t-shirt, shorts and sandals. It is a misogynist cult.
Do "liberal tolerant societies"
like the Texas Theocratic Republic , try their darndest to abolish abortions?
Do they use the police departments to systematically ethnic cleanse society ?
Do they demand to support a Zionist state in the middle east?
Do they insist in intervening in the internal affairs of other nations?
Inquiring minds want to know.
.
Dr. Dog
11-27-2015, 12:24 PM
like the Texas Theocratic Republic , try their darndest to abolish abortions?
.
Don't even (most) liberals pretend that they want abortion to be as rare as possible?
Zippyjuan
11-27-2015, 01:36 PM
Yeah, like good old Revelations. Where God destroys the world and everyone living in it, (except some christians) because gay.
God is gay?
"Christians" in Sodom and Gomorah were not spared- all were killed- innocent and guilty alike. Lot himself had sex and kids with his own daughters who tricked him into it.
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! 19 Your[c] servant has found favor in your[d] eyes, and you[e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”
21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.[f])
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger,[B] “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19
Incest must be OK.
idiom
11-27-2015, 02:38 PM
Is this what you meant to type?
emasculate
verb emas·cu·late \i-ˈmas-kyə-ˌlāt\
: to make (a man) feel less masculine : to deprive (a man) of his male strength, role, etc.
: to make (something) weaker or less effective (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emasculate)
Lol no. Teaches me to post when I am half asleep :P
Ender
11-27-2015, 03:28 PM
So, thoughtomator- if you disagree with me why don't you have the balls to discuss it instead of the neg reps.
My personal opinion is only the brainless that love to argue hand out all the neg reps.
And, BTW- I am NOT a progressive- some edumacation on Islam/world politics/jihad would do you good.
Ender
11-27-2015, 03:34 PM
the Qu'ran - like all religious texts - are open to wide ranging opinions. There is always someone like you to come around claiming to have the one true interpretation.
Never said it was the "one true interpretation" but that is what it was understood to mean to most Muslims until the radicals came into being.
LibertyEagle
11-27-2015, 04:15 PM
Muslims were used by the government and the media in the 80's as anti-communist heroes to promote a war against the Russians:
A war against the Russians? As I recall, it was the Russians trying to take over Afghanistan.
LibertyEagle
11-28-2015, 12:12 PM
//
and, BTW- I am NOT a progressive
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
Ender
11-28-2015, 09:52 PM
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
Says the neo-nazi who neg reps me once again because all you can do is spew.
BTW- I am a libertarian. I happen to have no prejudice against people for their skin/religion/creed etc. And I also happen to actually READ things like the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita- try it you might learn something.
robert68
11-28-2015, 11:04 PM
A war against the Russians? As I recall, it was the Russians trying to take over Afghanistan.
The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998) (http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview):
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].
...
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?
Brian4Liberty
11-28-2015, 11:24 PM
The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998) (http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview):
Interesting. Always the same story...
Brian4Liberty
11-28-2015, 11:27 PM
If anyone mentions the Saudis, it will have to be redacted...sorry.
r3volution 3.0
11-28-2015, 11:58 PM
I know nothing of Islamic theology, never read any of the Koran, but I know a little about the actual history of Islamic societies.
For most of their history, they tolerated other Abrahamaic religions (and also some non-Abrahmaic religions) about as well as Christians tolerated Jews in medieval Europe, which is to say pretty well. They had to pay a special tax, they were required to practice their religion in private, couldn't proselytize amongst Muslims, sometimes had to wear a special mark or live in certain areas of a city, didn't have certain political rights, etc. Far from ideal, of course, but even further from the popular image of Muslims mercilessly slaughtering all non-Muslims.
I was recently reading about the Islamic view of economics; here too there's quite a remarkable similarity with medieval Catholicism. The mainstream of Islamic economic thought, from the beginning to the present, appears to be modestly interventionist (using Mises' spectrum: liberalism <--> interventionism <--> socialism). That is, basically free market, respecting property rights, but with a few quixotic exceptions: no lending at interest (though in practice they got around this through various loopholes, just like the Catholic Europeans did, as they recognized the practical necessity of credit markets), no absentee land ownership (no counterpart to this in Catholic thought, AFAIK), something like Catholic just price theory (which basically amounts to a requirement for all parties to be adequately informed), no gambling, special luxury taxes, etc.
The organ-eaters in Syria, and others of the same bent, are truly an aberration from the norm. Crisis tends to breed radicalism, in all societies. When times are good, and you have a lot to lose, you don't want to do anything too wild and crazy. When you feel like you have nothing to lose, you take more chances. A non-religious example: absent the massive destruction of WWI and the resulting chaos, Germans would have never hitched their wagon to so radical a movement as National Socialism. It's the same with the Islamic world (esp. the ME); chaos has bred radicalism. When/if things settle down over there politically, I expect reversion to the decidedly un-terrifying mean.
pcosmar
11-29-2015, 09:04 AM
Stupid religions.
Religion is used..and the people manipulated by it..
in every case it is one empire clashing with another.. Religion is a tool,,
it is not the cause.
William R
11-29-2015, 11:50 AM
Do "liberal tolerant societies"
like the Texas Theocratic Republic , try their darndest to abolish abortions?
Do they use the police departments to systematically ethnic cleanse society ?
Do they demand to support a Zionist state in the middle east?
Do they insist in intervening in the internal affairs of other nations?
Inquiring minds want to know.
.
You're a clown and a punk!! They haven't abolished abortion. They're not ethnically cleansing anyone. No one demands support for Israel. You belong at Democrat Underground.
enhanced_deficit
11-29-2015, 12:12 PM
A war against the Russians? As I recall, it was the Russians trying to take over Afghanistan.
It wasn't just a war, it was a global Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels waged by Afghan/Arab/foreign fighters supported by US Christians. Reagan's leadership skills played a major part (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485378-How-President-Reagan-managed-to-have-great-friendship-with-Islamic-militants-but-others-can-t&) in bringing together and arming Afghan Islamic Jihadists that defeated Russians, a quality that is utterly lacking in today's "Reagan Republicans" and Obama is sort of taking the lead.
Contumacious
11-29-2015, 02:01 PM
You're a clown and a punk!! They haven't abolished abortion. They're not ethnically cleansing anyone. No one demands support for Israel. You belong at Democrat Underground.
YOU ARE A STATE SUPREMACIST AND , OF COURSE, A DUMB ASS. You belong in the AMerican Neonazi Forum.
YOU DID NOT, AND COULD NOT REFUTE OR REBUT MY POST.
- There is no need for Texas to interfere with reproduction rights in any way shape or form
2- Police departments are sytematically shooting/killing afro-americans
3- The US has provided the zionist state over $130 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars since 1949
4- The scumbags inside the DC beltway interefers in the internal affais of every nation on the globe
.
DamianTV
11-29-2015, 04:29 PM
There are multiple wars on multipe fronts. Right now, focus is being directed toward Islam and Muslim and brown people in general.
What that really means is pay much closer attention to the other wars, which is on Freedom, and more importantly, the ability to defend Freedom for all of humanity.
LibertyEagle
11-29-2015, 04:47 PM
- There is no need for Texas to interfere with reproduction rights in any way shape or form
Who is interfering with your reproductive rights? No one. However, you do have the responsibility for your actions. If you create a baby in the act that has been known since the dawn of time to do just that, you have the responsibility to let it be born. So, while you have the right to reproduce your little heart out, you do not have the right to murder another human being.
LibertyEagle
11-29-2015, 04:48 PM
It wasn't just a war, it was a global Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels waged by Afghan/Arab/foreign fighters supported by US Christians. Reagan's leadership skills played a major part (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485378-How-President-Reagan-managed-to-have-great-friendship-with-Islamic-militants-but-others-can-t&) in bringing together and arming Afghan Islamic Jihadists that defeated Russians, a quality that is utterly lacking in today's "Reagan Republicans" and Obama is sort of taking the lead.
One of those people you are applauding was Osama bin Laden.
enhanced_deficit
11-29-2015, 05:15 PM
Was Osama Bin Laden supported by Reagan/US Christian evangelicals? Do you have any news link stating that?
It wasn't just a war, it was a global Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels waged by Afghan/Arab/foreign fighters supported by US Christians
I was appluading leadership skills of President Reagan in bringing various global Islamic Jihad factions/US Evangelicals together against Russian infidels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
William R
11-29-2015, 05:48 PM
YOU ARE A STATE SUPREMACIST AND , OF COURSE, A DUMB ASS. You belong in the AMerican Neonazi Forum.
YOU DID NOT, AND COULD NOT REFUTE OR REBUT MY POST.
- There is no need for Texas to interfere with reproduction rights in any way shape or form
2- Police departments are sytematically shooting/killing afro-americans
3- The US has provided the zionist state over $130 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBillion dollars since 1949
4- The scumbags inside the DC beltway interefers in the internal affais of every nation on the globe
Hilarious. I"m a state supremacist??
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
http://www.libertariansforlife.org/library/bepro-rp.html
No police departments are not going out of there way to kill blacks. Pure fiction
But you were talking about Texas and zionism.
Look, you're a dumb kid. End of story
enhanced_deficit
11-29-2015, 07:05 PM
In related news, trend seems to be spreading or getting higher profile in the West especially since Iraqi freedom:
Janet Jackson converts to Islam (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485939-Janet-Jackson-converts-to-Islam&)
54% of GOP Believe 'Deep Down' Obama Is a Muslim (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?472016-54-of-GOP-Believe-Deep-Down-Obama-Is-a-Muslim-Only-45-of-Dems-Believe-Obama-Is-Christian&)
Tony Blair reads Qur'an every day
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...every-day.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8572799/Tony-Blair-reads-Quran-every-day.html)
Tony Blair's sister-in-law converts to Islam
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...m-2115645.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/tony-blairs-sister-in-law-converts-to-islam-2115645.html)
r3volution 3.0
11-30-2015, 12:26 PM
Religion is used..and the people manipulated by it..
in every case it is one empire clashing with another.. Religion is a tool,,
it is not the cause.
Nor is this unique to religion.
It's not only theistic ideologies that lead people to commit atrocities.
Non-theistic ones can too (e.g. communism).
For practical purposes, it makes no difference whether the principles of an ideology are supposed to derive from God or human reasoning.
The issue isn't whether people are justifying their actions by reference to God, it's the merit of the specific actions they're attempting to justify.
Contumacious
11-30-2015, 12:29 PM
Who is interfering with your reproductive rights? No one. However, you do have the responsibility for your actions. If you create a baby in the act that has been known since the dawn of time to do just that, you have the responsibility to let it be born. So, while you have the right to reproduce your little heart out, you do not have the right to murder another human being.
IF THAT IS WHAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE THEN THE CONCEPT ONLY APPLIES TO YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE.
DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY ARE DISPOSING OF, WHAT AT THE TIME IS, A CLUMP OF HUMAN CELLS.
.
PierzStyx
11-30-2015, 02:30 PM
IF THAT IS WHAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE THEN THE CONCEPT ONLY APPLIES TO YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE.
DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS WHEN THEY ARE DISPOSING OF, WHAT AT THE TIME IS, A CLUMP OF HUMAN CELLS.
.
No one has a right to kill someone who isn't immediately threatening them with death.
The clump of cells argument is just stupid. What do you think you are? YOU are just a clump pf human cells, too. If it is alright to kill a clump of fetal human cells then it must be alright to kill post-fetal human cells, right?
Arguing for abortion as a right to be employed at will is stupid. Your rights end when they violate someone elses rights, and the right to live is the supreme of all rights.
PierzStyx
11-30-2015, 02:32 PM
The Old Testament is more about wars and vengence and killing. The New Testament is more about forgiveness.
The OT is full of love if you read it. Most of Jesus's most famous quotes are, in fact, OT quotations.
PierzStyx
11-30-2015, 02:36 PM
Why can't we talk about Islam honestly? We can't seem to be able to talk about anything honestly in this thread.
Facts are facts. If we can't hammer out facts the discussion is moot.
1096.
And much of everything since then has been blowback in one form or another. The Byzantines threatened the Muslims, the Muslims struck back, the Crusades roll in, and everything since has just been a repeating cycle of violence, better explained by blowback than religion.
Whcih really begs the question, why are we even talking about Islam again? Oh yeah, because people don't understand how violence works. Violence justifies violence, and people justify violence and strike back no matter how"peaceful" their religion is at heart. There are even death cult terrorists Buddhists. (http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/) It isn't religion, it is military intervention, and everything else is just a damned pointless distraction.
Zippyjuan
11-30-2015, 03:04 PM
The OT is full of love if you read it. Most of Jesus's most famous quotes are, in fact, OT quotations.
Exodus 21:34:
"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Matthew 5:38 and 39:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Contumacious
11-30-2015, 03:13 PM
No one has a right to kill someone who isn't immediately threatening them with death.
The clump of cells argument is just stupid. What do you think you are? YOU are just a clump pf human cells, too. If it is alright to kill a clump of fetal human cells then it must be alright to kill post-fetal human cells, right?
Arguing for abortion as a right to be employed at will is stupid. Your rights end when they violate someone elses rights, and the right to live is the supreme of all rights.
I'm going to let one of Ayn Rand's disciples respond to you:
Abortion Rights are Pro – Life
By Leonard Peikoff (http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/abortion-rights-are-pro-life/)
The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an “unborn child,” we could, with equal logic, call any adult an “undead corpse” and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.
That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman’s body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
(“Independent” does not mean self-supporting — a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)
robert68
11-30-2015, 04:13 PM
Nor is this unique to religion.
Non-theistic ones can too (e.g. communism).
For practical purposes, it makes no difference whether the principles of an ideology are supposed to derive from God or human reasoning.
The issue isn't whether people are justifying their actions by reference to God, it's the merit of the specific actions they're attempting to justify.
Communism's deity is the state.
PierzStyx
11-30-2015, 05:26 PM
Exodus 21:34: Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth
One of the classically misunderstood Bible verses. Moses is actually laying down a revolutionary teaching for his time. In an era when blood feuds and violent escalations were the norm, Moses, and God, are declaring that you can no only justly demand from someone exactly what they have cost you, no more. This, if course, is the basic for modern understandings of what justice is all about. So yes, that verse is actually quite loving when you consider the actual context of the times and what is actually being said.
Matthew 5:38 and 39:
Jesus is not refuting Moses here. He is calling His people to enact a form of nonviolent civil resistance to the occupation of Israel by Roman forces. https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink/
Responses in bold. As you can see here (http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm) Jesus quoted extensively form the Old Testament, deriving much of His teachings from it.
Communism's deity is the state.
Yep. I'm beginning to think this is the case for many democrats as well.
PierzStyx
11-30-2015, 05:35 PM
I'm going to let one of Ayn Rand's disciples respond to you:
Abortion Rights are Pro – Life
By Leonard Peikoff (http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/abortion-rights-are-pro-life/)
The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an “unborn child,” we could, with equal logic, call any adult an “undead corpse” and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.
That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman’s body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
(“Independent” does not mean self-supporting — a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)
Do you seriously think I care what an Objectivist thinks? They aren't libertarian as such. Plenty of them are great capitalists, but that doesn't mean they have a grasp about human liberty in any other sphere.
And I'll let Dr. Ron Paul respond to that from his work "Abortion and Liberty" http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf
In "Liberty Defined" he had this to say:
"In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right."
Also this:
"On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.
I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘Oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘Well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“
I know we’re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order "
and this
"Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. "
both of which are from here:http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_CPAC.htm
PierzStyx
11-30-2015, 05:38 PM
Yep. I'm beginning to think this is the case for many democrats as well.
All democrats, big D and little d. They simply cannot grasp the idea that it isn't okay to deprive people of liberty just because 51% of people think it is okay.
twomp
11-30-2015, 05:52 PM
A war against the Russians? As I recall, it was the Russians trying to take over Afghanistan.
As usual, your old age fails you. Do you really think Reagan cared about Afghanistan's freedom? I bet you still believe Bush cares about Democracy in Iraq and Obama cares about the freedom of Libyans right? What an idiot. Reagan armed the Taliban BECAUSE they were fighting the Russians. What a genius you are.
Dr.3D
11-30-2015, 05:54 PM
Yep. I'm beginning to think this is the case for many democrats as well.
Of course they do, they think the state is the source of all good things.
Miss Annie
11-30-2015, 06:31 PM
Of course they do, they think the state is the source of all good things.
Ah....... Thank you for bringing this discussion around back to Islam! Islam also worships the state. An Islamic state. A Caliphate.
Uriel999
11-30-2015, 09:18 PM
As usual, your old age fails you. Do you really think Reagan cared about Afghanistan's freedom? I bet you still believe Bush cares about Democracy in Iraq and Obama cares about the freedom of Libyans right? What an idiot. Reagan armed the Taliban BECAUSE they were fighting the Russians. What a genius you are.
Your analsys about why Reagan armed the Taliban is correct...but you are a fucking spineless dick for an unwarranted personal attack against LE.
I remember when we had discussion on this forum without acting like children.
You realize there is a person on the other side of your computer screen right? Would you ACTUALLY say that to her in real life? I doubt it.
Dr. Dog
11-30-2015, 09:20 PM
I remember when we had discussion on this forum without acting like children.
You must be thinking of a different forum.
Contumacious
11-30-2015, 09:33 PM
Do you seriously think I care what an Objectivist thinks? They aren't libertarian as such. Plenty of them are great capitalists, but that doesn't mean they have a grasp about human liberty in any other sphere.
And I'll let Dr. Ron Paul respond to that from his work "Abortion and Liberty" http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf
In "Liberty Defined" he had this to say:
"In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right."
Also this:
"On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.
I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘Oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘Well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“
I know we’re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order "
and this
"Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties, we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. "
both of which are from here:http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_CPAC.htm
The problem with that argument is that an spermatozoa is a reproductive HUMAN live cell - so every time I get a blow job I am - according to you - murdering babies.
.
Dr.3D
11-30-2015, 09:34 PM
Ah....... Thank you for bringing this discussion around back to Islam! Islam also worships the state. An Islamic state. A Caliphate.
Exactly.... let's hope they don't impose the kind of state they would worship, where we live. I'm pretty sure they will try.
Miss Annie
11-30-2015, 11:34 PM
Exactly.... let's hope they don't impose the kind of state they would worship, where we live. I'm pretty sure they will try.
I am pretty sure you are right. There is already a lot of backlash on states that are passing laws banning Sharia. I noticed that in this whole conversation that Sharia was never once brought up. That is exactly what makes Islam incompatible with our constitution is that it has it's own political system that Muslims are obligated to strive to implement worldwide.
djinwa
12-01-2015, 12:25 AM
Haven't read this entire thread, so sorry if this has been said.
We get so wrapped up in details we lose sight of the big picture.
I find our country's obsession with the Middle East and Muslims to be weird.
If we agree that Muslims are bad and evil, then why do we keep messing with them? We have bad people in bad neighborhoods in our local city. One area is called felony flats. How do I deal with them? I leave them the hell alone! I don't go there and start busting down doors and inflicting justice.
Now if we had left the middle east alone, and they still came after us, I could see going nuclear. But we are the instigators, installing dictators, bombing, invading, imposing sanctions, etc, and then we conclude they don't like us because of their religion?
Like I said......weird.
Do people in Brazil spend all their spare time agonizing over people 6,000 miles away? Are they looking behind every bush for jihadists?
idiom
12-01-2015, 03:11 AM
Its not like Christians are much better...
http://i.imgur.com/vKhqNMt.gif
http://i.imgur.com/fcqJLHM.gif
robert68
12-01-2015, 03:56 AM
... That is exactly what makes Islam incompatible with our constitution is that it has it's own political system that Muslims are obligated to strive to implement worldwide.
Evidence? What happens to them if they don't obey that "political system" and where is it?
idiom
12-01-2015, 04:06 AM
Evidence? What happens to them if they don't obey that "political system" and where is it?
1400 year history of it.
http://i.imgur.com/KpipQGc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/iiXmbFc.png
After Muhammad died, the people who lived with him and knew his religion best immediately fell into war with each other.
Fatima, Muhammad's favorite daughter, survived the early years among the unbelievers at Mecca safe and sound, yet died of stress from the persecution of fellow Muslims only six months after her father died. She even miscarried Muhammad's grandchild after having her ribs broken by the man who became the second caliph.
Fatima's husband Ali, who was the second convert to Islam and was raised like a son to Muhammad, fought a civil war against an army raised by Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife - and one whom he had said was a "perfect woman." 10,000 Muslims were killed in a single battle waged less than 25 years after Muhammad's death.
Three of the first four Muslim rulers (caliphs) were murdered. All of them were among Muhammad's closest companions. The third caliph was killed by allies of the son of the first (who was murdered by the fifth caliph a few years later, then wrapped in the skin of a dead donkey and burned). The fourth caliph (Ali) was stabbed to death after a bitter dispute with the fifth. The fifth caliph went on to poison one of Muhammad's two favorite grandsons. The other grandson was later beheaded by the sixth caliph.
The infighting and power struggles between Muhammad's family members, closest companions and their children only intensified with time. Within 50 short years of Muhammad's death, even the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under pagan religion, lay in ruins from internal Muslim war...
And that's just the fate of those within the house of Islam!
http://i.imgur.com/UhomslZ.png
http://i.imgur.com/0kSaWyt.png
robert68
12-01-2015, 04:28 AM
1400 year history of it...
The question was about the present day and your anti-Muslim hysteria post didn't answer it.
PS. Most Americans oppose the Bill of Rights. A Muslim who opposes the Patriot act and Dept. of Homeland Security is better for liberty than a non-Muslim who doesn't.
tod evans
12-01-2015, 06:57 AM
I find our country's obsession with the Middle East and Muslims to be weird.
Teh Newz is a powerful tool.......
Danke
12-01-2015, 08:43 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBpmPXv1R4
Ronin Truth
12-01-2015, 10:42 AM
Because dishonestly is just so much more fun?
robert68
12-01-2015, 11:57 AM
The Truth about Islam...
Post a video of a sporting event in the West giving a moment of silence for Muslim dead that the US or one of its allies has caused by state terrorism. To the contrary, at least in the US, members of the perpetrators of that are regularly honored.
PierzStyx
12-01-2015, 07:08 PM
The problem with that argument is that an spermatozoa is a reproductive HUMAN live cell - so every time I get a blow job I am - according to you - murdering babies.
.
Sure, you know, if that were my argument. Or do you not realize that human reproduction only begins when a sperm cell and female egg unite. Did no one teach you the birds and the bees? That might explain things.
Contumacious
12-01-2015, 10:49 PM
Sure, you know, if that were my argument. Or do you not realize that human reproduction only begins when a sperm cell and female egg unite. Did no one teach you the birds and the bees? That might explain things.
Be that as it may , the woman has the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to terminate her relationship with the fetus. Her uterus, her body, her business.
.
According to the Church Fathers, there is a special and particularly tormenting place in hell for those who deny life to the unborn (who are the most innocent and powerless amongst us).
UWDude
12-02-2015, 04:23 AM
According to the Church Fathers, there is a special and particularly tormenting place in hell for those who deny life to the unborn (who are the most innocent and powerless amongst us).
Next door to the gays and people who take the lords name in vain?
Jesus Christ.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.