OT: Osama's letter to America [Archive]

dezhen2001

12-04-2002, 07:10 PM

i find it interesting how the letter uses different verses from the Quran... but slightly taken out of context, also slightly misquoted (the translation i guess):

it says:

"Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-15]

but missed out the start of verse 13 which starts:

Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

which with the preceeding verses and understanding of the history (of the time) puts a slightly different slant on things. eg. that first 20 or so verses of the chapter deal with how to approach war, and the rights you give to the other side before starting. its interesting how certain verses are used but not the verses around them which give a different picture :)

for example: (different verses talk about both sides of the story concerning war, heres the other side)the whole chapter is here (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html) and background here (http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/intro/i009.htm)

009.001
A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances

009.004
(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

009.006
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

009.007
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.

so already its clear to see the other side of the build up to one of the verses bin Laden quoted. Sorry i dont mean to post so much, but thought its just fair to explain some of the quotes used :)

i guess thats why education is so important so you understand clearly the message in the Quran :)

As for the things he has mentioned, there are often 3 sides to the story: Bush, bin Ladens and the truth... imo of course.

dawood

rogue

12-04-2002, 08:05 PM

Thanks for the info Dawood and it wasn't too long. I think the next five to ten years will be critical for Islam.

What bin Laden wants is the establishment of a kaliphate in the middle east, Asia and Africa. But as long as the West has interests in those areas his dream will never happen. And that's why he hates us.

(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries. Hey that aint bin Laden, it's AlGore. :p

dezhen2001

12-04-2002, 08:21 PM

rogue: it does seem Islam is in the spotlight right now :p i guess if it wasnt i wouldnt have found islam myself. but really i think education and understanding as well as tolerance and patience (which the Quran advocates ALL of) are the way forward :)

We have to remember that up until recently (and even still in some places), people can still practise christianity and Judaism in predominantly islamic countries. Even if we look at 1400 years ago, the Prophet Muhammeds neighbour was a Jew, and he always was kind and helpful to him no matter what flak he got in return. So that goes directly against what many people say and think these days...

i hate people who want power and use those kinda means to get it (like the very chapter in the Quran he and i quoted warned us against).

anyway im rambling...
hope all is well for u and urs and u had a good thanksgiving turkey! :)

dawood

Brad

12-04-2002, 08:39 PM

"You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down."

I saw an intersting bit of journalism on pbs that said otherwise, but either way Sadam's the one starving all those children. The dude's got $$$$. He's a dictator. All he had to do was let the inspectors do their job the first time around. Whatever you might think of Bush, he's still the of the leader of a democraticaly elected government. And Sadam's a dictator who controls every branch of the government absolutely, the flow of information in and out of his country, and he has his own advisors and citizens brutally murdered for disagreeing with him. And OBL could care less about those children. Fanatics like him are good at hooking people with a bit of truth before shoveling your head full of lies. It's how people like him get such big followings.

Serpent

12-04-2002, 08:42 PM

eulerfan's point about what terrorism really is is a very good point. The US has committed enormous acts of terror in it's time, but those things aren't referred to as terrorism. The US harboured terrorists, in fact it trained the very terrorists that flew planes into it's buildings.

The deaths in the US are miniscule compared to the deaths globally as a result of US activities and the activities of numerous other countries. Someone said that the US has a right to defend itself. Indeed. And Bin Laden feels that he is defending himself from the atrocities perpetrated by the US. It's all a bit chicken and egg, but don't think for one minute that the US, the UK, Australia, Isreal, etc. are any better than Bin Laden. Everybody has played a part in making this omlette; everybody has broken a few eggs. Bin Laden may well be a fundamentalist nutcase, but so are a lot of 'civilised' westerners. And of course, Bush is just as bad as Bin Laden. Just as full of hypocrisy and hate. And the people of the US didn't even vote him into office, yet they have done nothing about that.....

Brad

12-04-2002, 08:45 PM

And of course, Bush is just as bad as Bin Laden. Just as full of hypocrisy and hate.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it :confused:

Serpent

12-04-2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Brad

Whatever you might think of Bush, he's still the of the leader of a democraticaly elected government.

Are you serious? :eek: :confused:

Sharky

12-04-2002, 09:35 PM

David is muslim?

Sharky

12-04-2002, 09:36 PM

http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/bushv6.htm

Make sure you use the different buttons at the bottom

joedoe

12-04-2002, 09:49 PM

That site rocks. :D

dnc101

12-04-2002, 09:51 PM

is read that letter with a little thought and discernment. Look past the propoganda (even if it fits your narrow template of the 'evil' US government). The author of this letter lays it out clearly why these extremist muslims hate us and what they want from us. It's simple- they will not relent until the entire world is a muslim theocracy.

But, let's say they get that. Will it stop there? History, both ancient and recent, says no. These fools hate each other as fervently as they hate everyone else. Look at Iraq (Babalonia) and Iran (Persia). Not long ago they fought a long and pointless war that killed and maimed thousands each year- military and civilian. They settled nothing except that they hate each other a little more.

Does the muslim world take care of its' own? They whine about us not paying enouh for their oil, but the oil money goes into the accounts of a few sheiks. The Palestinians are kept in camps so that their hatred can be nurtured. Couple that with their hopelessness and you have a fertile recruiting ground for suicide bombers. They complain about how we treat women, but they own theirs- to the point that in most muslim countries you hold the power of life and death over your wives, daughters, and servants.

The only thing that unifies these extremist countries and factions is their hatred for us infedils. You disagree with going after Sadam? This sadistic maniac is trying to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Do you think he's going to declare war and attack us with them? No, he'll distribute them to fanatical terrorist organizations to use against us. Why risk retaliation when you have so many zealots willing to do your dirty work. That some Islamic nations in that region fear this man so much that they are willing to ally with the Great Satan to oppose him speaks volumes.

I understand that the Koran does not advocate or give permission for what these lunatics are doing. I know all followers of Islam do not like what these radicals are doing. And certainly the scriptures and tennets of most religions have been perverted to justify countless atrocities through the centuries. What I don't understand is what it is in Islam that has produced the singularly overwhelming hatred of every thing and every one, including themselves. But I don't have to understand it in order to see the consequences if we don't take a stand now.

Allow them the means to develope the weapons and we'll face nuclear or bacteriological blackmail.

Allow the Sadams' of the world to stay in power and we'll face more and worse terrorism.

Relent in our pursuit of these people and their assets and they will regroup and continue their holy war against us.

Fail to hold their friends and supporters accountable and they will gather more support.

Continue to blame ourselves and fail to present a unified front and we only encourage them.

Read that letter again. What they hate the most about you, and what they want from you, is your freedom.

Stacey

12-04-2002, 09:54 PM

Oh my God, I agree with Osamma.

Now I don't hate Jews, and I don't think that everything he said was true, but most of it was by the fundamentalist christian morality that this country once lived by. The religion I grew up with.

It shames me as an American how much of that was true. If these were the unfounding ramblings of a mad-man it would be easy to hate him. But they are not. I beleive that he is a coninuation of the Torah. In the old testament, people are constantly killing in the name of God and riteousness.

Remember when God gave Israel the promised land? They killed a lot of people to get it. All that milk and honey came at a price.

in keeping with the Golden Rule, he is correct on far too many things. I love America, I just don't love the ugliness that is coming from us. Japan is a beautifull country, but the rape of nanking was a beautifull country gone mad, same with Nazi Germany. I think we are next. We get more and more irrational. Iraq doesn't seem to have these weapons, but who are we to pick and choose who can be armed. How can we preach freedom and then oppress our own will?

dnc101

12-04-2002, 10:02 PM

Stacey,

'All that milk and honey' allways comes at a price. Pay it or eat the crumbs of those that are willing. If you feel so guilty, why not donate your grocery money and and any extravagancies to the muslim victoms of their own insane hatred.

I make no apologies for being who I am.

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
Allow them the means to develope the weapons and we'll face nuclear or bacteriological blackmail.

You mean just like the weapons that the US and so many other countries have?

Allow the Sadams' of the world to stay in power and we'll face more and worse terrorism.

By Sadam's of the world I hope you include Bush.

Relent in our pursuit of these people and their assets and they will regroup and continue their holy war against us.

So you mean you should continue your holy war against them so they can't continue their holy war against you?

Fail to hold their friends and supporters accountable and they will gather more support.

The US supported the very terrorists that struck in NY and Washington.

Continue to blame ourselves and fail to present a unified front and we only encourage them.

Until we recognise our own faults this cycle of destruction will continue.

rogue

12-04-2002, 10:09 PM

And Bin Laden feels that he is defending himself from the atrocities perpetrated by the US. Now that's funny.:D

Stacey

12-04-2002, 10:10 PM

nor I, but there hatred came from ours.

England didn't aplogise when William Wallace was resorting to terrorism. But his hatred came from somewhere.

When you spar, you learn the most about yourself from your opponent. If we don't look at ourselves, we will waste energy in hypocracy. This will later come back in another way.

He's right about the Iraqi children. Did you know that 3 years ago millions of Indians died in Bolivia due to Earthquakes. Didn't even make American news. Two towers go down and the world is still traumatized. This is lunacy, Hypocracy and reaks of egoism.

Stacey

12-04-2002, 10:12 PM

I should stop posting. Serpent says it better than I do. From now on I will aspire to be his yes man

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Stacey
I should stop posting. Serpent says it better than I do. From now on I will aspire to be his yes man

Good lad.

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by rogue
Now that's funny.:D

You think it's funny but you refuse to accept that it's a fact. You might disagree with it, it might well be wrong on many levels, but it's true for Bin Laden and it's killing people.

And in truth, he has far more reason to be defensive than the US. Millions more reasons.

Stacey

12-04-2002, 10:18 PM

I'm inclined to agree with Serpent.

dnc101

12-04-2002, 10:27 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Serpent

You mean just like the weapons that the US and so many other countries have?

The verry ones. To willingly give up our superiority to these fanatics would be the height of stupidity.

By Sadam's of the world I hope you include Bush.

No, I don't. I'm not a Bush fan- in fact, I've accused him of bordering on treason here before. But I don't compare him to Sadam.

So you mean you should continue your holy war against them so they can't continue their holy war against you?

Ours is not a holy war. It is a war to defend our sovereignty and our citizens.

The US supported the very terrorists that struck in NY and Washington. Until we recognise our own faults this cycle of destruction will continue.

On these points we can agree, at least in principle. I am a staunch advocate of cleaning our own house. Our government was set up so that we have a responsibility to police our government. Unfortunately, most Americans today think that only means electing the best liar then complaining about him for four to eight years. That two Bushes could sit in office and betray those who elected them by capitulating on their stated principles is, to me, disgusting. And that Bill Clinton could hold office for eight years while selling out national security for campaign contributions, using his office to procure sexual favors, having murders commited to protect him, and using the military to attack muslims to divert attentions from his problems- this disgusts me beyond words. I'm all for cleaning up our own government. But I don't want Ossama or Sadam doing it for me.

rogue

12-04-2002, 10:29 PM

Serps, I've been following bin Ladens career long before 9/11 and if anything he isn't defending himself from US atrocities. Let's see he or his core has killed over 200 Kenyans, a bushel of Egyptians, 200 Australians, an arm load of Isrealis and we won't mention how many Afghanies the Taliban, a "gov't" he helped finance, killed or mutilated. So forgive me my friend if I take amusment in your statement about bin Laden thinking he was just defending himself. Personally I can't wait for the day they bury his sorry a$$ in a pigskin tuxedo and feed his corpse to the hogs.:D

NorthernMantis

12-04-2002, 10:33 PM

Bin Laden is nothing but a freakin liar and a false follower of Islam.

The only things he talks about is that he's trying to help his people fromt he Amrican "oppressors" while you have Muslims being slaughtered in India by followers of the hindu religion and you don't see osama fkrying to the rescue for them right? I say Osamma is in it for the money and power.

What a disgrace to Islam and it's brother religions who share the same belief.

eulerfan

12-04-2002, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Serpent

Until we recognise our own faults this cycle of destruction will continue.

Thank you. I mean, I'm not one to Godwinize but, do you guys know why Hitler started that war? Do you think he actually had a problem with Jews? Or do you think that was a last ditch effort to save his country from certain demise?

Desperate times call for desperate measures and who do you think put Germany smack dab in the middle of desperate times?

Obviously, I'm not saying the allies shouldn't have kicked Germany's @ss. But I do think our culpability needs to be duly noted.

We play with fire and get burned, time and time again. I'll tell my government to go kick wahtever @ss needs to be kicked. But I won't leave out the, 'fu(k you for getting us into this in the first place.'

I don't know what happened that got us into this and I certainly won't pretend to. None of us will know for years and years. But you know the U.S. got us into it. I'm certain of that.

Now, if terrorists storm the gates as a result of that, I'm a lot more important than I thought I was. I didn't think I had much say at all in how all this is gonna go.

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by dnc101

You mean just like the weapons that the US and so many other countries have?

The verry ones. To willingly give up our superiority to these fanatics would be the height of stupidity.

The only country ever to use a nuke so far is the US. But I don't disagree that a balance of power is required. It's amusing that the US thinks it's ok for it to hold all the power.

By Sadam's of the world I hope you include Bush.

No, I don't. I'm not a Bush fan- in fact, I've accused him of bordering on treason here before. But I don't compare him to Sadam.

Fair enough. I disagree.

So you mean you should continue your holy war against them so they can't continue their holy war against you?

Ours is not a holy war. It is a war to defend our sovereignty and our citizens.

Bush is the one that used the word crusade. Americans are some of the worst fundamentalist Christians on the planet. It ain't so different. Listen more closely to Bush's speeches.

The US supported the very terrorists that struck in NY and Washington. Until we recognise our own faults this cycle of destruction will continue.

On these points we can agree, at least in principle. I am a staunch advocate of cleaning our own house. Our government was set up so that we have a responsibility to police our government. Unfortunately, most Americans today think that only means electing the best liar then complaining about him for four to eight years. That two Bushes could sit in office and betray those who elected them by capitulating on their stated principles is, to me, disgusting. And that Bill Clinton could hold office for eight years while selling out national security for campaign contributions, using his office to procure sexual favors, having murders commited to protect him, and using the military to attack muslims to divert attentions from his problems- this disgusts me beyond words. I'm all for cleaning up our own government. But I don't want Ossama or Sadam doing it for me. [/B]

Cool. And no one said they should do it for you. Here we agree completely.

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by rogue
Serps, I've been following bin Ladens career long before 9/11 and if anything he isn't defending himself from US atrocities. Let's see he or his core has killed over 200 Kenyans, a bushel of Egyptians, 200 Australians, an arm load of Isrealis and we won't mention how many Afghanies the Taliban, a "gov't" he helped finance, killed or mutilated. So forgive me my friend if I take amusment in your statement about bin Laden thinking he was just defending himself. Personally I can't wait for the day they bury his sorry a$$ in a pigskin tuxedo and feed his corpse to the hogs.:D

I agree with most of that, but it doesn't detract from his agenda any. And I'd like to see Bush go the same way.

dnc101

12-04-2002, 10:43 PM

But only if I can still post my opinion as well (sorry to dissapoint some of you there).

Serp & Stac,

Neither of you have dealt with any of the meat of my post. You certainly havn't addressed my main point- these jerks want absolute theocratic control. And if they get that the violence and depridation will only escalate.

You may enjoy self flagelation, but it isn't a logical argument. On the other hand, emotion based argumens are all that is left when you oppose overwhelming truth.

I'm feeling ornery right now, case you didn't notice:cool: .

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
But only if I can still post my opinion as well (sorry to dissapoint some of you there).

Serp & Stac,

Neither of you have dealt with any of the meat of my post. You certainly havn't addressed my main point- these jerks want absolute theocratic control. And if they get that the violence and depridation will only escalate.

You may enjoy self flagelation, but it isn't a logical argument. On the other hand, emotion based argumens are all that is left when you oppose overwhelming truth.

I'm feeling ornery right now, case you didn't notice:cool: .

Fair enough, I forgot about that bit!

I agree, Bin Laden does want total theocratic control. He's a fundamentalist and a complete nutcase. But that's no worse than the missionaries taking Christianity to the "uncivilised" tribes in the third world.

However, the US is giving him an incredible amount of power to achieve his ends by giving him all this ammunition to recruit more zealots. He'd be about as dangerous as a Christian missionary without it. That's why the root of the problem needs to be addressed.

Serpent

12-04-2002, 10:52 PM

I'm not running out on the discussion, but I have to go now. I'll check in again when I can.

Peace to all.

eulerfan

12-04-2002, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
You may enjoy self flagelation...

or responsibility. Semantics.

cha kuen

12-04-2002, 10:53 PM

Since when is war and killing someone an answer to anything? A truly brilliant man will solve the problem without war.

Kung Fu Books (http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=taichimaster06&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25)

dnc101

12-04-2002, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
However, the US is giving him an incredible amount of power to achieve his ends by giving him all this ammunition to recruit more zealots. He'd be about as dangerous as a Christian missionary without it. That's why the root of the problem needs to be addressed.

Now there is a point to discuss.;)

There is probably some truth there. As the war escalates many will flock to the cause. But the fact remains they have more than enough wiling recruits already. What we are trying to deal with in this war is their leadership and their means of waging war (resources, technology, support). Effective leadership for them is in short supply, their technology must be stolen or given to them, and without at least tacit support from host nations they have nowhere to hide. Destroy these and their movement becomes managable. Then we should try to understand my question about what it is in Islam that fosters this kind of hatred. We should also look at our own stupidity- from both your perspective and mine- and come to some understanding of how to deal with these hatreds at their root. But this is not the time for self recriminations, it's time to stand together and fight!

dnc101

12-04-2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by eulerfan
or responsibility. Semantics.

Sorry gal, I was verry specific in what I said- 'self flagelation.' You women aren't the only ones that can communicate, you know:p .

I was talking about beating oneself over guilt for what you percieve as crimes commited by your forefathers, and blaming all the worlds prsent ills on our own evil nature.

Stacey

12-04-2002, 11:13 PM

yeah like disarming palistinians worked.

The twin towers didnt go down by a nuke. There is no way to stamp out napalm

aesop covered this w/ hercules vs strife

dnc101

12-04-2002, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Serpent
I'm not running out on the discussion, but I have to go now. I'll check in again when I can.

My wife, liberal that she is, says that I'm on another conservative rant- and she wants to go to bed! Hey, I'm only so ornery, so I guess I am running out:eek: .

Later.

eulerfan

12-04-2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by dnc101

Sorry gal, I was verry specific in what I said- 'self flagelation.' You women aren't the only ones that can communicate, you know:p .

I was talking about beating oneself over guilt for what you percieve as crimes commited by your forefathers, and blaming all the worlds prsent ills on our own evil nature.

I know what you were talking about and I have already explained that I don't think that is the purpose of pointing these things out. I don't think it is self flagelation. I think it's responsibility.

And I now think you have some issues or something. That was pretty weird and pathetic, right there. Do you have problems with your mother or something? Jesus Christ!

rogue

12-04-2002, 11:44 PM

Since when is war and killing someone an answer to anything? A truly brilliant man will solve the problem without war.:eek: On that note, Good night ladies and germs. :D

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 12:40 AM

wow this sure got a lot of posts :eek:

Sharky: yup ive been Muslim for a few months :)

As for this discussion, u guys sure r more informed than i am, and they say the US media sucks :D

dnc101: what it is in Islam that fosters this kind of hatred?

i wouldnt say its actually anything in Islam itself that has caused this hatred and problems. After all the core is based on a book thats been around for 1400 years (as well as the Torah and Gospels), and the living example of the prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

if you look at many of the verses people give as a reason to 'qualify' why they are doing these attrocities, they come from chapter number 9 in the Quran. This chapter (as well as 8) really deals with defending yourself from attack, 9 is especially when somoene attacks first. if you read up on the history of the period that chapter was revealed you can see more clearly.

So, from that we can gather that bin Laden and whoever else, feel somehow that they have been 'attacked' or 'oppressed' in some way, so are standing up and defending themselves. if we look at what has happened in many Arabic countries we can understand why he feels this way:- Palestine/Israel, iraq, even places like Lebanon, Algeria and so many other situations.

Now im no expert, as im pretty new to all of this, and only 22... but i can understand why people feel ****ed off at the USA because of Israel and all that other cr@p.

one of the most poignant pictures i have ever seen is a lil palestinian boy throwing stones at an israeli tank as it comes towards him. now even taking away the metaphor and things, it shows that even a kid has such hate towards these people - even if 'brainwashed' in school it just shows something is just not right. Even the fact its where there are kids, hardly a 'military' zone.

As for the stuff he mentions about oil and stuff i have no idea, but he does make a lot of points. Even if u dont believe what he says, its worth looking in to those areas to see if you can understand things better or even improve them.

So basically to me, even if hes using these '1/2 truths' to make points and reasons to justify his (imo wrong) actions, there is obviously somehting there that needs to be looked at.

Anyway i have no idea what im really saying, apart form dont judge islam by the acts of terrorists who have their own agenda. The same is likewise, dont judge any other religion because of the acitons of a few people.

SifuAbel

12-05-2002, 12:45 AM

This whole "you starved our children" routine doesn't hold much water concidering that its coming from a man whom is himself a billionaire and has extreme amounts of family money. He has financed his agenda of murder to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, or more, to fight a psychotic religious war. Couldn't that money have gone to feed, educate and house "his" people. Instead they( most arab states excluding a few) have the biggest, grossest rift between the filthy rich and the totally destitute. there is NO middle class in most of these countries. Why? Its easy to manipulate a dumbed people.

It is an ages old tactic to blame the peoples misery on some foreign power than to actually spend money to help them. Tell them "we can't buy your baby food because the americans hate ala'" or some tripe like that. Some might actually beleive it for a while. Until, that is, they figure out what all the guns, tanks and mortars cost. Its not free and its not cheap. And they themselves ask, Why is sadaam buying 1 billion dollar tanks and living in palaces while my baby starves?

It all about power, my friends.

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 01:11 AM

It is an ages old tactic to blame the peoples misery on some foreign power than to actually spend money to help them.

sifuA: isnt that whats happening in the USA right now as well? :)

It all about power, my friends.

agreed, still no reason to blame a religion and talk about 'holy war' instead of 'fanatical terrorism' :)

dawood

SifuAbel

12-05-2002, 01:34 AM

Oh yeah , right, we don't have domestic programs of every shape and size and spend billions a year on welfare.

You cannot compare the two. We, at least, do have a rather large and healthy middle class. Not everyone is driving a lexus, but at least they can get a honda. Where as lots of people over there are living in 12th century arabia.

We are not blaming religion. But they ARE using religion as THE power to rally public opinion. Not that there aren't fundamentalist factions in the US doing the same thing. At least Jerry Falwell isn't planning to "take over the world", I hope.

diego

12-05-2002, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by SifuAbel
Oh yeah , right, we don't have domestic programs of every shape and size and spend billions a year on welfare.

You cannot compare the two. We, at least, do have a rather large and healthy middle class. Not everyone is driving a lexus, but at least they can get a honda. Where as lots of people over there are living in 12th century arabia.

We are not blaming religion. But they ARE using religion as THE power to rally public opinion. Not that there aren't fundamentalist factions in the US doing the same thing. At least Jerry Falwell isn't planning to "take over the world", I hope.

then bush basically reciting striaght out of the cursades his post-911 speach, rallying up the christian mass of the us of a; that didnt much help at all

if bush was bhuddist, yall think the un and usa would have found a bette solution, then /well palis want to throw sticks so we will just use bigger guns...thats all dandy until they dip those sticks in explosive resin

I Bet if george was a hippy and not a whitebread american thier would have been greater peace proposals then seen!.

whatchyall think?.

SifuAbel

12-05-2002, 02:49 AM

hey , thats cool. We can just sit back like Carter did and watch people get f'ed in the but like during the hostage crisis. at least soldiers have a chance to fight back, Cilvilians don't. And when its your but on an airplane bound for a three point landing on disney world I bet you'd hope something was done sooner.

It's irrelevant now as to who is the "bad" guy. It is ON. If we don't do something now things will only get worse. You think saddam is going to just sit back and tend to his camels if we "just left him alone"? Heck no, he would nuke us out by the end of the decade, and he might just do that anyway.

diego

12-05-2002, 03:59 AM

able its on, but what im saying is america is at the front shouting, wich is sad as the moral voice of america in general is biased whitebread christian...impov, the un should have wrote bushes axel of evil speach...cuz bush did nothing to dissuade the muslem pawns of the future who will be herded into more extreme partys as al qaeda.

Common war tactics tells us, you kill oasma his sons gonna want revenge...if america is so righteous, they should seek to teach osamas sone that osama is the devil, and america really cares about a free-world, and not thier borders interests.

im not condemming bush really, im just saying...im not to satisfied at those making power moves. usa said **** un, were attacking who we want anyway, then americans will flip and say, why should we be blamed for not helping the worlds problems wich dont directly affect us...wich makes a onlooker see america as a gang, not one of the worlds uncorruppted police officers!.
Just ranting, and no real pointing of fingers, cuz really we are just reformed monkeys, its not amazing we throw sticks at each other, i just do not feel how the usa holds it's stick.

:)

Frank Exchange

12-05-2002, 05:37 AM

Sifu Abel

Wanted nothing more than to be an observer on this interesting thread... but .. can't fight it... getting sucked in... :)

>> You think saddam is going to just sit back and tend to his camels if we "just left him alone"? Heck no, he would nuke us out by the end of the decade, and he might just do that anyway. <<

I really find that hard to believe. He is nothing if not a survivor. Evil, powerhungry, pyschotic he may be, but he is also not stupid.

There is no way he is going to start a Nuke war which he cannot possibly win. If he launches an nuke, he knows full well that is the end for his country, his power and himself. Even if he survived a nuclear assault on his country, there is no point in being the president of a smoking crater. In fact, the only situation I can see him actually using any WMD he may have is when he is personally under attack, when he is going to die anyway and has nothing to lose.

Despite the best efforts of the US and UK intel services there is no link to be found between him and AQ, who hate him anyway because of his secular leanings. His rhetoric aside, I actually do see him sitting back and tending to his camels if left alone, IMO I think he is effectively deterred, and has been for years.

Sharky

12-05-2002, 07:38 AM

"You think saddam is going to just sit back and tend to his camels if we "just left him alone"? Heck no, he would nuke us out by the end of the decade, and he might just do that anyway."

This is a where i am impressed by the UK's and the USA's propaganda tricks. You have NO evidence to suggest this.

Stacey

12-05-2002, 08:16 AM

from Sadaams shoes.

"Hi I'm Sadaam" I've got loads of wives, I'm rich and I have complete power over my country. I learned better that to oppose the US head on, so instead I do the modern thing and fund little radical groups to do my bidding. Weapons of mass destruction are antiquated, besides, by jumping through these weapon's inspection hoops, I ensure wealth and future prosperity for me, my many wives and children. I also take the wind out of America's sail and leave them limp.....hahahahhaha. You must excuse me, I have a virgin to break in and gold to throw over my head like Scrooge Mc Duck.

dnc101

12-05-2002, 09:11 AM

Eularfan- I don't know what I said that made you angry. Sorry you took it that way, but I stand by anything I've said.

I'm all for responsibility, but what is going on here is the old blame the US for all the evils in the world schtik. We've spent more in humanitarian aid to muslims in the past decade than all the combined muslim countries over all the combined centuries. If that makes us evil, I'd suggest we stop. Almost every military action the US has sponsored in the last decade has been to defend muslims. Now we can't defend ourselves? BS! And if you think us intolerant, look at some of the denigrating terms used to refer to us on this forum (proud to be a whitebread). Religious intolerance- look at the way Christianity is refered to here. I let the insults and hatred go by- they only showcase the intolerance of others. And they make good ammunition to use when I'm brought to task for my issues.

Any way, my comments to you were meant to be light hearted but make a point. If the delivery offended you, I'm sorry, but I stand firm by my point.

dnc101

12-05-2002, 09:26 AM

You are focusing on a conventional exchange of missile and aircraft deployed nuclear bombs. I agree, that isn't likely to happen. What he'll most likely do is continue to starve Iraqui children so he can a.) blame the US, b.) fund terrorists. These fanatics are allways looking for better ways to blow themselves up. There are now such things as 'briefcase nukes' and 'dirty nukes'. Maybe not as powerful as ours, but still capable of massive destruction. And if delivered by a now vaporized terrorist it woul be difficult to track back to any sponsoring nation, except that they like to brag and leave a clear trail. (Fortunately, they havn't figured this out yet.)

Even his defenders here agree the man is a monster, so we probably needn't go in to whether he is morally capable of initiating nuclear terrorism.

dnc101

12-05-2002, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Stacey
yeah like disarming palistinians worked.The twin towers didnt go down by a nuke. There is no way to stamp out napalm

Stacey, I said more manageable, not that terrorism will go away. Unfortunately, this is a war that may never be 'won', but it is one we can't afford to loose.

dnc101

12-05-2002, 10:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dezhen2001
i wouldnt say its actually anything in Islam itself that has caused this hatred and problems.

What I am refering to is the fact that ever since Abraham fornicated with his servant, the Biblical prophecy that the hand of Islam would be against all others seems to have been fulfilled. Why is that? Is it the rest of the world at fault? If so, why do they wage such devastating wars against each other? There is an answer there, possibly within the muslim faith, as to 'why?'.

bin Laden and whoever else, feel somehow that they have been 'attacked' or 'oppressed' in some way, so are standing up and defending themselves.

I was basing my arguments on the tone and content of the letter that was originally referenced. Read that, and you can clearly see that the offenses he uses to justify his actions are just window dressing- excuses for his atrocities. What he hates about us is our freedom. What he wants is a worldwide muslim theocracy. He clearly says that. And he's willing to kill indiscrimately to punish us for not being muslim. But I'll say it again, even if we all took our vows today (or whatever you do to become muslim), this hatefilled lunatic would find a reason to continue his 'war' against us. Muslims have been doing this to each other for centuries.

one of the most poignant pictures i have ever seen is a lil palestinian boy throwing stones at an israeli tank as it comes towards him. now even taking away the metaphor and things, it shows that even a kid has such hate towards these people - even if 'brainwashed' in school it just shows something is just not right. Even the fact its where there are kids, hardly a 'military' zone.

If that had been a white American child, us evil conservatives would have been blamed totally for brainwashing him and teaching him to hate. And, I disagree that because a child is there it is not a military zone. These people routinely base their military operations in civilian areas, and use women and children to cover their activities. It makes for good propoganda when some useful idiot in the media posts a picture of the collateral dammage and blames us. And remember Sodom, in the last 'war', moving women and children on top of bunkers and weapons warehouses to deter us from bombing them?

So basically to me, even if hes using these '1/2 truths' to make points and reasons to justify his (imo wrong) actions, there is obviously somehting there that needs to be looked at.

Half truths are still lies in their totality. But yes, it would be good to look for reasons from every legitimate perspective. I'm arguing that we should not go about it from the skewed perspective that it must be all our fault. We may bear some of the blame- my guess is it would be from trying to help others from a position of ignorance of what is really going on and what they really need. Fifty years of liberal government has shown that good intentions will get us into more trouble than anything. However, the vast majority of the blame would logically probably lie with those who use terrorism against any one who doesn't think the way they do- including their own 'bretherin'.

Anyway i have no idea what im really saying, apart form dont judge islam by the acts of terrorists who have their own agenda. The same is likewise, dont judge any other religion because of the acitons of a few people.

Good advice. There are those voices, like yours, in Islam that try to use reason instead of violence. Sadly, those voices are allways drowned out by the war drums. Reason makes poor press when there is blood and destruction to photograph and blame and insults to be printed in bold type. I don't blame all Islam, I just don't automatically exonerate all Islam. And, I don't say we have no blame, just that this trend of blaming ourselves for every evil in the world is as counterproductive as it is stupid. I will say that we, and you (righteous Muslims), have far less blame than the Sodoms, Ayatohllas, Arafats, and others of their ilk.

eulerfan

12-05-2002, 10:29 AM

dnc101 (I love that handle, BTW),

You were being pointedly patronizing as you refered to my sex as though it were relevant. Not to make your point but as preamble to your point. This tack is familiar to me. I find it a petty way to get personal in a political discussion which is petty in and of itself.

Of course you deny it. It was passive aggressive and the point of passive aggressive behavior is that you can bob and weave when people call you on it. Like apologizing to somebody in such a way that actually sort of places blame on them. "I'm sorry you thought that what I did was wrong." It's weasely and does nothing to convince me I misread your initial comments. It actually reaffirms my interpretation. So, that's where we are on that.

If you want, we can just let it go. I'm more annoyed than angry and I do not hold grudges. I just don't have the confidence or certainty for grudges. We might just have that polar personality thing going on. I really don't KNOW. Know what I mean?

Anyhoo, I never said we couldn't defend ourselves. I actually made it clear that I thought we should. I didn't say we were evil. We're not perfect. We make mistakes. We got ourselves into this mess.

We should take whatever actions we need to take to get ourselves out of it. But we also need to accept responsiblity where responsibility is ours. We are not living in a Star Wars movie where there is a dark side and a light side. Why does one side have to be pure evil and the other pure good? How is that going to get us anywhere but a cycle where we keep making the same mistakes over and over again?

Think about it. If we did nothing wrong, if these people are waging war on us because we gave them charity, we might as well pack it all in. Our race is lost indeed. We're just going to kill ourselves and leave the planet to the animals.

But I don't buy that for one second. Call it humanistic folly if you'd like but I have more faith in people than that.

ewallace

12-05-2002, 10:41 AM

Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.
Afgans do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone. But apparently this did not bother Usama while he was a "guest" of the Taliban government.

dnc101

12-05-2002, 10:43 AM

Eulerfan,

Then allow me to apologise in a more responsible way. I'm sorry I was patronizing, and your sex has nothing to do with the validity of your point.

If you read all my posts here you'll see that I don't look at everything in black and white. We probably do share some blame. I'm arguing that this bashing ourselves and blaming ourselves for every problem, and the automatic assumption that we are evil and therefore must be responsible- or at least made to pay- is not going to solve anything. And there is a lot of that going on here.

red5angel

12-05-2002, 10:44 AM

eulerfan sez -"Why does one side have to be pure evil and the other pure good?"

I think while some people may view it this way, most do not, even those at the top. Unfortunately however you have to remember that much of this conflict is religiously based and that sometimes determines who or what is evil in the eyes of some.

The key in this conflict is that Saddam Hussein is a megolomaniac and will do what he feels he has to do. While some of his beliefs may stem from his religion, I think Saddam is smart enough to realise that religion is not the end all to be all, but it can be used as a powerful tool. this sort of man I would deem as selfish. Unfortunately his selfishness is in control of a country willing to go to extremes if absolute needs be.
I can pretty much agree with your statement above, or its intent anyway, by prefcing it by saying that those that believe there is a good and an evil side are mislead and not in full posession of the facts. this conflict is no where close to being on the level of the Nazi scourge in the 30's and 40's, and thats the closest to a good vs evil war we have ever had in my opinion.

Fanatics are fuel for a fire that can burn out of control, and sometimes fanantics lead contries or make important decisions, this is the reason Saddam has to go in my view. He is a dangerous man, who wont balk at using weapons of mass destruction if he can get his hands on them. The dangerous thing is that now he has a delivery system that is harder to defend against then missles or bombers, he has fanatical terrorist groups willing to carry out his desires through their own beliefs.

eulerfan

12-05-2002, 10:51 AM

red,

Right. I mentioned that earlier. Even when fighting something as close to evil as the Nazis, we had a certain amount of responsibility in creating war. I used that example because there is so obviously no way I can defend the Nazis. That was as close to evil as we have ever seen.

But we had a hand in creating that situation. I think it's important to acknowledge that.

red5angel

12-05-2002, 11:03 AM

Agreed, and I believe, holding no religious views, that good and evil are subjective. A fanatical Muslim terrorist believes he is doing the right thing by crashing his plane into a building full of christian americans and allah will praise him for it. to him, this is "good".
Saddam, may on some level believe that he is doing the right thing (I personally doubt that and stick by my belief that he is a megalomaniac.)
Saddam could be defined as evil for the very same reasons hitler was, he has been a part of some racial purges locally as well as some racial issues. If one chooses to they can look at this as evil.
Your point is well taken however, it takes two, in general to go to war, and in this case political issues may be more at the heart of things then the ideas of good and evil.
As sad as it is though I think that violence is a part of being human being, atleast for now. I dont think it condemns us, our morality or our intelligence, nature is full of violence, but no one calls the tiger evil for killing the lamb so it can eat. True we are at a higher level of cognisance (sp?) but we are still creatures of nature and still dragging ourselves up from that primordial stew we crawled out of.
I could also say that War in and of itself is not inherently evil. If the world were perfect a battlefield could be picked, the combatants sent forward to do their thing and the loss would be contained to those who volunteered. We are in a martial forum, full of people who fight, train to fight, and enjoy it. Some of us even fight in the ring and enjoy it, this doesnt make us evil.
I am starting to ramble, the point is I agree, especially in this case some accountability must be allotted. It is a terrible thing that hapened to us on 9/11, but it follows along the path of alot of terrible things that have happened to a lot of people both deserving and not.

The Willow Sword

12-05-2002, 11:05 AM

saddam hussein poses NO THREAT TO US. other than the threat of us losing our oil exchange over there.
There is NO evidence to support that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with the attacks on 9-11. If there is anyone at all that we should be pi$$ed at and focusing our efforts towards it is SAUDI ARABIA.
i mean come on guys,,Osama bin Laden is a Saudi,,the terrorists that hijacked those planes are SAUDI. the SAUDI royal family paid osama bin laden 300 million dollars to not do any attacks in Saudi land. Bush and his republican regime are war mongoring IDIOTS and are going to set off ww3 with the world of islam.
Do you really think that saddam could actaully touch us over here with his weapons? NO HE CANT. When all of a sudden did we refocus our efforts on iraq? what about are efforts to bring Bin laden to justice?
The reason we wont put any pressure on Saudi Arabia is because they stroke our d!cks with their wealth in oil and money, and they also have a kick ass army that would give the USA a hard time if we decided to put pressure on them.
I mean the major Un countries: france, Russia, Spain, etc. are NOT behind us on this one.
And WHERE is it in this country that the American people are for a WAR over there? True we are for bringing Osama bin laden to justice and keeping our borders safe from terrorist attack.
This impending war with Iraq makes NO SENSE.

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 11:37 AM

wow this thread is getting a lot of posts - maybe we can rival the got qi gals soon enough ;)

the Biblical prophecy that the hand of Islam would be against all others seems to have been fulfilled.

sorry i dont know anything about that... do u have any references i could look at?

was basing my arguments on the tone and content of the letter that was originally referenced. Read that, and you can clearly see that the offenses he uses to justify his actions are just window dressing

agreed, which is why i was trying to explain why he picked the verses he did. it gives us more insight.

What he wants is a worldwide muslim theocracy.

yup thats the crazy part imo. im really not sure why some people have this notion that the whole world should be Muslim...
sorry to quote again but its quite clear:

011.118
If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people: but they will not cease to dispute.

049.013
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other).

even during the prophets time when they DID go to other countries, Islam expanded but there was no compulsion on them to convert (ideally of course, human nature dictates its not ALWAYS ideal). The people would then pay kinda protection money as they were surrounded in a Muslim country and protected by Muslim people.

Even the prophet Muhammeds own uncle died a non believer after he tried for so long to make him come to Islam... he even prayed to God for mercy and God revealed the quotes i used above.

So if it didnt happen THEN (ie. with the Prophet), how can it happen now? hence the crazy part :eek: Im also sure there would be some reason to continue his struggle... to become Muslim is only 1 simple sentence with the belief behind it.

What he hates about us is our freedom.

I dont see why... Islam is actually pretty clear on what not to do, but anything else is free. When u mix culture with Islam is where many of the problems in these countries lie, not really religion (eg. treatment of women and many other things).

brainwashing him and teaching him to hate.

ok bad example :p the main thing i was trying to say was it just shows something is just not right on both sides of the fence, and in between. its not clear cut. Also it shows media and propoganda and how it can be used.

Half truths are still lies in their totality.

no they are still 1/2 truths as in have something at their foundation, even if it has been skewered to other needs. THAT is what needs to be looked at.

it would be good to look for reasons from every legitimate perspective. I'm arguing that we should not go about it from the skewed perspective that it must be all our fault.

its not all anyones fault... or we can say it is everyones fault. each 'side' has to look at what they have done and what they are doing now and see a clearer and better way to do this. thats how these things work. instead of shifting blame. i remember when i was a kid i used tolame my brother for things i did and vice versa. Once i grew up i realised that i have to shoulder responsibility for my own actions - somehting i think eurlefan was trying to also say... :)

my guess is it would be from trying to help others from a position of ignorance of what is really going on and what they really need.

now is that shouldering the responsibility for your actions? It's not so cut and dry as all that... both 'sides' have done shady things...dont you think the people in THIS position can tell u what THEY need better than u can tell them? Also what exactly are they ignorant of? Living in 2nd or 3rd world conditions while still trying to follow your faith is not ignorant, just different. 'Modernization' is happening everywhere, but that doesnt have to clash with your beliefs. Also there are even some smaller Arabic countries that are democratic, though still live in accordance with Islam.

However, the vast majority of the blame would logically probably lie with those who use terrorism against any one who doesn't think the way they do

im starting to see there are many different ways of doing and using 'terrorism' and its shocking :( Some very open like 9/11 and others much more subtle... from ALL sides involved in this.

There are those voices, like yours, in Islam that try to use reason instead of violence. Sadly, those voices are allways drowned out by the war drums.

the drums r pretty loud huh? each camp trying to out drum the other... But the only way Muslims CAN help others see what Islam is all about (and 'fight' against extremism) is to continue to live and show others how we act in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah.

I don't blame all Islam, I just don't automatically exonerate all Islam.

Islam is Islam and seperate from the people who practise it... the Quran isnt changing, only peoples understanding or ignorance of how to apply it to their daily life.

I will say that we, and you (righteous Muslims), have far less blame than the Sodoms, Ayatohllas, Arafats, and others of their ilk.

im far from a righteous Muslim :) i only have been muslim for 5 weeks! But i AM learning as much as i can about Islam, and its clearly different form those radicals and terrorists.

People are people, and live their own life as best they can. Sometimes its awfully controlled by others, and other times they are typecast because of what they believe. Both are wrong :)

just my thoughts...
dawood

ps. yay Ramadan is over i can eat during daylight again! :D:p

dnc101

12-05-2002, 11:56 AM

Willow,

Any nation that sponsors terrorism is a threat to us, especially if that nation is in possesion of weapons of mass destruction.

Terrorists can strike any nation, including us. That includes those sponsored or supported by Sodom.

Forget Sodoms' involvement in 9-11. It is irrelevant. There is ample evidence that Iaq is trying to amass weapons of mass destruction, in violation of their agreement the last time we let them off the hook. And, there is evidence Sodom supports terrorists. More than enough reason to go after him.

The Saudis ally with us (the Great Satan) because they fear Sodom more than the devil. We witnessed this in living color in '91, and they are still in our camp today, though it is an uneasy alliance.

The Saudis (or any of the rest of the nations in that region) can kick our butts? They can't even beat up on a nation a fraction of their size (Israel). The only way they can beat us is if we beat ourselves- like with an ill advised combined military rescue operation to fly into a dust storm and self destruct in front of a busload of civilians (this in order to prove that Jimmy Carter could be as tough as the Republicans before the next election). Or like sitting idly by while people like Sodom build their weapons and organizations like Al Queda develope the infrastructure to deliver them.

As for other countries not being with us, France and Russia are virtually never with us. There will allways be countries that are not with us. Many of these are willing to let us carry all the expense and risk to save their butts. Many other countries are with us. Neither point proves anything except that nations disagree just like individuals here do.

It's in the polls, on the streets, and just about everywhere that the majority of Americans approve of Bush's stand on this issue. Give the guy a break- it's one of the few things he's done right since taking office! And it makes a lot of sense to me and others.

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 12:06 PM

wow a lot of traffic since i started typing LOL... that must be one of the longest posts i ever made on kfo!

ewallace: good post :) hope ur well btw... :)

TWS: its true bin Laden and some terrorists are all from Saudi - but what evidence od u have about the saudi royal family? id be interested to see it... :)

When all of a sudden did we refocus our efforts on iraq? what about are efforts to bring Bin laden to justice?

something i was wondering as well, especially since theres no PROVEN connection between the 2.

A fanatical Muslim terrorist believes he is doing the right thing by crashing his plane into a building full of christian americans and allah will praise him for it. to him, this is "good".

its a strange thing because being a 'martyr' DOES mean dying for your cause (in the name of God), but NOT killing yourself so youre dying in the name of god! :eek: BIG BIG DIFFERENCE. Also theres a difference from flying all the way to America and killing yourself and dying trying to defend your home and people.

Islam states that if u kill another human being (unless a pre-described method of warfare for example or defending yourself), maliciously killing, especially woman, children and non-combatants, its as if you have killed the whole human race. If you take your life, how can YOU decide to take something that God created? For that its clear you go straight to hell...

Im still tyring to figure out how the Israel situation fits in to all of this, as its definately not as clear cut as it seems and a very difficult and dangerous position for everyone involed.

But im no authority on such things, this is just my thoughts now and im sure will change as i find out more about things :)

in this case political issues may be more at the heart of things then the ideas of good and evil.and also religious beliefs

dawood

ewallace

12-05-2002, 12:27 PM

I'm doing fine David, thanks. I hope all is good in your neck o' the woods as well. :)

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 12:55 PM

hey eric: not bad, i seem to be typing a lot recently and turning in to an internet preacher :D (sorry if it seems that way but im just typing what i know to give a more balanced view :))

uni life is hard and im being screwed around by money, so its the same old. gal is doing pretty fine though and ramadan is now finished so things r good in THAT respect ;)

hey i know ur in to website design... i just checked this guys updated site...: http://www.yugop.com he has some pretty cool experimental flash interactivity there...

http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/25/shift2.html
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/26/
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/30/
http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/31/

sorry to hijack this thread - no pun intended ;) (i AM muslim :D)

dawood

dnc101

12-05-2002, 01:05 PM

Dez, good points.

We may rival the Got Qi thread in longevity (I hope not- Ireally should be doing other things), but this will never be as light hearted as they are.

I'm wracking my brains for the reference- I think it is in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Abraham, not trusting God to give him a son by his barren wife, took a servant girl and fathered an illigitamite son before Isaac. I think that was Ismael, but I'm not sure. I don't practice any religion, so I'm diggging deep in memory to bring this back. Any way, there was a lot of strife between Abe's wife and the servant girl, and probably between the two boys. So they were both driven out. But God preserved them and because of his father the boy was a partial inheritor to the promise God made to Abrham. An angel (or maybe it was God) told mom her son would father a great nation, but his hand would be against all others. Any way, I wasn't trying to get biblical here, just making the point that it seems to have been the case.

I appreciate your insights into the Quran. And, as I said earlier, this isn't the first religious document to be misquoted and perverted to justify hatred and atrocities. And you may be correct that it is more a result of a cultural mix and Islam than just Islam. By my own arguments we would have to consider that. And your point is a good example of why we need to look at the problem honestly and from more than one perspective. I might eventually have come to that point on my own, but I'd probably have angered a few people on the way. (No, you say? I assure you that I can anger some people just by showing up!:D ).

We agree on the desire for a theocracy being crazy. I don't like any theocracy, especially the kind that settles differences in their own beliefs by killing off thrir heritics. And that is where most theocracies end up.

It is hard to see why people hate freedom. But the author of that letter clearly states his hatreds and objectives. Someone once said that we all want freedom for ourselves and our own, but want to control others. Maybe it is just human nature run amok. Whatever the reason, this kind of hatred is a dangerous thing for everyone- Muslim and non Muslim alike. Any how, I'd say these zealots are all our problem.

The best lies contain an element of the truth. It is how that truth is twisted that makes it a lie. But, as eulerfan pointed out, we are arguing semantics here. I see your point. I've often said that behind every extremist movement there is some truth, real or percieved, that has been taken and missaplied or blown out of proportion to justify the extremist position. Logically, you'd have to find that 'truth' to deal with it. That may mean compromise or change, or just bringing it to light to be examined for the lie it is or has become.

It is someones faut- the twin towers did not just fall down. Someone acted without regard for life, property, or the consequences. Now those people want to put the blame on us to avoid the consequences. Eight years of an idiot randomly launching missiles and blowing up aspirin factories made them over confident. This time they went too far, and now we are after them. They well should hide, use children for cover and try to divert blame. But this time we're not buying it.

Responsibility- we have a lot to answer for. BC did kill people at home and abroad to cover his misdeeds, and we did nothing about it. And the ignorance I refered to earlier is ours, not the second or third world peoples (where did those terms come from any way?) If you are going to exercise power, even in the form of aid, you should make some effort to be informed about those you exercise power over. I don't think we have no blame. Again, I just think it is wrong to say we carry all, or even most of the blame.

I enjoy your posts. Theyare insightful (even if you don't agree with me:rolleyes: ). To paraphrase Oblix, "Those (extremist)Muslims are crazy!"(finger taps head).

ewallace

12-05-2002, 01:10 PM

This is pretty cool too. You would think it's flash but it's dhtml. Warning: this dude is sick (what he can do that is)
http://www.bratta.com/dhtml/

</threadjack>

txwingchun

12-05-2002, 02:09 PM

Interesting article that seems to go along with the current thread. Of course I believe that goverments are dirty anyway.Warning it's rather long.

http://www.freedom-force.org/granddeception.htm

red5angel

12-05-2002, 02:58 PM

Willow Sword, your statements are as speculative as you claim ours are. The simple FACT is that the guy is the leader of a country who has a history of offending human rights, doing things in his own way in defiance of all around him, and he has a grudge. Maybe you werent around when we went to war with him in 91? You take all of this and then give him access to fanatics who will do damage to his enemies while he can deny it and you dont think he isnt going to utilize that? If so, you are fooling yourself.
Of course you are partially right, alot of what is going on is political, it has been political/religious for centuries but even those that oppose us going to war consider him a possible threat.

Kristoffer

12-05-2002, 03:14 PM

Hey! A political thread were we DONT rip our heads and flame everyone to hell :) OOooh Behave

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 03:26 PM

:eek: wow thats a really strong essay txwingchun!
ewallace: cool site thanks for the link :)

dnc101: hey this is a discussion board, so its ok to see things from a different angle :) i dont know anything about the politics and intrigue u guys seem to, only what i have been taught and learned about the Quran and islam so far... so thats what i share :)

theres definately a lot more to this than meets the eye, the human race is certainly an interesting thing :D

As for the reference for ishmael and Abraham, thanks and i'll have a look and see what i can find from the Islamic perspective as well as in the Torah :) As far as i recall Abraham DID marry ishmaels mother, and thats where the arabic people are descended from or something like that :p

anyway, ill let you guys argue politics and strategy, now that islam is not being judged so much :) job done lol

enjoy!
dawood

ewallace

12-05-2002, 03:30 PM

Besides, everyone knows that Switzerland is the largest threat to human civilization.

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 03:32 PM

they do control clocks (time) and gold/bank accounts (world riches) :eek::D

dawood

straight blast

12-05-2002, 04:04 PM

It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart.

I wonder where murdering innocents comes into the above statements? There are a lot of valid points in this article but the fact remains that this inbred goofball is a fanatical murdering coward. These are not the best credentials for preaching peace to the world!!!

Oh and it's one of those happy little fantasies where everyone gets to convert to their religion and live happily ever after. I could almost pity any imbecile who tried to force my wife into a set of long robes or attacked her on the street for showing her ankles. He would have a long and promising career as a eunuch.

Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

Umm...I can think of one that will go down for a long time that happened on 9/11??

Tossers....

I respect those who talk without holding a gun...and that goes for both sides.

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 04:11 PM

fanatical murdering coward

u said it right there straght blast :)

dawood

txwingchun

12-05-2002, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by ewallace
Besides, everyone knows that Switzerland is the largest threat to human civilization.

**** wrong again I was under the impression that it was Canada.

Sharky

12-05-2002, 04:13 PM

Eid mubarek dave

dezhen2001

12-05-2002, 04:14 PM

thanks sharky... eid mubarak to all the muslims here :)

dawood

Serpent

12-05-2002, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
thanks sharky... eid mubarak to all the muslims here :)

dawood

What's this!? Some covert secret language calling all muslims to arms against the west?!

Kill!

;)

Serpent

12-05-2002, 05:24 PM

This is a good discussion and it's nice to see that it's not getting too heated. However, it is beginning to get a bit cyclic.

I'd just like to make a few short points that I think are worth bearing in mind.

Saying that the war is on now and that who is to blame is irrelevant is avoiding responsibility. The war will never end that way.

Regardless of your own feelings, Osama considers his fight just as he is defending the atrocities committed against ‘his people’. If you deny that you are doing nothing to solve the problems.

The whole ‘we’ve spent millions on humanitarian aid’ thing is pointless. If I slaughter a hundred people, then pull one drowning kid out of the river am I absolved from all the murder? Hardly! That line of thinking is just rhetoric really.

We all agree that the oppressed should be liberated. The trouble is, different people have a different idea about who is oppressed.

MonkeySlap Too

12-05-2002, 05:33 PM

You know the Taliban used that whole 'you have no proof' argument. It didn't work for them either.

These @ssholes really stepped in it. If they were really out for social justice or solving the palestinian issues, there are a LOT smarter ways to do it. Now the few real points they had are lost in the war.

Now they've stepped in it. We'll kill them, and fix the problems they helped cause like we always do. Between whinney democrats who call slowing the regular increases in taxes a 'tax cut' and having to periodically bomb the crap out of some viscious thugs, then rebuilding thier countries, our taxes will never go down.

I've noticed how quick we are to consider the Islamists point of view. Admirable, but if we look at the flip side of history, you've got a viscous enemy that has aggressively persued thier ends through violence throughout history. Go ask the Hungarians, Aerbs, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Armenians, Chinese, Indians, or Sudanese.

Or the Iranians, Kurds, Assyrians, Egyptians (coptics, not Arabs), etc. Oops, you can't because they were assimilated.

I have no desire to be a 'Dhimmi', lose all my rights, pay 50-150% sales tax, let Muslims kill me without equal punishement, and otherwise be abused. Take a cold hard look at the middle East, because that's the treatment you'll get in the Islamic world if you haven't proffessed your love for the Chaldean moon-god.

No thanks.

Stacey

12-05-2002, 08:09 PM

We Assyrians have not been assimilated. We are an oppressed minority. Mostly Christian and worshipers of Ashur, our god from ancient times.

Were 3 million strong and even though most of us are suffering in Iraq, there are quite a few of us in Venezuela and the rest of South America and the US who maintain our culture and traditions. Because Aramaic is what we traditionally spoke, were one of the first groups to convert to christianity.

Stacey

12-05-2002, 08:16 PM

warlorded, forced religion and assimlation

read a list of the nations the US has done this too here

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award98/ienhtml/tribes.html

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/nofed.htm

Plus the soveign Monarchy of Hawaii.

The song we all hear when we think of Hawaii was written by the last Queen before her forced resignation. Its Aloha Oi "Farewell to myself"

rogue

12-05-2002, 08:46 PM

Here's some articles on bin Laden. The first is post 9/11 the second a little more recent. Neither goes into full detail but they cover the main points.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/11/inv.haykel.cnna/
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/gerecht.htm

And a special holiday special from the good folks of al Qaeda.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/05/terror.threats/index.html

dezhen2001

12-06-2002, 04:33 AM

CHAT PARTICIPANT: There are many English translations of the Koran on the Internet. They sound like a terrorist manifesto -- kill all nonbelievers: is that what this is about - fulfilling the Koran view of Christians and Jews?

HAYKEL: It is true that the Koran contains verses that are antagonistic to Jews, Christians and non-Muslims. That said, the Koran also has verses that are positive and favorable to Christians and Jews. It is important to know that the Koran cannot be interpreted without the knowledge of the wider body of legal and theological Islamic literature. Verses don't stand on their own without context, and the context is always much more nuanced and sophisticated than the literal meaning of the verse.

which is all ive been trying to say in this thread :)

dawood

red5angel

12-06-2002, 07:51 AM

dezhen2001 - The christian bible also holds interpretations comparible to those of the Koran, with threats against non christians, etc...
However I am not sure I buy the "context" excuse. Most of these books were written by several people over the course of many years. Some may have been extremist, some may not have been. Context, is just another interpretation and sometimes even interpretation isnt enough. For example, my wife and I discussed a little the idea of gay Christians. She is catholic and had heard of a group of gay Catholics, which seemed reasonable to her (to put things in context, she flirted for a few years with the gay life style.) I pointed out that the bible says the gay life style is not acceptable, and as far as I know there are no mixed signals in the bible on this. To me its like saying I am going to join the KKK because I may not like blacks, I am only half white but hey, why not?
I think ultimately the point is that most intelligent people will realize that these religious books are guides on how to live your life. Some will take it as written in stone, others will creatively interpret and unfortunately fanatics can get a hold of their own interpretations and start killing people for their beliefs.
I dont believe it is right to kill another for your, or his beliefs, however I do believe you have the right to defend yourself and your beliefs from being denied.

dnc101

12-06-2002, 09:31 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Serpent
Saying that the war is on now and that who is to blame is irrelevant is avoiding responsibility. The war will never end that way.

No one said that who is to blame isn't important, or even that we might not share some of the blame. The point here is twofold: We are not automatically mostly to blame. The terrorists and the radical regimes that support them are definately mostly to blame. The war will only end when these extremist factions don't have the weapons nor the infrastructure to deliver them, nor the support of radical countries or governments. And everyone, us and them, will only see the truth (whatever it is) when we look at it honestly instead of automatically wringing our hands and crying mea culpa every time some hate filled idiot blows himself and others up.

Osama considers his fight just as he is defending the atrocities committed against ‘his people’.

Osama, and all these radical Muslims, hate you because you are free. They hate you because you aren't Muslim. They hate you because they need someone to hate- preferably some one wringing their hands and saying all the worlds ills are my fault, as that type is les likely to retaliate.

The whole ‘we’ve spent millions on humanitarian aid’ thing is pointless. If I slaughter a hundred people, then pull one drowning kid out of the river am I absolved from all the murder? Hardly! That line of thinking is just rhetoric really.

The point of that is that we don't hate Muslims. The point is that it isn't all our fault these people hate us. It contrasts our treatment of Muslims with theirs. We give aid. They put their own in camps, rob them of dignity and hope, feed them an extremist version of Islam, and send them on suicide bombing missions. While we collect money to help them, they collect money to destroy our way of life. We value life everywhere. They have no respect for the sanctity of life anywhere.

We all agree that the oppressed should be liberated. The trouble is, different people have a different idea about who is oppressed.

It is clear to any one who honestly looks where the oppression is and where it comes from.

Again, I'm not saying we have no blame at all. But at least we (as opposed to our enemies) have the right to examine ourselves and change. And we can do so while still presenting a unified front. The war is on- they have repeatedly attacked us. To question is fine. But to blame ourselves and use that as an excuse not to stand together is moral cowardice as well as self defeating.

dnc101

12-06-2002, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Stacey
We Assyrians ...

I thought you were Scotch-Irish.
This is an important point to me, as I'm also Scotch-Irish. Are you saying we are descended from Assyrians? Does this mean I can claim oppressed minority status?
The implications/possibilities here boggle the mind:p !

red5angel

12-06-2002, 09:47 AM

hey! I am Scotch-Cherokee, does that make me Assyrian?:D

dnc101

12-06-2002, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by red5angel
hey! I am Scotch-Cherokee, does that make me Assyrian?:D

Only a half breed.
But it must mean that we can't be labeled 'whitebreeds' any more.:D
Oh, the advantages of being properly labeled!

(edit) And I said this would never get as light hearted as the Got Qi girls thread. Just goes to show, even I can be wrong!

ZIM

12-06-2002, 11:02 AM

DNC101-

The war will only end when these extremist factions don't have the weapons nor the infrastructure to deliver them, nor the support of radical countries or governments.

All you really said there is "the war will end when we beat the snot out of them, their cousins, anybody they talk to, do business with etc." Extremist factions take on many forms, and some are actually governments, too, depending on POV. In the process of so doing we may be approaching such identitiy ourselves.

Osama, and all these radical Muslims, hate you because you are free. They hate you because you aren't Muslim. They hate you because they need someone to hate

I realize you're saying 'radical' here. But I'd argue that saying they hate us because we're 'free' is nonsense. Although I love flattering myself as much as any, it's not true. They hate us because we support Israel, Israel are frequently NOT very much the good guy, and we go in like we own the place all the time [for at least the last 2 decades]. If we showed respect for their countries' sovereignty and religions, then maybe there'd be less of these guys. Do I think what we're doing now is wrong? No, not at all. They attacked us and it's a little too late to change course. Too bad. Its also too bad that, looking over the past 2 decades, I see increasing problems- more and more mid-eastern nations are becoming involved in anti-US actions. What we've been doing is NOT working, and I think we're only half-way through a very bad BEGINNING to an ugly future with them. WWIII? Maybe so...the axis ain't here yet.

In some respects, what Osama and crew are doing is not so much different from that of self-driven American militias with an international flavor. The Sauds favor "noble" deeds for aristocratic males in such a way that it resembles [in an odd way] the independent, bible-driven stance of a Texan right-winger. [I'll let go of this bomb and Koran when they pry my cold dead fingers from 'em. God Guns and Guts make Islam Great].

All this has been written with respect, not arrogance, on my part- please forgive the tone if it appears otherwise- not my aim, ok?

Radhnoti

12-06-2002, 12:32 PM

I agree with everything dnc101 has said...and I agree with SifuAbel. These extremists will NOT be satisfied until our "way of life" is replaced with their own. In Abel's words, "It's on." Looking for reasons, causes, self-blame is counter-productive and, most often, seen as weakness to be exploited. Osama's speech from the first of this thread was pretty plain, us or them.

I think Hussein likely to provide aid to these extremists in the form of weapons of mass destruction, his pride was just to damaged by the beating the U.S. led forces gave him in Desert Storm. And so, I support removing him from power.

They aren't willing to compromise, and we won't compromise either. The only thing that remains is for one side to destroy the other to the point that the ability or willingness to wage war (or large scale terrorism) is gone.

Just my honest opinion.

dnc101

12-06-2002, 12:32 PM

ZIM, nothing to apologize for in your tone. Like mine, it is simply straight forward and to the point. I like that. It's a lot easier to discuss things that way than dealing with vague statements and innuendo, half truths, and veiled threats or comments.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZIM
All you really said there is "the war will end when we beat the snot out of them, their cousins, anybody they talk to, do business with etc."

Interesting, and somewhat accurate, paraphrase. Wars end when one side no longer has the means to wage war and surrenders, or they are destroyed, or both sides come to the point that they can no longer afford to wage war and they negotiate. The only way to bring their side to any of these points is to 'beat the snot out of them.'

Extremist factions take on many forms, and some are actually governments, too, depending on POV. In the process of so doing we may be approaching such identitiy ourselves.

The difference is that we are not, in this case any way. And we can still question our motives and actions. Their subjects can't do that for fear of being killed as a heritic.

I realize you're saying 'radical' here. But I'd argue that saying they hate us because we're 'free' is nonsense.

Go back, read the letter and my previous posts. If you still think that is the case, we'll just have to disagree. Or you can make specific points or ask questions about what I've said on the topic.

... They hate us because we support Israel..., we go in like we own the place... If we showed respect for their countries' sovereignty and religions...,

Israel is an excuse.
And I agree that we've made some mistakes- again, read my previous posts. But we've done nothing to justify their acts of terrorism.
Respect- I've covered that previously also. We show far more respect for them than these radicals show even to their own.

In some respects, what Osama and crew are doing is not so much different from that of self-driven American militias with an international flavor. The Sauds favor "noble" deeds for aristocratic males in such a way that it resembles [in an odd way] the independent, bible-driven stance of a Texan right-winger. [I'll let go of this bomb and Koran when they pry my cold dead fingers from 'em. God Guns and Guts make Islam Great].

Big, ugly can of worms. Trust me, we don't want to go there. I'll just disagree, and if any one wants to accuse me of ducking the issue, feel free. At least I stated it openly instead of ignoring it and hoping it would go away.
I did enjoy that last paraphrase, even though I'm originally from Texas and one of the staunchest pro gun folks on this forum(we're a small but elite group here).

(edit) I forgot one of them little unbold flags, and so gave you credit for one of my statements. I doubt you'd appreciate that much.

dnc101

12-06-2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Just my honest opinion.

Hey Rad,

Allways glad to hear one of those from you- especially when you agree with me!

ZIM

12-06-2002, 12:50 PM

Glad you responded. Still respecting your POV.

There's no way at all I'd get too mad about all this, myself. I think the issue is too important to allow my own petty ego to be involved. [on edit: i'm speaking of politics here. Sure, I'm mad about attacks on the US- but I still won't get my ego involved in it. lets not be confused]

I don't believe Israel is an excuse. They've attacked Israel independently far too many times to believe that. It's just that we've stepped in so many times to protect them that it seems appropos to attack both of us.

OK, so maybe the Texan thing was going too far :D

But it WAS hilarious! :D

dnc101

12-06-2002, 01:04 PM

Well, ZIM, it's good we can disagree and still laugh about it. Just don't tell any one else, OK?

dezhen2001

12-06-2002, 06:42 PM

red5angel: there is a difference between the Quran and the Bible in the way it was created/revealed.

The Quran was revealed during 23 years of the prophet Muhammed's life (pbuh). Each verse was revealed independantly, scattered all over the book before being compiled (eg. the 1st verse to be revealed comes in chapter 96!). Thats why the context is so important... they were revealed when something specific happened, to solve a problem or to show the right way for the community to live together and grow.

eg. surat 9 (the one most 'fanatics' or whatever u wanna call them use to justify what they are doing) was revealed partly when the jews, christians and 'pagan' Quarish were attacking and trying to destroy the Muslim community they had built in Madinah (as well as refusing to let them do a pilgrimage to Makkah). Hence the reason it says at the start to abolish relaitons with those who are against you (and kill combatants if they attack you), BUT keep it with those who are honourable and friendly.

The other part was against hypocrites in their OWN ranks. THAT is the part which says (paraphrasing): "God will punish you by OUR OWN hands", so the context it is used by those evil people is just wrong.

The Quran is like this all over, which is why learning WHEN and WHY it was revealed is so important. not like the bible at all as it was written AFTER the life of Jesus. Thats why the Quran is different as things happened DURING the time of the prophet.

Thats why often the ppl who take things literally without reading the 'backup' (Hadith and Sunnah - life examples of the prophet), as well as investigating things are often off the path of mainstream Islam... just my thoughts anyway.

sorry but thought i just had to explain it more clearly :)
good discussion guys :)

dawood

Kuen

12-06-2002, 08:02 PM

They say every good lie contains a grain of truth. Well, so does every good fantasy. Osama is living in his own fantasy. One in which he is the Holy Saracen Knight come to smite the infedels in the name of Allah. A lot of those religious fundementalists are living that fantasy. When I worked at a psychiatric hospital there were several people there who spoke to gods and believed they were doing that god's bidding. He maybe intelligent but if he really believes whaat he is saying can he be sane?

dnc101

12-06-2002, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Kuen
When I worked at a psychiatric hospital there were several people there who spoke to gods and believed they were... god's

Kuen,

Do I know you? (Just kidding)

Earlier I quoted that saying that every lie contains a grain of truth. But yours is a very interesting take on it. Would the same apply to most of these fanatics? And would this dilusional state exempt them from responsibility for their actions? I obviously don't think so. I might pitty them, just as I'd pitty a rabid dog as I pulled the trigger.

Nah- I love dogs. I'd cry if I had to destroy one of my dogs, but not these zealots. Better to save our grief for their victims- especially Muslims who had to live under their repression and then were forced or brainwashed into dieing for their hatred.

And, isn't hatred a type of self induced insanity?

dezhen2001

12-07-2002, 04:11 AM

btw im 100% Scottish AND Muslim... if u guys are all Assyrians am i an Assyrian Muslim? :eek::cool:

:D

dawood

dnc101

12-07-2002, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by dezhen2001
btw im 100% Scottish AND Muslim... if u guys are all Assyrians am i an Assyrian Muslim? :eek::cool:

:D

dawood

So, your conversion to the faith was really just a return to your roots?

dezhen2001

12-07-2002, 09:45 AM

it feels that way but i dont htink i would last long in the sun over there (apart from becoming a lobster) :D

Now if only i could speak the Arabic... it does have some similar letters to Scottish (that not many people can say)...

dawood

Sharky

12-07-2002, 03:07 PM

scottish, welsh and (for obvious reasons) the spanish (plus others too) can adapt to arabic with more ease than say an english or american person.

dezhen2001

12-07-2002, 07:04 PM

interesting sharky, doesnt seem to be true so far though lol - asalam alaikum btw :)

dawood

Stacey

12-07-2002, 10:17 PM

My fellow Assyrians.

I am Scotch Irish with a bit of Cherokee. The god Assur came to me in a dream and declared me King of the Assyrians. If you want to be king, its too late, I already called it. If you feel certain that you are king, we can let the Innana and Assur decide in a bout of single combat to the death. Being king isn't all fun and games, I have two main responsiblities.

1. If your Assyrian and in the neighborhood. If you tired, you can sleep on my couch. I'll help you out any way I can.

2. I need to kill Sadaam Huseyin. Now our time has come and gone, we were once the greatest on Earth. Wer'e not about taking anybody over. We just want freedom to practice our own religion without persecution. We practice mostly Christianity and some of us still worship Assur and Inana.

Now Inana is great. There is a book out about her. Unlike your virgin Mary, Inana has skill in all the great womanly arts such as kissing the phallus. Our temple includes holy prostitutes that I must lay with the symbolise the union of state and earth. How about your Church? I didn't think so. All you get are Coffee, donuts and choir boys.

if you want to support the Assyrian liberation movement, send me a private message and I'll let you know how you can support our cause.

there are 3 million Assyrians worldwide. We are a semetic group, distinct from Hebrew and Arabs. However, as our numbers are dwindling, we are willing to accept racial converts. If you want to be Assyrian, you can. There are just 4 things I require of you, as King.

1. buy some Assyrian pride merchandise such as this http://www.cafeshops.com/cp/store.aspx?s=assyrianflag

2. begin studying modern Syriac http://www.assyrian-language.com/product_description/product_description.html

3. On government forms and applications write your race/ethnicity as other and the write "Assyrian"

4. Sign this and otherwise support your brothers and sisters. http://www.greece.org/themis/halki2/ASpetition.html

Some people might be prejudice against you, but this is our legacy. We must free our people from religous oppresion and ethnic persecution. Sponsor Assyrians into the US. We can build communities in Iowa and raise a Ziggaurat to Ashur.

Stacey

12-07-2002, 10:46 PM

http://www.acsu.ca/

http://www.assyrianvoice.net/writings/poems/read/assyrian_pride.htm

http://www.nineveh.com/

My first mandate as King can be satisfied for free here. Let this be your computor background.
http://at0ur.tripod.com/asy_pride.htm

Notice the funny cartoon....do you see the computor background that we Assyrians use?
http://at0ur.tripod.com/ams_main.htm

red5angel

12-09-2002, 08:07 AM

Dezhen - thanks for that clarification, its appreciated, also, just to interject it also depends on what POV you are coming from. I dont believe in anyones god, so that makes things a littl emore complicated ;)

Braden

12-09-2002, 09:39 AM

red5angel

"The christian bible also holds...threats against non christians"

Where?

"I pointed out that the bible says the gay life style is not acceptable, and as far as I know there are no mixed signals in the bible on this."

Where?

Stacey

12-09-2002, 09:44 AM

the lifestyle is ok...decorating, vacationing at fire island. The butt sex though thats not good.

Besides I always found those two guys in the old testament curious.

Maybe it was David and his good friend that he loved "as a man loves a woman"

Of course lesbians, prostitution, incest and sexual slavery are all ok.
Lots daughters got raped by all of sodom. I think they were dead in the morning. maybe this was before they got lot all drunk and slept with him to produce an heir.

Then there is Abram and his Sister Sarai. Keepin it in the familly. Out of these people came Israel and Palestine. No wonder.......

www.landoverbabtist.com

red5angel

12-09-2002, 09:50 AM

Braden, it's been a while since I have gone through the bible. I used to run with the local youth group, I was curious as to what Christianity was about etc...

Both of these subjects were gone over by the group while I was there. The group itself was pretty liberal in their interpretaion and generally sort of chose a more open minded view on things such as this. There were some pretty convincing versus that came up over these topics as well as others. Some of them are left to interpretation, however I know that there were some pretty specific versus on views about other religions, I believe one o fthe founding commandments of Christianity is something like "Thou shalt not practice idolitry" and it goes on to say something about the Christian God being the one god. It's there, I just can' tell you specifically. Maybe someone else more familiar with the religion here in the forum might be able to help?
On ****sexual lifestyles. I cant remember exactly but I do remember they had a guest speaker, a man who had been practicing a gay lifestyle, contracted AIDS and at some point dedicated his life to god and gave up the gay lifestyle. he gave up the gay lifestyle he said because it wasnt a Christian path and had several quotes from the bible to show this.

Ultimately the other thing you have to understand is even vague comments can be interpreted differently as well, so while some of these versus might be fairly specific, there are enough "open" comments to make it dangerous if you want to.

Also, don't get me wrong, I am not condemning and religion, Christian, Muslim or otherwise but all of them are open to fanatascism and abuse.

Braden

12-09-2002, 10:14 AM

red5angel

"Both of these subjects were gone over by the group while I was there."

You should be careful extrapolating from the beliefs of local youth groups to the contents of the Bible and/or traditional doctrine.

"...I believe one of the founding commandments of Christianity is something like 'Thou shalt not practice idolitry'..."

I believe you're thinking of one of the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them..." [Deuteronomy 5:8]

"... and it goes on to say something about the Christian God being the one god."

You probably mean another of the ten commandments, "Thou shalt have none other gods before me." [Deuteronomy 5:7]

These are also recorded in Exodus. Both of these books are in the old testament, which are the holy books of the Jewish religion. Conversely, in the new testament, Jesus is asked about the ten commandments, and he replies, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matthew 22:37] This is also in Mark.

red5angel

12-09-2002, 10:18 AM

Braden - "You should be careful extrapolating from the beliefs of local youth groups to the contents of the Bible and/or traditional doctrine"

Agreed, thats why I had to mention they did have versus or quotes from the bible to support a few sides of those arguments.

Atleast one of us knows what we are talking about!! Thanks Braden for some of the clarification. Like I said its been a while since I have been thoroughly exposed to it. If I get the chance and remember I will try to track down some of those versus for you and post them here.

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Braden

red5angel
"I pointed out that the bible says the gay life style is not acceptable, and as far as I know there are no mixed signals in the bible on this."

Where?

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

These are also recorded in Exodus. Both of these books are in the old testament, which are the holy books of the Jewish religion. Conversely, in the new testament, Jesus is asked about the ten commandments, and he replies, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." [Matthew 22:37] This is also in Mark.

Matthew 5:17-5:19

"Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass. Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens."

Braden

12-09-2002, 10:43 AM

dezhen

"...there is a difference between the Quran and the Bible... The Quran was revealed during 23 years of the prophet Muhammed's life... Thats why the context is so important... they were revealed when something specific happened, to solve a problem or to show the right way for the community to live together and grow... The Quran is like this all over, which is why learning WHEN and WHY it was revealed is so important. not like the bible at all as it was written AFTER the life of Jesus. Thats why the Quran is different as things happened DURING the time of the prophet."

Your assertion of when/how the Bible was written is incorrect. Of course much of the Bible dramatically predates Jesus, some writings were contemporary, others much later, many were never concieved of as books, and the Bible itself did not develop as the coherent unity it is incorrectly believed to be. Moreover, even if you were correct, you'd still be wrong in concluding that context is unimportant regarding Bible interpretation.

As religious people, I believe we have less liberty regarding texts we claim to be holy books than regarding other books. For instance, people can rightly enjoy and identify with a vicious, homicidal protagonist in popular fiction, because they recognize it as fiction. People can rightly excuse what are now inappropriate sexual or racist suggestions in articles from an outmoded culture, as they recognize the articles are no more than cultural artifacts of a time past. But to call something a holy book is to hold it to a higher standard.

As a Christian, if I read something clearly inappropriate in the Bible, I am very uncomfortable with dismissing it as a mythic attribution and/or cultural artifact for these reasons. If I were to take this route, I would be forced to consider - but what standard am I considering this a holy book, now, as opposed to simply a book?

This has a practical element. Holy books, and not their commentaries, are distributed to a religion's followers as their basic religious source. Unfortunately or not, we don't expect every Christian to be familiar with the writings of Aquinas or Augustine, but we do expect them to know a bit about the Bible. This places a high responsability on having accessible content in holy books. An outgrowth and elaboration of this is that the content of holy books often readily becomes dogmatically and/or blindly believed.

On these grounds, I find some parts of the Koran frightening. My knowledge of it is, of course, limited though. What do you think?

Braden

12-09-2002, 10:56 AM

Father Dog

Regarding the Leviticus quote: these are commandments given from Moses to the children of Israel as a sign of the old covenant. Like most Christians, I am not a child of Israel. Like all Christians, I am not bounded by the old covenant.

As you know, preceeding your Matthew quote regarding 'commandments', Jesus makes a series of proclamations about who is inheriting the kingdom of God, which are unrelated to the ten commandments of Deuteronomy/Exodus. And following the quote, he explains at length how his understanding of the ten commandments is different.

red5angel

12-09-2002, 10:58 AM

Braden, why arent Christians bound by the old covenants, and just for clarification what are the old covenants?

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Braden
Father Dog

Regarding the Leviticus quote: these are commandments given from Moses to the children of Israel as a sign of the old covenant. Like most Christians, I am not a child of Israel. Like all Christians, I am not bounded by the old covenant.

The instructions to refrain from engaging in ****sexuality are a command of the covenant. The statement "both of them have committed an abomination" is a statement about the act itself, one which implies that God finds it repugnant. One would presume that a devout Christian who wishes to "love the Lord thy God with all [his or her] heart" would find it unacceptable to engage in behavior that God found displeasing.

As you know, preceeding your Matthew quote regarding 'commandments', Jesus makes a series of proclamations about who is inheriting the kingdom of God, which are unrelated to the ten commandments of Deuteronomy/Exodus.

They are also not commandments. They are proclamations, as you stated, and therefore are not and would not be referred to as commandments. I fail to see, contextually, why "Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets;" refers to anything other than Jewish Mosaic law.

And following the quote, he explains at length how his understanding of the ten commandments is different.

He mentions 3 commandments, specifically, and states other situations that are also covered by those commandments (ie, looking at a woman with lust in your heart == adultery). This does not in any way state that the commandments are not to be followed, and in fact implies the opposite.

Braden

12-09-2002, 11:42 AM

"The instructions to refrain from engaging in ****sexuality are a command of the covenant."

The old covenant. The one which never applied to me.

"The statement 'both of them have committed an abomination' is a statement about the act itself, one which implies that God finds it repugnant."

Could be. I don't feel any obligation to explain or defend something which doesn't have anything to do with me.

"One would presume that a devout Christian...would find it unacceptable to engage in behavior that God found displeasing."

I'd be comfortable with that presumption.

"They are also not commandments. They are proclamations, as you stated, and therefore are not and would not be referred to as commandments."

He says these commandments. Start at the very beginning of the New Testament and read up to that point, and you won't read a single thing about the ten commandments. What then, do you think is meant by these? Something which hasn't even been brought up? Or do you think it's more likely it's referring to the list of statements which was just said? Keep in mind we're reading translations.

"He mentions 3 commandments, specifically, and states other situations that are also covered by those commandments... This does not in any way state that the commandments are not to be followed, and in fact implies the opposite."

Pay attention to his phrasing. Each time: "Ye have heard that... But I say unto you!"

Remember, we've allready discussed in this thread what he said when specifically asked about the ten commandments. That should alleviate any doubt on the matter.

And, moreover, keep reading Matthew 5. Are you sure he's only elaborating, and not disagreeing?

[Matt 5: 38-39] "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you...whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

[Matt 5: 43-44] "Ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and do good unto them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

Keeping these more obvious examples in mind, you might go back and find some new nuances is his previous "elaborations," as well as in earlier quotes like Matt 5:13.

"I fail to see, contextually, why 'Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets;' refers to anything other than Jewish Mosaic law."

My disagreement wasn't with that statement. Or, do you mean generally that you believe the new covenant places gentiles under Jewish Mosaic law?

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"The statement 'both of them have committed an abomination' is a statement about the act itself, one which implies that God finds it repugnant."

Could be. I don't feel any obligation to explain or defend something which doesn't have anything to do with me.

"One would presume that a devout Christian...would find it unacceptable to engage in behavior that God found displeasing."

I'd be comfortable with that presumption.

But you're also comfortable presuming that God's opinion of a certain act as "an abomination" has nothing to do with you?

"They are also not commandments. They are proclamations, as you stated, and therefore are not and would not be referred to as commandments."

He says these commandments. Start at the very beginning of the New Testament and read up to that point, and you won't read a single thing about the ten commandments. What then, do you think is meant by these?

I think it's likely that, since he says "least commandments" directly after "Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.", "these commandments" is referring to the aforementioned laws. Since the laws are commandments, and the proclamations he prefaced them with are not.

"He mentions 3 commandments, specifically, and states other situations that are also covered by those commandments... This does not in any way state that the commandments are not to be followed, and in fact implies the opposite."

Pay attention to his phrasing. Each time: "Ye have heard that... But I say unto you!"

And each time, follows that up with "and this is something that is ALSO adultery, etc". I fail to see how this negates the idea of the commandments.

Remember, we've allready discussed in this thread what he said when specifically asked about the ten commandments. That should alleviate any doubt on the matter.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

This implies that these two commandments are of primary importance, and (with some reading into it) that application of the law and prophets should be interpreted with them in mind. It in no way implies that the other commandments are to be ignored or inapplicable.

[Matt 5: 38-39] "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you...whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is not a commandment. He disagrees with this, but not with any of the 3 commandments he mentions.

[Matt 5: 43-44] "Ye have heard that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and do good unto them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

"Love thy neighbor" is not one of the ten commandments; it's one of the two that Jesus himself gives. "Hate thy enemy" isn't a commandment at all.

Keeping these more obvious examples in mind, you might go back and find some new nuances is his previous "elaborations," as well as in earlier quotes like Matt 5:13.

Once again; these are not commandments. In all cases of him mentioning specific commandments, the verses do not imply that he disagrees with those commandments, or considers it all right to break them.

"I fail to see, contextually, why 'Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets;' refers to anything other than Jewish Mosaic law."

My disagreement wasn't with that statement. Or, do you mean generally that you believe the new covenant places gentiles under Jewish Mosaic law?

I think that to assume that God creates laws arbitrarily paints him as capricious. I think it's a reasonable assumption that things he forbids people from doing, he does for a reason, and that things he refers to as "abominable" are distasteful to him. I think it's disingenuous to respond to "God states that that is disgusting and an abomination before him" with "I'm not a Jew, so that verse doesn't apply to me."

Braden

12-09-2002, 02:04 PM

"But you're also comfortable presuming that God's opinion of a certain act as 'an abomination' has nothing to do with you?"

I never agreed that was God's opinion.

"I think it's likely that, since he says 'least commandments' directly after 'Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.', 'these commandments' is referring to the aforementioned laws."

The aforementioned laws are also not the ten commandments.

"And each time, follows that up with 'and this is something that is ALSO adultery, etc'."

This is true of his example of adultery, but not of any of the other cases.

"This implies that these two commandments are of primary importance, and (with some reading into it) that application of the law and prophets should be interpreted with them in mind. It in no way implies that the other commandments are to be ignored or inapplicable."

I never claimed the other commandments should be ignored or inapplicable. However, as they never applied to me (nor most Christians) to begin with, and we have very clear cases of Jesus being asked for his exact thoughts on the matter, I'll go with what he actually gave for his answer, as opposed to something else.

"He disagrees with this, but not with any of the 3 commandments he mentions."

"In all cases of him mentioning specific commandments, the verses do not imply that he disagrees with those commandments..."

So you keep claiming. He phrases them the exact same way, so I'm not sure why you're so quick to believe one is a refutement while the other is a vindication. Do you suppose he's being confusing on purpose? When he says it's just as bad to swear on your head as on God's name, do you suppose he's agreeing with the spirit of the original commandment? Or that divorce and remarrying is the same as adultery? Or that being angry with someone is akin to killing? He clearly describes these differences, so I will take him at his word, as opposed to something else.

"...the verses do not imply that he disagrees with those commandments, or considers it all right to break them."

I never claimed we should break them.

"'Love thy neighbor' is not one of the ten commandments; it's one of the two that Jesus himself gives."

That's right. Jesus' commandments were not just the two of the original ten that were the most important, rather they were an entirely new assertion. This has been my argument all along, and contrary to what you asserted only a paragraph above.

"'Hate thy enemy' isn't a commandment at all."

"I fail to see how this negates the idea of the commandments."

"'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is not a commandment."

"Once again; these are not commandments."

Keep in mind, it was you, not I, who brought up Matthew 5 as clear evidence of Jesus' thought on the ten commandments.

By the way, here's the original passage you quoted, with translations repaired:

"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Emphasis mine. Food for thought.

"I think that to assume that God creates laws arbitrarily paints him as capricious."

It's certainly not something I assume.

"I think it's a reasonable assumption that things he forbids people from doing, he does for a reason..."

I agree.

"I think it's disingenuous to respond to 'God states that that is disgusting and an abomination before him' with 'I'm not a Jew, so that verse doesn't apply to me.'"

Are you claiming that if I am a religious person, I must be held accountable to every religious commandment ever made, even if it does not belong to my religion?

You never answered my question: do you believe the new covenant places gentiles under Jewish Mosaic law?

dezhen2001

12-09-2002, 02:16 PM

hey guys good discussion :)

Braden: sorry i picked a bad choice of words there and didnt mean to offend anyone :) what i was meaning to say was that the Quran was revealed and compiled during the prophet Muhammeds lifetime, whereas (as far as i was taught at school, now i have been corrected) the Bible was created before (Torah), during and also afterwards by the followers of Jesus.

That doesnt demean either in any way, i was just explaining a reason why knowing what was happening when each chapter was revealed is important to gather the meaning and circumstances you can apply these teachings. :)

As for reading the Quran and some places being frightening... hmmm... any specific parts you would like to talk about? if u wanna continue in depth you can pm and email me if you like?

To me, some of the images of Hell and what will happen on judgement day are VERY vivid, as well as some of the other content. But i find that the Quran covers life, and life sometimes IS frightening (war for example). But if you understand that things happen to test you and for a reason (even if not apparent at the time), then it helps you have faith and keep going...

Whats more frightening to me is how some people seem to mis-quote it and use the verses as 'legitimacy' for their own ends... human nature is a very scary thing :( Also those people who say they are religious, yet still manage to abuse children or oppress their wife or whatever :(

Red: sure if u dont believe in anything religious it does make things complicated, but again understanding context and the background to a piece of text being written helps to give a clearer understanding. Subsequently this helps you to apply the wisdom in the correct way.

eg. if i had a diary and one entry was just "AAAARRRRGHHH!!!!" and u read it straight off u would think i was mad! but if u also knew that day i lost my job, my gf dumped me and i got bad exam results for example it makes much more sense...

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Thats interesting :)

From an Islamic point of view the most important thing is "La illaha Allah Huwa" which means basically: "there is no God but God (Allah) and nothing else is worshipped but He". Its one of the 2 main parts of Islam... the other being the belief that Muhammed (pbuh) is the Messenger/prophet of God.

Also i cant remember the exact verses in the Quran right now (i'll find them later), but theres a Hadith (life example of Muhammed) that goes something like this:

the prophets neighbour was an old man who was Jewish. Now he didnt accept that Muhammed was a messenger of God, and every day he dumped his rubbish and waste in to Muhammeds garden. Every day Muhammed went out to his garden and picked up the rubbish and disposed of it. This happened for many years. Then one day it didnt happen, and the next day and so on... eventually Muhammed (pbuh) went next door and found the old man very sick so he helped take care of him, even though the old man treated him as an 'enemy'.

pretty similar huh? :)
this is turning in to a good discussion and i dunno about u guys but im learning a lot!

dawood

red5angel

12-09-2002, 02:25 PM

Braden, I am a little confused by your tack. Now, not being a Christian you will have to excuse my ignorance but I was under the impression that the Bible was a guide for all Christians, or Gods word? It seems to me you are saying that certain parts of the bible do not apply to christians just jews?

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"But you're also comfortable presuming that God's opinion of a certain act as 'an abomination' has nothing to do with you?"

I never agreed that was God's opinion.

Do you think it is reasonable, or unreasonable, to assume that when a statement attributed directly to God describes an act as an abomination, it is indicative of a disapproving attitude on his part towards the act itself?

"I think it's likely that, since he says 'least commandments' directly after 'Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.', 'these commandments' is referring to the aforementioned laws."

The aforementioned laws are also not the ten commandments.

He doesn't say "these ten commandments". He says "these commandments". In Leviticus, the laws being given are frequently referred to as commandments. Laws are commandments by definition. Proclamations are not.

"And each time, follows that up with 'and this is something that is ALSO adultery, etc'."

This is true of his example of adultery, but not of any of the other cases.

When he references "thou shalt not kill", he then gives other things that would also make you liable to judgement. He in no way implies that killing will then /not/ make you liable to judgement.

When he references "do not swear falsely", he then tells the people not to swear at all. This would naturally include not swearing falsely.

In all three cases where he references a commandment, he merely lists additional things that should not be done. In the cases you give examples of, which are not commandments, he directly contradicts pieces of the statements. Two different situations, despite their proximity to each other within the speech.

I never claimed the other commandments should be ignored or inapplicable. However, as they never applied to me (nor most Christians) to begin with, and we have very clear cases of Jesus being asked for his exact thoughts on the matter, I'll go with what he actually gave for his answer, as opposed to something else.

His exact thoughts on what matter? The question he was asked was "What is the greatest law?" His answer certainly gives a direct insight into what he considers most important, but in no way implies that the rest of the commandments were unimportant.

"In all cases of him mentioning specific commandments, the verses do not imply that he disagrees with those commandments..."

So you keep claiming. He phrases them the exact same way, so I'm not sure why you're so quick to believe one is a refutement while the other is a vindication.

In what way is

"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

a refutation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill?

In what way is "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

a refutation of "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"?

In what way is

"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil."

a refutation of "Thou shalt not swear falsely"?

Please explain.

"...the verses do not imply that he disagrees with those commandments, or considers it all right to break them."

I never claimed we should break them.

However, you are claiming that they do not apply to you, or any other non-Jewish Christians, which would seem to imply that it is acceptable to break them.

That's right. Jesus' commandments were not just the two of the original ten that were the most important, rather they were an entirely new assertion. This has been my argument all along, and contrary to what you asserted only a paragraph above.

It was not my intention to deny that they are a new assertion; I am denying that the new assertion means that the old assertions are necessarily no longer valid.

Keep in mind, it was you, not I, who brought up Matthew 5 as clear evidence of Jesus' thought on the ten commandments.

Correct; and I quoted the portion of Matthew 5 that is referring to the commandments. The portions you quoted were not referring to commandments, and are therefore largely irrelevant.

"I think it's disingenuous to respond to 'God states that that is disgusting and an abomination before him' with 'I'm not a Jew, so that verse doesn't apply to me.'"

Are you claiming that if I am a religious person, I must be held accountable to every religious commandment ever made, even if it does not belong to my religion?

No. If you re-read what I said, I made a clear distinction between the commandment (death for those that lie with a man as with a woman) and the statement of value judgement (that is abominable). If you don't feel that you are bound by Mosaic Law as a non-Jew, you are free to disregard the rules and applied penalties. However, you should not disregard the statements that indicate God's distaste for a certain activity, if you acknowledge that you are worshipping the same God described in the Old Testament. If you intend to keep the commandment of "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind..." then it would follow that not including things that God states are "abominable" in your lifestyle would be part of that, even though, as a non-Jew, you are not required to put to death those so doing.

You never answered my question: do you believe the new covenant places gentiles under Jewish Mosaic law?

It does not explicitly state that they are. It does not explicitly state that they are exempt from it, or that the law is no longer of value.

MonkeySlap Too

12-09-2002, 03:08 PM

Frankly, I don't even care about the dogma debates. It would be wrong to stand by and let fellow citizens get killed because they are non-beleivers or endure the onerous burden of dimmitude.

Look at how non-muslims are treated in the 'Islamic' world. No thanks. At least in the West you fight for change without being brutalized.

Just an observation. Also please note that sermons across the mid-east this week have been about how 'Islam will conqoure Rome' - as Mohommed prophesized.

Great. No thanks man. I love your food, but you guys can keep your oppression to yourselves.

Braden

12-09-2002, 03:22 PM

"Do you think it is reasonable, or unreasonable, to assume that when a statement attributed directly to God describes an act as an abomination, it is indicative of a disapproving attitude on his part towards the act itself?"

Reasonable.

"He doesn't say 'these ten commandments'. He says 'these commandments'. In Leviticus, the laws being given are frequently referred to as commandments. Laws are commandments by definition. Proclamations are not."

What is your point? There's nothing here I ever disagreed with.

"When he references 'thou shalt not kill', he then gives other things that would also make you liable to judgement. He in no way implies that killing will then /not/ make you liable to judgement.

When he references 'do not swear falsely', he then tells the people not to swear at all. This would naturally include not swearing falsely."

What is your point? There's nothing here I ever disagreed with.

As an aside, I think you're confusing two different commandments.

"In the cases you give examples of, which are not commandments, he directly contradicts pieces of the statements. Two different situations, despite their proximity to each other within the speech."

What is your point? There's nothing here I ever disagreed with.

What I did was suggested that their proximity was not accidental, but rather to draw attention to nuances which otherwise might be missed regarding how the previous cases were not direct agreements.

"The question he was asked was 'What is the greatest law?' His answer certainly gives a direct insight into what he considers most important, but in no way implies that the rest of the commandments were unimportant."

What is your point? There's nothing here I ever disagreed with.

It's unclear what you meant here, but worth noting that your usage of 'commandments' here properly does not refer to the ten commandments. The same comfound, I maintain, you made in the first place.

"In what way is...a refutation of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill?'

I never claimed it was.

"In what way is...a refutation of 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery'?"

I never claimed it was.

"In what way is...a refutation of 'Thou shalt not swear falsely'?"

I never claimed it was.

"However, you are claiming that they do not apply to you, or any other non-Jewish Christians, which would seem to imply that it is acceptable to break them."

No, in fact I never claimed that.

"I am denying that the new assertion means that the old assertions are necessarily no longer valid."

Which is a statement I never made.

"...and I quoted the portion of Matthew 5 that is referring to the commandments."

No, you quoted a portion of Matthew 5 which used the word 'commandments.' You've yet to illustrate why anyone should believe they referred to the ten commandments. In fact, you pointed out quite correctly that his following discussion related to commandments in general, and not the ten commandments specifically, which seems to be a rather strong count against your assertion.

Moreover, I corrected your mistranslation to show how even the quote you provided did not say what you claimed it did. However, you've yet to reply to that.

"However, you should not disregard the statements that indicate God's distaste for a certain activity, if you acknowledge that you are worshipping the same God described in the Old Testament."

I don't recall acknowledging that.

"It does not explicitly state that they are exempt from it, or that the law is no longer of value."

And I never claimed they had no value either.

By the way, it actually does remark explicitly on this matter.

Kind of silly that I had to make a post with such a high concentration of dispelling misattributions. You seem to be misreading my assertions that two things are not identical as meaning that I believe them to be polar opposites. I'm at least trying to be more subtle in my thought than that.

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"He doesn't say 'these ten commandments'. He says 'these commandments'. In Leviticus, the laws being given are frequently referred to as commandments. Laws are commandments by definition. Proclamations are not."

What is your point? There's nothing here I ever disagreed with.

My point is that it is reasonable based on context to assume that "these commandments" refers to Jewish Mosaic Law, and unreasonable based on context to assume that it refers to the preceding proclamations, as you asserted.

"However, you are claiming that they do not apply to you, or any other non-Jewish Christians, which would seem to imply that it is acceptable to break them."

No, in fact I never claimed that.

these are commandments given from Moses to the children of Israel as a sign of the old covenant. Like most Christians, I am not a child of Israel. Like all Christians, I am not bounded by the old covenant.

Please reconcile these statements.

"...and I quoted the portion of Matthew 5 that is referring to the commandments."

No, you quoted a portion of Matthew 5 which used the word 'commandments.' You've yet to illustrate why anyone should believe they referred to the ten commandments.

I'm not claiming that they referred to the ten commandments. I'm claiming that, contextually, it appears that they refer to Jewish Mosaic Law as a whole, which is commonly referred to as "commandments", and includes, but is not limited to, the Ten Commandments.

Moreover, I corrected your mistranslation to show how even the quote you provided did not say what you claimed it did.

Please cite your source for your translation, and explain why it is necessarily more authoritative than the King James Version, New International Version, Darby Bible, Young's Literal, American Standard Version, and New Living Translation, none of which contain your version.

"However, you should not disregard the statements that indicate God's distaste for a certain activity, if you acknowledge that you are worshipping the same God described in the Old Testament."

I don't recall acknowledging that.

Which is why I said "if." Do you in fact believe that the God described in the Old Testament is a different God than the one you worship?

"It does not explicitly state that they are exempt from it, or that the law is no longer of value."

And I never claimed they had no value either.

By the way, it actually does remark explicitly on this matter.

Please cite verse.

Stacey

12-09-2002, 04:02 PM

I told you, that religion sucks.

As an Assyrian, you will get temple prostitutes.

Braden

12-09-2002, 04:16 PM

"My point is that it is reasonable based on context to assume that 'these commandments' refers to Jewish Mosaic Law, and unreasonable based on context to assume that it refers to the preceding proclamations, as you asserted."

"I'm not claiming that they referred to the ten commandments. I'm claiming that, contextually, it appears that they refer to Jewish Mosaic Law as a whole, which is commonly referred to as "commandments", and includes, but is not limited to, the Ten Commandments."

Then we agree completely. This is all I have ever asserted. If you recall, my initial post on this thread was bringing up Matt 22 regarding the ten commandments. You replied with Matt 5, as if to counter my usage of Matt 22. I simply asserted Matt 5 was not about the ten commandments, specifically. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I'm glad we agree on that point now though.

"Please reconcile these statements."

The former statement is "it is acceptable to break the ten commandments" the latter statement is "I am not bounded by the old covenant." Do you need more explanation?

"Please cite your source for your translation, and explain why it is necessarily more authoritative than the King James Version, New International Version, Darby Bible, Young's Literal, American Standard Version, and New Living Translation, none of which contain your version."

I've checked three different King James' now: [Matt 5:18] "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot and one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Maybe you should check yours again.

" Do you in fact believe that the God described in the Old Testament is a different God than the one you worship?"

Are you asking about my personal opinion, or how I would represent Christian doctrine?

"Please cite verse."

I'm sure we can agree that gentiles were not originally under Jewish Mosaic law. Then if they are now, it is only a result of the new covenant. Since you claim that no statements of this sort are made, you must conclude they are not under that law. If this is not persuasive though, read Acts 15.

Stacey

12-09-2002, 04:36 PM

Your problem is that your religion isn't any fun. In your church blowjobs are taboo and only given by young boys.

at our church, this holy art is done by the nubile priestesses.

dezhen2001

12-09-2002, 04:37 PM

this is interesting guys... :)
dont know much about christianity so am just absorbing what ur talking about (or trying to)

dawood

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"My point is that it is reasonable based on context to assume that 'these commandments' refers to Jewish Mosaic Law, and unreasonable based on context to assume that it refers to the preceding proclamations, as you asserted."

"I'm not claiming that they referred to the ten commandments. I'm claiming that, contextually, it appears that they refer to Jewish Mosaic Law as a whole, which is commonly referred to as "commandments", and includes, but is not limited to, the Ten Commandments."

Then we agree completely. This is all I have ever asserted. If you recall, my initial post on this thread was bringing up Matt 22 regarding the ten commandments. You replied with Matt 5, as if to counter my usage of Matt 22. I simply asserted Matt 5 was not about the ten commandments, specifically. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I'm glad we agree on that point now though.

It was to counter your usage of Matthew 22. Because while Matthew 5 was not about the ten commandments specifically, the ten commandments are still part and parcel of Jewish Mosaic Law, and thus are still being referred to in part by that passage.

"Please reconcile these statements."

The former statement is "it is acceptable to break the ten commandments" the latter statement is "I am not bounded by the old covenant." Do you need more explanation?

Actually, the former statement was NOT "it is acceptable to break the ten commandments". The former statement was "no, in fact I never claimed that." Are you now stating that it is acceptable to break the ten commandments?

I've checked three different King James' now: [Matt 5:18] "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot and one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Maybe you should check yours again.

Your translation:
"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

My original translation:
"Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass."

In what way do you claim your translation alters the meaning?

" Do you in fact believe that the God described in the Old Testament is a different God than the one you worship?"

Are you asking about my personal opinion, or how I would represent Christian doctrine?

Please detail both.

Stacey

12-09-2002, 06:38 PM

Jesus and his disciples supped wine constantly. You need to take this into consideration.

Take this into consideration as well.

The bible has 100's of authors. Its written by many different people from different times, cultures, worldviews, and values.

Some of it such as the garden of Eden comes from Assyrian legend and is then changed. The snake orginally wasn't evil, it was wisdom around the life tree.

Braden

12-09-2002, 07:24 PM

"It was to counter your usage of Matthew 22. Because while Matthew 5 was not about the ten commandments specifically, the ten commandments are still part and parcel of Jewish Mosaic Law, and thus are still being referred to in part by that passage."

Or at least that's what you would have said before reading Acts 15 which I directed you to which clarified the issue, right? (That is, if the other quote from Matthew, and the overall story of the New Covenant hadn't done it allready)

"Actually, the former statement was NOT 'it is acceptable to break the ten commandments'. The former statement was 'no, in fact I never claimed that.' Are you now stating that it is acceptable to break the ten commandments?"

If this isn't a joke, you're going to have to rephrase it.

"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Out of curiosity, why did you deny this came from King James? I can't believe the ellipsis threw you off.

"In what way do you claim your translation alters the meaning?"

"I have come to do X. The law will not change until X." I bolded the part represented by X to draw attention to it, the first time I posted it.

I am not fond of method of authority, and it is only an explanation of scripture I've allready referenced, but since I seem to only be repeating myself, here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

FatherDog

12-09-2002, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"It was to counter your usage of Matthew 22. Because while Matthew 5 was not about the ten commandments specifically, the ten commandments are still part and parcel of Jewish Mosaic Law, and thus are still being referred to in part by that passage."

Or at least that's what you would have said before reading Acts 15 which I directed you to which clarified the issue, right? (That is, if the other quote from Matthew, and the overall story of the New Covenant hadn't done it allready)

Acts did clarify it; it's been an awfully long time since I'd read Acts. I agree that the Bible explicitly states Gentiles are not bound by Judaic Mosaic Law.

"Actually, the former statement was NOT 'it is acceptable to break the ten commandments'. The former statement was 'no, in fact I never claimed that.' Are you now stating that it is acceptable to break the ten commandments?"

If this isn't a joke, you're going to have to rephrase it.

It's not a joke. Are you, or are you not, stating that it is acceptable for you, as a Gentile Christian, to break the Ten Commandments? This is not part of the point I was making; I am simply curious, because you seem to have sent mixed signals in this regard. I assume that you do believe this, since they are part and parcel of Mosaic law, which you have stated (and I now agree) does not apply to Gentiles.

"I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Out of curiosity, why did you deny this came from King James? I can't believe the ellipsis threw you off.

I'm afraid you overestimate my perspicacity, or at least my ability to multi-task effectively. There are drawbacks to posting primarily during odd moments at work.

"In what way do you claim your translation alters the meaning?"

"I have come to do X. The law will not change until X." I bolded the part represented by X to draw attention to it, the first time I posted it.

"I have come to fulfil the law and the prophets. The law will not change until all is fulfilled." There are prophecies made by Jesus that were not fulfilled in his own lifetime, and have yet to be fulfilled. This was why I did not consider your restatement to be a valid point of contention; I regret not making that sufficiently clear. However, I've already conceded the point based on Acts 15, as noted.

Still waiting for statements regarding whether the God referred to in the Old Testament is the same God of modern Christianity.

Braden

12-09-2002, 09:53 PM

"It's not a joke."

I meant your analysis of my response, not the question itself.

The Council of Trent tells us that Catholics must explicitly respect the ten commandments. This seems largely to be a counter-reformation artifact (attempt at a Catholic response to reach a compromise with Protestant thought). I presume Orthodox are not bound by the same stipulation. In general, this does not seem to be applied (by which I mean no insult; eg. idols, the sabbath), and seems to me to be inconsistent with early church though regarding gentiles and Mosaic law, as discussed.

For a variety of reasons, including some discussed, I do not personally feel the ten commandments carry much spiritual weight for the non-Jewish Christian. This does not mean it's ok to break them, anymore than it's ok to drive blind-folded simply because there's no biblical stipulation against it. Jesus said, famously, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and, as discussed, "I have not come to abolish the law." These have multiple meanings. Among other things, we may conclude with good reason that early church thought welcomed local custom; that your life with Christ did not affect your life within your culture - only that you recieve His revelatory message in that context, and with all that implied. In other words, and specifically in this context, there was no reason for a Jew to stop being a Jew to recieve the Good News, nor was there any reason for a gentile to stop being a gentile. As discussed, we see this conclusion directly represented when these exact questions came to light. Nor is there reason for someone, even a gentile, being exposed to the rich cultural tradition of Judaism to disdain things Jewish in order to become more Christian.

If I were to consider each commandment individually, and taken out of context of their overall message (as they consistently are, though it's not entirely appropriate), I would conclude "You shall have no other gods before me" loses it's meaning for a Christian. The Christian God is a universal principle by definition; it would be impossible to have a god before Him, nor even a god beside or below Him, without changing the definition of what He is. Regarding "graven images", it is my opinion that idolatry does not refer properly to worship upon physically crafted objects, but rather upon a signifier of any sort, rather than upon an ultimate source. Signifiers of this sort can, and consistently do, occur in absence of physical idols, and an argument could be made that their subtlety would be all the more dangerous to those uncomfortable with more obvious signifiers. Regarding taking God's name in vain, Jesus spoke explicitly about this in Matthew. Regarding the Sabbath, the church has allready changed this, so we must conclude that it's spirit of setting aside a time for worship and contemplation is pure, if not it's specifics. The others are fairly straight forward.

"There are prophecies made by Jesus that were not fulfilled in his own lifetime, and have yet to be fulfilled."

Jesus as fulfilling law has a special and deep meaning.

"Still waiting for statements regarding whether the God referred to in the Old Testament is the same God of modern Christianity."

I don't think it's an appropriate discussion at this point.

red5angel

I didn't mean to ignore your questions. Is there anything still unclear?

Internal Boxer

12-10-2002, 06:28 AM

Hmmmm I used to find these debates interesting, but the older I get the more I realise how pointless it all is.

If you are in a postition of power, where you have to make decisions, even if you are a good leader because you are making decisions that will impact on peoples lives there will always be indivuals who feel unjustly treated.

I know this from working in a local authority, whatever decision I make will have rammifications of alienating some people. It just goes with the job.

I hear those people blaming the yanks for setting Sadam up in the first place, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Take the afgan problem, The americans did not want to strengthen the Nothern alliance against the Tailiban, cause we could have the same problem with the Northern Alliance in 10 years time!

Personally the whole situation is far far too complicated. and we are all guilty of over simplyfying the situation. Although I do think the Americans hardline attitude to Israel is very very bad. Take that ex-israeli minister who was quoted as saying "all palestines are like lice", this is no excuse for his murder, but this attitude reminds me of 1940's Germany dont you think.

The concept of a perfect nation where there is no wrong is perpetrated is somewhat of a false one, human beings are by nature greedy, hateful and distrustful.

Look at most Moslem nations, I do not know of many that have much in the way of human rights for the individual. So for me its a question of the lesser evils, sure the west is not perfect, but it is the lesser of the evils than most of the globe.

What also confuses me is this strange american attitude perpertrated by the media that the loss of american lives is somehow more important than that of any human being. :confused: :confused:

red5angel

12-10-2002, 07:43 AM

Braden - no problem man, I think your discussion with fatherdog cleared things up for me thanks!

Metal Fist

12-10-2002, 08:02 AM

First of all Osama doesn't know his history, secondly he is perpetuating a religion that was formed by a pagan worshiper and a murderous pedophile as well. Mohammad was an insecure ego-maniac that couldn't stand the fact that he wasn't the most looked up to person in the world and OBL is no different. Death is his only peace and I personally would slit his throat in front of the whole world and bury his dismembered body in a pig carcass.
Secondly the Islamic world lives in a fantasy, if one researches the history of Islam and where Mohammad got his "Allah" from they would find that "allah" was one of the old Arabic pagan gods.
The Cresent Moon they use is the sign of the devil, not the sign of a peaceful religion. All of this aside the sorry SOB OBL needs to die, and his mentally deranged followers with him. All the Islamic countries that support him should be isolated curt off from aid of any kind. Let the heathen camel humping pedophiles and defilers of the Holy Land starve and kill eachother off, who cares. I don't. And before I get flamed this is my opinion,
we all have opinions, but if I ever got a chance to "ice" the SOB
I would, no qualms about that and any of his al-queda c**k suckers as well, especially if they pull some terrorist s**t here, in which case I hope that it will be 'open-season" on "sand-monkeys". Y'all have a nice day.

P.S. To OBL , Bring it on big boy. I bet you personally don't have the balls or the spine to personally lead an attack, you let others do your dying for you. What a coward, it's a tragidy that your father didn't pull out in time when having sex with the sow that gave birth to you,OBL. Ihope you like living in caves, pretty soon it may be your final resting place, an unknown cave in and insignificant wasteland of a desert country. So long you pile of pig s**t.
:D :p

red5angel

12-10-2002, 08:30 AM

Metal Fist, alot of what you are saying sounds like speculation and assumption, "fighting words" essentially. Can you back up yourstatements with facts of some sort?

for instance :

"First of all Osama doesn't know his history"

"a religion that was formed by a pagan worshiper and a murderous pedophile as well. Mohammad was an insecure ego-maniac that couldn't stand the fact that he wasn't the most looked up to person in the world"

"Islamic world lives in a fantasy, if one researches the history of Islam and where Mohammad got his "Allah" from they would find that "allah" was one of the old Arabic pagan gods"

On this one, don't forget that the Jewish and Christian God are historically derived from a babylonian god of fertility and agriculture by the name of Yahweh.

"The Cresent Moon they use is the sign of the devil"

So these statemnets could be purely "faith" derived but you state them solidly and I wonder if you actually have facts to back them up as well or is this all feeling?

FatherDog

12-10-2002, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Braden
"Still waiting for statements regarding whether the God referred to in the Old Testament is the same God of modern Christianity."

I don't think it's an appropriate discussion at this point.

On the contrary, it is directly related to my original point.

As a Christian, if I read something clearly inappropriate in the Bible, I am very uncomfortable with dismissing it as a mythic attribution and/or cultural artifact for these reasons. If I were to take this route, I would be forced to consider - but what standard am I considering this a holy book, now, as opposed to simply a book?

This has a practical element. Holy books, and not their commentaries, are distributed to a religion's followers as their basic religious source. Unfortunately or not, we don't expect every Christian to be familiar with the writings of Aquinas or Augustine, but we do expect them to know a bit about the Bible. This places a high responsability on having accessible content in holy books. An outgrowth and elaboration of this is that the content of holy books often readily becomes dogmatically and/or blindly believed.

On these grounds, I find some parts of the Koran frightening. My knowledge of it is, of course, limited though.
What do you think?

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the necessity of holding holy books to a higher standard than regular books, and the impracticality of dismissing parts of them as mythic attribution or cultural artifacts. For that reason, just as you as a Christian find some parts of the Koran frightening, I as a person with close friends who engage in ****sexual activity find parts of the Bible frightening. Even though the law that calls for a death penalty does not apply to Gentile Christians, if you acknowledge that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, he is depicted as viewing ****sexuality as an "abomination" and worthy of death.

As you mention above, "the content of holy books often readily becomes dogmatically and/or blindly believed." For this reason, I find some parts of the Bible just as frightening as you find parts of the Koran, because just as those isolated parts of the Koran can incite fanatics to violence against perceived 'enemies of Islam', those isolated parts of the Bible frequently result in my friends, and many like them, dealing with increased hatred, prejudice, and even violence, often at times in their lives that are already difficult enough.

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 09:24 AM

metalfist: :rolleyes:

first of all... human nature dictates that whenever some community tries to spread out, sometimes it will be in a good and peaceful way, other times it wont be. Look at American history when the 'pilgrim faters' came over for example - pilgrims? Look at european history at the times of slavery... there are many examples of this.

No one is perfect, and even in the Quran and Hadith it shows that Muhammed was just a man. yes he was a Messenger of God, but in the end just a man... many parts of the Quran were not clearly understood at the time they were revealed, as knoweledge and technology at the time were not advanced enough. eg. "7 heavens" in reference to the atmosphere of the earth, talking about how the universe is always expanding, how a baby is formed in the womb, how milk in a cow is created inside the body etc. So although we say Muhammed is the best example for us to follow in Islam, we have to understand the time.

"Islamic world lives in a fantasy, if one researches the history of Islam and where Mohammad got his "Allah" from they would find that "allah" was one of the old Arabic pagan gods"

Allah in arabic is made up from a few different parts. Al = the. Lah = kinda like One God so basically its just like saying God in English... Many people seem to use this as the base of an argument but its simple Arabic. They say it was an old pagan sun God or somehting like that.

"The Cresent Moon they use is the sign of the devil"

Gee so every time theres a crescent moon in the sky u must be real scared :rolleyes: If u use the argument about the pagan sun God, then why would there be a symbol of the moon and not the sun? :confused:

if u have any facts u can link to or show us, then itd be good to see...

As for what you say about OBL and other terrorists, they are extremists far form the mainstream of Islam. But at the base of what they believe, there are some things all of us should be looking at to try and solve. They will either get what they deserve this life or will get their dues for it on the day of judgement. i know which one i would prefer.

dawood

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 09:27 AM

For this reason, I find some parts of the Bible just as frightening as you find parts of the Koran, because just as those isolated parts of the Koran can incite fanatics to violence against perceived 'enemies of Islam', those isolated parts of the Bible frequently result in my friends, and many like them, dealing with increased hatred, prejudice, and even violence, often at times in their lives that are already difficult enough.

wholeheartedly agreed on that Fatherdog :)
Thats why education and understanding are important in all things, but especially concerning a belief/life system.

dawood

Braden

12-10-2002, 10:40 AM

FatherDog / Dezhen -

"if you acknowledge that the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, he is depicted as viewing ****sexuality as an 'abomination' and worthy of death."

You continue to miss the point. This statement regards Mosaic law, and we've allready established Christians do not uphold it as a matter of religion. Of course, a Christian _may_ uphold it as a personal choice, just as a Christian may drive blindfolded as a personal choice. But the same is also true of any individual, regardless of their association with Christianity. Your stipulation here of gentile Christians is also meaningless. I've only maintained it during the discussion as it was an important distinction historically. The above remarks about Mosaic law apply to all Christians, regardless of ethnicity or previous religios affiliation.

Your remarks about Christians misinterpreting their own religion are bang on. If I didn't feel this was an important topic, I wouldn't have spent so much of my time here trying to dispel this common myth.

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 10:59 AM

You know, everyone is getting so worked up over whose god is whom, and what doctrine is correct - while the very notion of doctrine is considered a personal choice in Islam, so it's a pretty silly argument from that viewpoint.

History is history - We really don't know Mohommed, nor how things played out, so I don't judge. You can argue he was a thief, murderous warlord and pedophile. But you can also argue that life was very different then, and people needed to do what they had to to survive. (Good thing honoring the older 'books' doesn't mean having to follow the ten commandments.)

BUT - I'm more concerned about the oppression of non-muslims by muslims all over the world. We should fight back against this cruel oppression of Dhimmitude. Not all Muslims are in favor of this. Many are good people who only want to live thier lives - but to speak out is to risk being murdered by Islamist fanatics or your own government. (Like that college professor in Iran - or the hundreds of students murdered every year by the Mullahs for daring to speak up or question.) I frankly do not understand the Nation of Islam in the U.S., as Islamist countrues are the only ones still practicing slavery and the very word for an African in Arabic still means 'slave.'

We truly are in a war of cultures - but just like the crusades, I think the Western part is just a minor outside skirmish. The real war is going on in the cultures of the middle east and SAE.

Leave us alone.

red5angel

12-10-2002, 11:03 AM

Braden, another quick question, hope you dont mind a godless heathen bothering you :D !

you mention that basically upholding Mosaic law is essentially a choice and not a recquirement. Can you explain to me where you came to this conclusion? Is it in the bible? Some other source? Is this a personal conclusion?

Monkeyslap Too - what exactly is Dhimmitude?

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 11:12 AM

hi braden :)

i wasnt talking in reference to the quote you posted, but instead i was agreeing with the fact that misunderstanding and scewing the Teachings for your own needs is something very important and a big problem...

ill read the rest and reply soon :p

dawood

Braden

12-10-2002, 11:15 AM

BTW, since it was brought up again, here are some quick examples of things I find frightening in the Koran:

[the cow 2:54] And when Musa said to his people: O my people! you have surely been unjust to yourselves by taking the calf (for a god), therefore turn to your Creator (penitently), so kill your people, that is best for you with your Creator: so He turned to you (mercifully), for surely He is the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[the women 4:89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

[4:91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.

[the dinner table 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[5:64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[the immunity 9:30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Braden

12-10-2002, 11:21 AM

Dezhen - I know. I agree with you completely.

Red5Angel - It's doctrine, not a personal decision. Acts 15 spells it out explicitly. The Catholic Encylopedia explains it under the entry 'Judaizers' http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm . And even beyond these sources, it shows a misunderstanding of the main messages of the old and new testaments to presume otherwise.

BTW, when I say it's a choice not a requirement, I mean it's entirely unrelated to the religion. Like the way you clap your hands. I would argue, moreover, that choosing to believe it is entirely inappropriate as it violates other things you are required to believe, and demonstrates ignorance of the entire point of Jesus' life.

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 11:30 AM

Dhimmitude is what happens to you after Muslim conquest if you are lucky enough to not be killed for being an athiest or non-monothiest, or not enslaved (which you can avoid by converting).

Dhimmi's are 'protected minorities' or other 'people of the book'. They are restricted from public jobs, especially the military (duh), and are forbidden to proselitize for thier religion. They are punished in a thousand little ways and taxed heavily - ofen 50%-150% - for the pleasure of being 'protected' by the muslims.

Type in the words 'Dhimmi' or 'Dhimmitude' and you will find websites that detail the brutal oppression of non-muslims by the followers of the suppossed 'peaceful' religion.

This is as bad or worse than totalitarianism or communism. Pay attention here and do your homework. It is not about rascism or intolerance, it's about us standing up for our right to live unmolested by religous fanatics.

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 11:42 AM

hi MS2 :)

while the very notion of doctrine is considered a personal choice in Islam,

im confused:confused: We follow the Quran (with the 'tafseer' or explanation) and also the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammed (which consists of his teachings and application of islam throughout his life). Those 2 things are what makes someone Muslim, not a personal choice... so thats what's unclear to me...?

History is history

Exactly. But there can be many different accounts of events, just like whats portrayed in the media about recent news.

You can argue he was a thief, murderous warlord and pedophile.

Its strange, there are many passages in the Quran and Hadith that show the correct way to act when having prisoners of war for example, and how to accomodate others from other religions in to the society. People seem to be hung up on the fact that he married Aisha when she was very young... why arent people worried about the fact that many fathers used to bury their (worthless as they left the family) daughters alive before islam came?

(Good thing honoring the older 'books' doesn't mean having to follow the ten commandments.)

islam has its own rules and things with are allowed (halal) and forbidden (haram). They pretty much match the 10 commandments, as well as some others.

I'm more concerned about the oppression of non-muslims by muslims all over the world.

agreed, also it works both ways. How many muslims in the West now are being oppressed and victimized?

but to speak out is to risk being murdered by Islamist fanatics or your own government.

Now is this something to do with the religion or people in power? i know islam asks us to challenge it and ask questions, as well as speak out against oppression and do the right thing. Is Saddam Muslim? yes in some respects, but most definately NOT in others.

I frankly do not understand the Nation of Islam in the U.S.

i dont know much about the NOI in the us, apart from the fact it seems to be a black power movement(?).

the very word for an African in Arabic still means 'slave.'

its interesting that one of the first Muslims was a slave called 'Bilal'. He was being lashed and tortured by the head of Makkah because he believed "there is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God". He was lashed and even had his chest crushed by a huge stone until Abu Bakar (one of the prophets companions) bought him. He then went on to become the person who made the call to prayer (as he had a powerful and melodic voice), as well as being a good fighter. Bilal is remembered as a very strong propogator of Islam. His name is very popular from what i have seen as a name for male children :)

As for the word... there are many words in many languages that have a different meaning to the original... look at 'gay' for example... originally it means something happy and jolly, now h0mosexuality.

The real war is going on in the cultures of the middle east and SAE.

i think also the USA and the 'west' should also take a long hard look at themselves because there is OBVIOUSLY something that is causing this, and no one alone is to blame.

Leave us alone!

What exactly do u mean by this? :confused:

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 11:46 AM

hey braden, i gotta run now for dinner with friends... so i'll post back on those later when i get a chance...

MS2: its an area i dont really know anything about but i will sure do my best later when i go to meet some Muslim friends from Saudi...

take care everyone :)

dawood

FatherDog

12-10-2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Braden
FatherDog / Dezhen -
You continue to miss the point. This statement regards Mosaic law, and we've allready established Christians do not uphold it as a matter of religion.

For the second time -
I acknowledge that this statement is part of mosaic law. I am making a distinction between the statement of law (****sexuals must be put to death) and the statement of value (to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination). The first is no longer applicable. The second is indicative of attitude in a statement attributed to God, such that anyone reading the passage may come to the conclusion that God finds ****sexuality and those who practice it "abominable". This is not even, strictly speaking, a misinterpretation, and it promotes hatred against a large subgroup of humanity.

red5angel

12-10-2002, 11:51 AM

Thanks Braden, the link was very informative.

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 12:06 PM

Hi Dezhen - What I meant about personal choice is that there are a wide range of interpretations and approaches to the practice of Islam that are 'acceptable' - I won't use the word orthodox here, because outside of the basic tenets, there is no attempt at orthodoxy like there is in Christianity. Christianity postulates that there is a 'correct' doctrine and method of worship - and you should follow it, not your own experiences which can deceive you. Islam expresses self-examination. Although this often gets bulldozed by cultures.

Lots of crazy things have happened in history - but a sixty year old marrying a nine year old has always been a little out there.

Islam may have it's own rules - that make it okay to steal or kill non-beleivers. This is my fundamental concern. If you accept those parts of the Quran and the Hadith, you might as well be in the KKK.

The 'oppression' of Muslims in the West is just a bare shadow of the brutal repression non-muslims face in Islamic countries. If you look at the facts, it is hard to see how anyone of goodconcious could accept Dhimmitude as an acceptable practice. There really is no comparison when line the actions up side-by-side.

Saddam is no more a Muslim than I am. He is a secularisty who oppressed Islamistists (sp?) before he got his willy spanked in Desert storm. All of sudden he found religion. Anyways, I think he's a maroon. How about the kill-crazy Mullahs in Iran? Even the people are revolting against them now. Or the Saudi's? Try being a non-muslim in Saudi Arabia. You'll find being a Muslim in the U.S. paradise in contrast. Even 'secular' egypt brutally oppresses Dhimmi's. Your defense is pretty thin here.

You haven't altered the fact that common worse of the word 'abd' for an African means 'slave' in Arabic. The rascism drips from the word like saliva from a slathering beast.

As far as no one alone to blame - I strongly disagree. I disagreed with the US position on Palestine until they evolved a death culture. Ghandi freed India from the British without convincing children to blow each other up. But lets face it - Mosques around the world are preaching the conquest of the world for Islam. I know, I get regular translantions right from the source. If the US was the monster people like to paint it to be (or was an Islamic country) it would have conquored the world after WW2 rather than rebuild it. It's not perfect, no one is, but I'll take the attitudes of the West over enslavement to Mullahs anyday.

Leave us alone, means just that. I do not want to be your 'protected class'. The oppression and hatred that comes with Islamic conquest is a horrible thing. I didn't want to be a Nazi or a communist either. I'm not into ideaologies that preach that one group is better than another - or has the right top harm them because they don't 'beleive.'

This is not dislike of you as a person, but a wary concern for your philosophy which demands I must be punished for not being like you. So yeah - leave us alone.

Please - explain to me why it is okay to harm non-beleivers?

Could you supply an explanation of the quotes Braden supplied that puts a positive spin on those Surah?

Please explain it in context, without passing blame on the 'evil' west.

Oh, and how is your training going?:D

Sharky

12-10-2002, 12:21 PM

"im confused We follow the Quran (with the 'tafseer' or explanation) and also the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammed (which consists of his teachings and application of islam throughout his life). Those 2 things are what makes someone Muslim, not a personal choice... so thats what's unclear to me...?"

you should follow the quoran and nothing else. if you are a muslim that is. the hadith are not the 'word of god'. what the hell do you need to look for a hadith for when you are supposed to have the 'book god wrote' in your hands? do you really think god would have done a 'half job' and need humans to carry on his work?

an example of this going mad is the myth ofmuslim women having to excessively cover up or wear a headscarf. it's complete bollocks. the word 'hijab' meaning vail thing women wear on their heads is mensioned only 7 times in the quran, and never in relation to women having to wear them. if you actually look at the CHRISTIAN faith it says women have to wear vails (i can post examples), NOT in the muslim faith. if they do its either a) because of tradition and/or b) they were mislead and started reading hadiths that said they should.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
History is history
------------------------------------------------------------------------

no it isn't. history is the view of the winner. see how until recently (and even so) americans tell teh story of how they came to america - they told of evil indians etc instead of admitting to slaughtering an entire race of people.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I frankly do not understand the Nation of Islam in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it. Ask me about it. I can tell you that these people are not muslim and follow a their own twisted versions of islam. White people are the devil etc etc.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the very word for an African in Arabic still means 'slave.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

the word for african in arabic is 'afriekqui' pro nounced 'af freek-qui'. stop chatting complete bullsh*t.

Why do so many feel compelled to talk about things of which they have no comprehension?

David - please do not 'brainwashed' by other (islamic) people. You need but only read the quran and follow it - nothing else is needed.

ewallace

12-10-2002, 12:33 PM

americans tell teh story of how they came to america - they told of evil indians etc instead of admitting to slaughtering an entire race of people.
Well that's just a big pile of horse pucky Sharky. There are still 5 or 6 in New Mexico, and a handful in El Paso. And then Red5Angel, but he doesn't fully qualify. :)

Sharky

12-10-2002, 12:37 PM

I stand corrected :D

How you been bro? I still owe you a favour ;) :eek:

red5angel

12-10-2002, 12:40 PM

EW, I am just half evil hehe, you should meet my father and his people they are down right diabolical!!! Muwhahahahahahah!!!!

Besides Sharky it's all true man. I know from personal experience the cherokee were only out to eat the white people as they came to shore, sacrificing them in demonic rituals only true pagan peoples could understand.

And EW if there are still 5-6 down there then someone ain't doing their job right!!!

I think I am going to go oppress myself now.

ewallace

12-10-2002, 12:41 PM

Better lately, thanks.

I haven't forgotten. When the evil al queda (sounds like a new taco bell dish eh?) comes and finally destroys our evil nation I will call upon you to seek refuge in a more muslim-tolerant nation. :)

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 12:52 PM

Sharky - I'm glad you speak better Arabic than the people who live there. I've had a Turk and an Egyptian tell me that same story. If you are right, more power to you - but I doubt it.

Frankly, I see no one explaining the Surah's braden posted.

I'm wondering when the peaceful ones will come to kill us for daring to question the 'prophet.'

I still won't be your Dhimmi. I find the Texan within me just thinking about it.

ewallace

12-10-2002, 01:06 PM

you're part Texan MS2?

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 01:15 PM

No, but I got a little bit of it inside me, is all.

Not enough to wear boots or a funny hat tho.:D

Oh, I think it's the Taco Bell Al Queso your thinking about...

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 01:22 PM

sharky: thanks for the advice :) actually i didnt explain what i meant so clearly... i dont even really look at the Hadith often, unless its brought up in conversation or whatever. Then for me thats only to show how the prophet used his understanding of Islam in a particular situation. But really i am just on the surface of things and doing the best i can with my understanding of Quran :)

I understand it. Ask me about it. I can tell you that these people are not muslim and follow a their own twisted versions of islam. White people are the devil etc etc.

thats what i have read as well basically but dont know enough about them apart from that :)

MS2: when i get a chance to look at those verses in reference to the chapters they come from i will post what i think. But im not a Muslim scholar i've only been Muslim for around 6 weeks and only looked seriously at Islam for around 5 months...

ok guys gotta jet again be back later :)

dawood

Water Dragon

12-10-2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too

Not enough to wear boots or a funny hat tho.:D

If it wasn't for the pain I'd receive for commenting on this...

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 01:25 PM

Dezhen,
Hey thanks, that's all I ask. I'm going to see a friend this weekend who is a Sufi, and I intend to get his take on it, but only AFTER we work out.:D

Peace out.

FatherDog

12-10-2002, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by red5angel
I think I am going to go oppress myself now.

You'll go blind! :eek:

:D

red5angel

12-10-2002, 02:04 PM

Fatherdog, I'm not that good a shot. ;)

Braden

12-10-2002, 02:39 PM

FatherDog

"For the second time - I acknowledge that this statement is part of mosaic law. I am making a distinction between the statement of law...and the statement of value..."

Your argument here is flawed due to the characterization of God it implies. I should have explained this earlier rather than making a vague remark about subtle thought. We don't characterize God as some guy up in a cloud. He doesn't like certain kinds of music or food. When the word 'covenant' is used, as in new and old covenant, it does not describe an agreement or law in the sense of crime and punishment. Rather, it describes a law in the sense of a natural law, like gravity or shadows springing forth from the dark side of lit objects. This is why things contrary to the law are described as abberant - not incorrect or the results of misjudgement, but abberant: against the natural order. When I say that Christians are not bounded by the old covenant, I do not mean to imply they have drafted up a new agreement which the angels of God have signed, I mean that the Christian notion of natural law, in particular the relationship between men and God, is defined according to the new covenant. The passage you are describing does not describe an abberation against the natural law of the new covenant, but against the old. We have allready discussed this at length. The only new point here is the understanding of what 'covenant' means. I hope this clarifies the issue.

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 05:55 PM

hey guys, u asked me to look at those verses and say what i think... this is gonne be VERY long so im just warning you in advance LOL

Again, these are just my thoughts apart from what i grabbed from online so i hope its reasonably clear... if not then its entirely my fault and i apologize :)

==========================
Bismillah Al-rahmaan al-raheem...

002.047
O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all) creatures.

so this section is talking specifically to the Jews around Makkah and Madinah, as they were giving troubles to the prophet when he had moved to Madinah and was trying to set up his Muslim community. It talks specifically about Moses and the things thst happened at that time.

It gives details of the Pharoh, how the sea was parted, Moses solitude for 40 days and nights, and the main part here how his people worshipped the calf when he was gone and left their God. Which brings us to:

002.054
And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

Now to me off the top of my head that basically says a couple of different things: 1) that it would have been better for them if they had been killed, rather than commit these wrong doings... or even 2) that Moses DID say this, and then God forgave the people because they repented and realise what they did (as thats one of the 99 attributes of God).

Even after these verses it still goes on to mention different things that happened at the time of Moses and even after that (but before Jesus). Then it does say:

002.062
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So really to me its talking about having the correct faith in God and doing the right thing by following what He has revealed.

=====================

now on to the next one you mentioned. if you look at the verses around them, its clear to see that these are talking about warfare: )bold are the parts i think are important and verse u mentioned)

002.190
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

002.191
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

002.192
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

002.193
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

002.194
The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

So to me its clear to see that this is talking about the kind of people who have invaded your land and oppressed you and your people as well as doing many bad things against you (for example the way Pharoh was treating Moses' poeple - killing men and children and leaving women etc.). "but do not transgress limits", which means that fighting has to be done in as just a way as possible, and if they cease, then you cease. Also covered with that in other verses are things like: only fight combatants and leave women and children alone. How do deal with war 'captives' etc. and many other things.

=======================

004.089
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

If you look at the preceeding few verses, as well as the explanations, you see this is clearly talking about hypocrites from within the Muslim community at Madinah who are trying to bring down everything the Prophet and companions are working for.
It does sound rather harsh, but then it says:

004.090
Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

So again this seems to talk about both sides of the coin - people who are aggressively trying to bring down the Muslim community of the Prophet FROM THE INSIDE and those who have just left and want to get on with their own lives, or have been swayed from their faith by tempttion and other things. This also leads on to the next verse:

004.091
You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

So again this is talking about those people who are aggressive even though their are offers of peace made from the Muslims. To quote directly from a site that helps explain these things: "All the discourses in this Surah deal with three main problems which confronted the Holy Prophet at the time. First of all, he was engaged in bringing about an all round development of the Islamic Community that had been formed at the time of his migration to Al-Madinah. For this purpose he was introducing new moral, cultural, social, economic and political ways in place of the old ones of the pre-Islamic period. The second thing that occupied his attention and efforts was the bitter struggle that was going on with the mushrik Arabs, the Jewish clans and the hypocrites who were opposing tooth and nail his mission of reform. Above all he had to propagate Islam in the face of the bitter opposition of these powers of evil with a view to capturing more and more minds and hearts." ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau4.html )

================================

005.051
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

005.052
And thou seest those in whose heart is a disease race toward them, saying: We fear lest a change of fortune befall us. And it may happen that Allah will vouchsafe (unto thee) the victory, or a commandment from His presence. Then will they repent them of their secret thoughts.

Again its a continuation of the previous Surat (chapter), talking about the troubles from the Arabic tribes, Jews, Christians and hypocrites form inside the ranks. Not a general assumption of the Christians and Jews, as i already mentioned the story of the prophet and his Jew neighbour before...

===============================

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 05:58 PM

009.029
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

009.030
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Fight doesnt mean to literally fight (in all cases), but also to keep practising your religion and growing in understanding. Also at this time they were still having many troubles with the Jewish tribes, Christians and pagans as well as rebels from their own community. Also it tells us that you have to keep striving against those people who have been given the 'scripture' (whether Jew, Christian and Muslim), and choose to reject it (hence the 'curse' which means that they have been turned away from God and the right Path. Also it mentions so called Jiyzah (the tax), which is something i think MS2 asked about before. Based on the Quran and Shariah (Islamic Law), there is some information here below:

"Before I explain why Allah Almighty ordered the Muslims to fight the Pagans and the People of the Book until they all either submit to Islam or pay the "Jizyah", I'd like to point out that many people were exempt from the "Jizyah" or "taxes":

"Jizyah: the root meaning is compensation.......there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifah), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service."

As to the fighting, when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him started spreading the Message of Islam to the Arabs, he had to eventually deal with 365 Pagan Arab tribes, 3 Jewish tribes (Bani Qaynuqaa, Bani Al-Natheer, and Bani Quraytha) and some Christian tribes as well.

The Muslims did not live Islam easily 1400 years ago. They had to deal with many battles that were imposed upon them. They also had to deal with many betrayals done by other tribes who broke their peace treaties with the Muslims and joined as alliance with other enemy tribes and fought the Muslims."

"The Muslims have to pay taxes (which is 2.5 percent of their annual income) under the name of "Zakah" to the "Muslim Financial Institute" or the "House of the Muslim Money" which all goes to provide welfare to the poor and the needy citizens; from both Muslims and non-Muslims. The poor and the needy (such as the Orphans, Widows and the disabled) from the Muslims are exempt from paying taxes.

The non-Muslims have to pay the same amount under the name of "Jizyah", which is taxes that don't go to help poor and needy Muslims, but instead, it goes to the government to (1) Provide protection for them since they are a minority; (2) Provide means for them to practice their religions freely by building Temples or Churches for them.

The amount varied for the non-Muslims a little from cases to cases, but they were all close to the 2.5% of the annual income range.

As I mentioned above for the non-Muslims, there are exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifah), for slaves, and for monks and hermits.
It is important to know that the law in the Islamic State applies to everyone; both Muslims and non-Muslims equally. Meaning, that murderers and rapists get executed, adulterers and adulteresses get flogged 100 stripes, etc...

Muslim citizens are not superior over the non-Muslim citizens in the Islamic State. All people are treated equally as far as the Islamic Law is concerned."

Now of course this is in an ideal situation - it doesnt take in to account a harsh ruler or dictator imposing what he wills on his own people. This is taken from Quran and the teachings of the Prophet.

======================

So to me from what i have read and seen so far, most of these verses are more specific towards the things that were happening at the time in regards to all the opposition faced by the Muslims. Not really against those religions which are all part of the same family as Islam. This is why i said understanding the context of the Quran is important, and i dont understand much i just hope what i did was clear :confused:

======================

hope everyone survived that!

dawood

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 06:00 PM

i dunno if i should really have posted so much there as i probably will be attacked and flamed for it... but for Braden and MS2 and whoever is interested i hope it helps :)

time to take a break!
dawood

Sharky

12-10-2002, 06:09 PM

ding dong merrily on high

these problems all arise from taking out of context and also happen from teh arabic -> english translation of the quran.

nice posts dehzen, but please this is bordering on futile. do you want me to take some verses out of context out of the old testiment or the new testiment and post them here? talk about jews sacrificing animals? etc? it gets us no where and no one is gonna change their minds. there are sites litererally dedicated to dissing other religeons, and for example they go and take bits of the quran or the bible and show them in a bad light.

why bother? believe what you want and leave others alone. i really don't care if someones invented a duck-worshipping religeon, have a nice day. why put so much effort into putting other people down?

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 06:25 PM

The 'context' game is all over the internet, and in terms of religous discussion, is a valid effort to create an awareness of points of view.

So thanks for the time Dezhen.

Now it's my turn to be busy, I'll be back later with a response.

It's unfortunate that the conditions you point out for Dhimmitude and the poll tax are not followed, and instead Dhimmitude reflects a horrible oppression on non-muslims throughout the 'muslim' world.

How do the scriptures regarding non-aggression justify the wars of expansion?

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 06:26 PM

hey sharky :)

im not putting anyone down... someone asked me what i thought of those ayat so i posted what i thought. it was also good for me to read them and think about what they mean and can teach me.

im pretty much finished with this, but its a good discussion and one of the more civil ones i have been on when talking about islam so thanks guys!

dawood

Sharky

12-10-2002, 06:29 PM

nothing i say will change your mind, so what's the point?

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 06:31 PM

:) im done

wasalam
dawood

Sharky

12-10-2002, 06:34 PM

those last two posts weren't directed at you dehzen mate, but rather at monkeyslap too

FatherDog

12-10-2002, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Braden
FatherDog
Your argument here is flawed due to the characterization of God it implies. I should have explained this earlier rather than making a vague remark about subtle thought. We don't characterize God as some guy up in a cloud. He doesn't like certain kinds of music or food. When the word 'covenant' is used, as in new and old covenant, it does not describe an agreement or law in the sense of crime and punishment. Rather, it describes a law in the sense of a natural law, like gravity or shadows springing forth from the dark side of lit objects. This is why things contrary to the law are described as abberant - not incorrect or the results of misjudgement, but abberant: against the natural order. When I say that Christians are not bounded by the old covenant, I do not mean to imply they have drafted up a new agreement which the angels of God have signed, I mean that the Christian notion of natural law, in particular the relationship between men and God, is defined according to the new covenant. The passage you are describing does not describe an abberation against the natural law of the new covenant, but against the old. We have allready discussed this at length. The only new point here is the understanding of what 'covenant' means. I hope this clarifies the issue.

It certainly clarifies the issue vis a vis your own position and faith. My point, however, was not to attack your faith, but to draw your attention to the fact that the statements you made about the Quran can be just as easily and just as appropriately applied to the Bible. As you said:

Holy books, and not their commentaries, are distributed to a religion's followers as their basic religious source. Unfortunately or not, we don't expect every Christian to be familiar with the writings of Aquinas or Augustine, but we do expect them to know a bit about the Bible. This places a high responsability on having accessible content in holy books. An outgrowth and elaboration of this is that the content of holy books often readily becomes dogmatically and/or blindly believed.

As you noted, holy books, and not their commentaries, are distributed to a religion's followers. Your understanding of what 'covenant' means is certainly a valid one, but it is not one which is (to my knowledge) spelled out in the Bible. In order to be aware of this particular interpretation, which is neither an intuitive nor dictionary definition of covenant, a religion's followers might have to be familiar with the commentaries of the Bible, or the writings of Aquinas or Augustine, which (as you rightly pointed out) we do not generally expect the average person to be. Lacking that understanding of the nature of God's covenant, it is easy to see how such a statement in the Bible may (and has) provoked or excused hatred and division, just as verses you cited in the Quran have, divorced of contextual understanding, provoked or excused terrorism and 'holy' war.

Sharky

12-10-2002, 06:55 PM

and lastly, of course they don't justify terrorism, what are you retarded?

Sharky

12-10-2002, 06:56 PM

heh, sorry that's a little harsh eh?

Braden

12-10-2002, 07:01 PM

FatherDog - actually, the nature of the covenants is quite thoroughly laid out in the Bible. All the contextual understanding you need to avoid these sorts of errors are between it's covers and your ears. And, of course, if we're talking about Christians, you need to keep in mind they have the perspective of being followers of Jesus (which is quite a different perspective than, for instance, taking every statement in both testaments out of context and maintaining it to be true).

"...the statements you made about the Quran can be just as easily and just as appropriately applied to the Bible."

Yes, by people who haven't made an honest attempt to read and think about it. There's not much anyone can do about that, other than try to clarify misunderstandings when they arise.

I mean, look at the mental gymnastics you have to do to defend your conception of the Leviticus quote. Jesus is asked straight out about the law, and he tells us to love God and our neighbour. So you go back and read Leviticus. The law he just changed. Which the Apostles tell us straight out is not for us. Which was never meant for us in the first place. And you conclude from that a mental state which you infer God must have. And use that mental state of God's to violate what Jesus just said about loving your neighbour. Surely anyone making an honest effort to be a follower of Jesus would have just listened to him in the first place.

I did not rely on Augustine nor Aquinas to point out these mistakes.

Sharky

12-10-2002, 07:03 PM

hush infidel

Serpent

12-10-2002, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Sharky
hush infidel

:D

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 08:54 PM

Sharky, you hold a lot of anger, don't you.

I can be always be persuaded, but reason must be used. Why has the Islamic world been and continues to be an aggressive place, seeking to conquor and control those around it, especially since the PC version of Islam taught in the West says otherwise?

Why the oppression of non-muslims?

No one gives a good answer, and the religous Mullahs are not speaking out against it, rather they often support it.

Why?

And why would good people tolerate such cruelty?

Look at the Sudan, Indonesia, the Balkans, the Phillipines. It's the umma leading the slaughter. Why?

I look at this behavior and see that the actions of the umma are very different from the spiritual claims.

Please offer considered, reasonable explanations for these continuous attrocities and the religous support of them, and lack of religious outrage against it.

Why can't you?

If you can't, and all you can do is avoid the topic by trying to sound superior, or not confronting it head-on, I'll be happy to drop the subject. Your mind is already closed.

All I want to see are facts to support Islam as a religion of peace, and not a tool of murderous expansion and oppression towards non-muslims. Let's hear about the good works! Let's hear how great Dhimmitude is! Let's hear how you really aren't suppossed to beat non-beleivers about the head, and neck, killing them if need be!

The problem is, the actions speak much louder than the words.

As the Christians on this board would say: "You will know them by the fruit of the labors."

Sharky

12-10-2002, 09:19 PM

"Sharky, you hold a lot of anger, don't you."

Only when you come out with stupid comments like that.

Are you really saying that these things happen only in muslim coutnries? What about nearly every other country in teh rest of asia and africa? Are they living in harmony? The same thing happens. It's to do with poverty and lack of development. People twist religeon to support their regimes. What is taught in many countries bares very little in relation to what the quran says. The introduction of hadiths and other "fake-religeous books" has twisted things further.

I really don't want to converse to you much longer, and i seem to have lost a lot of respect for you, as you do nothing but set out to put down islam. i've done this SO many times on the net, arguing with people, providing answers to 'evil' verses from the quran and i'm really bored of it. - they never change their mind and it ets me nowhere. It's the reason i left this forum in the first place. Now i come back and get sucked into it all again. You follow what you want i am not trying to convince anyone of anything anymore. Do what you want.

"Your mind is already closed."

The irony of that statement :eek:

Anyway you know what they say about arguing over the internet.

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 09:23 PM

Hi MS2... wow some tough questions there buddy! :eek:

All i can say is this: to be honest i have no idea about any of that. i'm a 22yr old guy trying hard to finish uni, make enough money to pay my rent and buy food, and then be with the person i wanna be with. i dont know anything about politics or war, so im not even gonna attempt it.

i can read from the Quran what it tells us, such as:

049.013
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

and also the Hadith:

Book 032, Number 6247:

Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that he reported it from his Lord, the Exalted and Glorious: Verily I have made oppression unlawful for Me and for My servants too, so do not commit oppression. The rest of the hadith is the same.

Book 032, Number 6248:

Jabir b. Abdullah reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Be on your guardagainst committing oppression, for oppression is a darkness on the Day of Resurrection, and be on your guard against pettimindedness for pettimindedness destroyed those who were before you, as it incited them to shed blood and make lawful what was unlawful for them.

but does that mean that the people will follow these things?

nope.

It doesnt matter where you go, people are people... even if they are trying to be just and fair, power leads to greed which leads to corruption and many other things. im sure if we look at ANY country we can find bad things as well as good things. Even the USA and the UK, everywhere.

One of the main things in Islam is that the Quran shows you the clear and right way, but its up to you to follow it or not. THAT is the 'test' (of being here), and you will be judged on it... So you can do what u want to, just know that.

im afraid thats all i can say as i dont know about anything you mentioned :)

dawood

dezhen2001

12-10-2002, 09:29 PM

very true sharky... lesson learned :)

dawood

Braden

12-10-2002, 09:30 PM

Sharky

"if you actually look at the CHRISTIAN faith it says women have to wear vails"

Where does it say this?

"do you want me to take some verses out of context out of the old testiment or the new testiment and post them here?"

Sure.

"providing answers to 'evil' verses from the quran"

So could you explain the ones I posted?

MonkeySlap Too

12-10-2002, 09:58 PM

Hey Sharky,
Really, my mind is open, but I do not hear any responses other than 'there are other factors like poverty' and 'other people do bad things too.' That does not explain the support of those bad things by mullahs or the lack of opposition to these evils by those same religious leaders. Reminds me of the medeival popes.

Simple questions.

Again, I think you do know people by the fruits of thier labors. I see a lot of rotten fruit that seems to contradict the message, and it is very frightening.

BTW, Dezhen, you've done a fine job of explaining (not defending) your faith. If only your version of Islam were prevelant, I'd be right there with you. I hope you may have noticed that I pretty much have the same problems with all Middle Eastern religions - a lot of good intentions wrapped up in making 'us' better than 'them'. It is an unfortunate by product of religions that were designed to build nations around.

Well, we'll see what my buddy the Sufi has to say...

FatherDog

12-11-2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Braden
FatherDog - actually, the nature of the covenants is quite thoroughly laid out in the Bible. All the contextual understanding you need to avoid these sorts of errors are between it's covers and your ears.

I don't think that the concept of covenant as a natural law as opposed to a contract between God and man is laid out thoroughly at all in the Bible; if you believe so, I'd be interested to hear chapter and verse.

"...the statements you made about the Quran can be just as easily and just as appropriately applied to the Bible."

Yes, by people who haven't made an honest attempt to read and think about it.

....just as the verses you cite in the Quran can be said to be easily misinterpreted only by people who haven't made an honest attempt to read and think about it.

I mean, look at the mental gymnastics you have to do to defend your conception of the Leviticus quote. Jesus is asked straight out about the law, and he tells us to love God and our neighbour. So you go back and read Leviticus. The law he just changed. Which the Apostles tell us straight out is not for us. Which was never meant for us in the first place. And you conclude from that a mental state which you infer God must have.

When a statement attributed to God says "this is abominable" (not, I must note, "this is aberrant"), I don't think inferring an attitude on God's part is "mental gymnastics".

Nor is it at all mental gymnastics to quote Romans 1:26-28
"For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use into that contrary to nature; and in like manner the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust towards one another; males with males working shame, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was fit."

or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Be not misled; neither profligates, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor partakers of ****sexuality...will inherit the kingdom of God"

or 1 Timothy 1:8-11
"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted."

And use that mental state of God's to violate what Jesus just said about loving your neighbour. Surely anyone making an honest effort to be a follower of Jesus would have just listened to him in the first place.

I could just as easily say that it is mental gymnastics to take statements applying to specific situations, as you did with the Quran, and use them to violate what Allah says about peacefulness and brotherhood.

You seem to be holding up the Quran as an example of a "holy book" that, in being "held to a higher standard" falls short, while attempting to assert that the Bible does not. I do not see the verses you have provided as demonstrating that the Quran is any more able to be misinterpreted or used as a justification for hate and discord than the Bible.

FatherDog

12-11-2002, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Braden
Sharky

"if you actually look at the CHRISTIAN faith it says women have to wear vails"

Where does it say this?

I imagine he's probably referring to 1st Corinthians 11:5-9

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

"Covered" may or may not be interpreted as "veiled" (although it has in some translations) and this refers only to praying whilst in a church. Still not a glowing example of enlightened attitudes towards women, though.

dezhen2001

12-11-2002, 11:46 AM

MS2: interesting posts...

for me all i am trying to show is that you shouldnt judge Islam because of the actions of PEOPLE. its up to them to get educated and understand Islam, as well as follow what they have learned and believe. Its their choice. you make a decision and there are consequences.

Just like its peoples choice here to either investigate what Islam is really about or jump on the bandwagon along with everyone else. Me - i decided to research and became Muslim :)

Even its like martial arts... u can have the best lineage and Sifu, but if you dont practise, understand the principle, understand the situations, then it can become warped and corrupted.

As for 'us' and 'them'... i still really dont see what you mean? Sure theres always Muslims and non-muslims. Its natural to seek cameraderie with people who share somehting you do. Like a family. But i already posted the links which tell you about honouring friendship and partnerships with honest and decent people.... Also i forget the verse number but: "We made you in to tribes so that you may know one another (not that you may dispise one another)"... its really pretty clear imo :)

i dont really know where im going with this lol,
take care anyway,

dawood

Braden

12-11-2002, 11:55 AM

"When a statement attributed to God says 'this is abominable', I don't think inferring an attitude on God's part is 'mental gymnastics'."

You may think it acceptable to disregard what Jesus says by inferring a mental state upon God based upon a law you are told does not apply, but you cannot rightly apply your bias to Christians.

"not, I must note, 'this is aberrant'"

Why must you note that? Just to be contrary?

"Nor is it at all mental gymnastics to quote Romans 1:26-28"

I never called quoting Romans 1 mental gymnastics. The passage also doesn't condemn ****sexuality, if that's what you mean to imply.

"or 1 Timothy 1:8-11"

Ditto.

"or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10"

Ditto. You should read 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 before proceeding to 9-10. His point is not to judge and condemn, and not the opposite as I assume you're implying.

"I could just as easily say that it is mental gymnastics to take statements applying to specific situations, as you did with the Quran, and use them to violate what Allah says about peacefulness and brotherhood."

Please do! I patiently await their explanation.

"Still not a glowing example of enlightened attitudes towards women, though."

Informed by the attitudes towards women in the surrounding culture, I would conclude the exact opposite.

MonkeySlap Too

12-11-2002, 12:02 PM

Hi Dezhen,
I'm not so much for or against as concerned by what I see. I regularly read the sermons and TV lectures by leading Islamic scholars in the middle East - most - but not all (as I alluded to earlier, there is a cultural war going on within Islam that is uniquely it's own) of what I read would make a Nazi or Khmer Rouge proud. Profound messages of hatred and teaching children to hate - which according to you is not correct.

So what do I beleive? The leaders or a new student?

Which leads me to my original questions - is there no responsibility in the umma to stand up against the abuse of Dhimmi status or the oppression and crimes done in the name of Islam?

There is plenty of dissent in the West for policies people find unjust - why doesn't a religion built on the concept of social justice rise up against these injustices? It takes time, but it can happen.

It's a profound question that befuddles me, as I like to think the best of people.

But as I do not want to be murdered or made a Dhimmi, I prefer to be left alone. Hence 'leave us (those who would be seriously oppressed by a muslim regime) alone.

I'll PM you after my weekend Sufi visit, and see what I learn.

dezhen2001

12-11-2002, 12:12 PM

like i said, how can i judge whats going on in the middle east - im not there and cant even speak the language... im not a politician or priest or warrior, im just a muslim whos living his life trying to be close to God and help other people however i can.

As far as i can see on the surface there are many different sects in islam now, much the same way as christianity i guess... so agreed, there may be some problems. But i wonder why these came about and why some of them are more outlandish whereas the Quran is very clear and direct.

its something that puzzles me, but hey im just young and naive :)
(thank goodness)

let me know what your Sufi friend says i would be interested to hear :)

have fun anyway lol
dawood

MonkeySlap Too

12-11-2002, 12:52 PM

Sure enough.

These days I'm particularly interested in the goings on in Iran. The West really stepped in it when they put the last shah in power, and f-'d up even more when they let the Ayatollah take over as punishment to the shah for supporting higher oil prices.

But do you know the one country that produced spontaneous vigils in support of the US after 9/11? Iran.

Despite the visciousness of the 'judicial council' and the institutionalized murder in the name of Islam, the people have a real sense of social justice going back to thier gathic zarathustrian days. I don't believe they will sacrifice thier religion, just the monsters running it. It's kind of like watching mideival Europe, only with TV and automatic pistols.

So - I just keeping coming down to individual responsibility to stand-up against the mis-use of your beleifs. If it is, indeed, mis-use.

Peace.

FatherDog

12-11-2002, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Braden
You may think it acceptable to disregard what Jesus says by inferring a mental state upon God based upon a law you are told does not apply, but you cannot rightly apply your bias to Christians.

And Osama may think it acceptable to disregard what Allah says by inferring a specific statement in context refers to all situations out of context, but he cannot rightly apply his bias to all Muslims, nor can you point to his bias as a failing of the Quran instead of a failing in himself.

"Nor is it at all mental gymnastics to quote Romans 1:26-28"

I never called quoting Romans 1 mental gymnastics. The passage also doesn't condemn ****sexuality, if that's what you mean to imply.

Really? It calls it a "vile lust" and described as a "shame". What do you consider condemning, exactly?

"or 1 Timothy 1:8-11"

Ditto.

Describing ****sexuals as not among the just, and including them in such listing with murderers, kidnappers, and patricides/matricides. Ditto.

"or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10"

Ditto. You should read 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 before proceeding to 9-10. His point is not to judge and condemn, and not the opposite as I assume you're implying.

Actually,

"When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"
(emphases mine) seems to be saying not to bring disputes between Christians before non-Christian courts. And even if it precludes judging other Christians (which is all it seems to be referring to, not judging nonbelievers) specifically excluding ****sexuals from the kingdom of Heaven doesn't exactly promote tolerance and brotherhood.

"Still not a glowing example of enlightened attitudes towards women, though."

Informed by the attitudes towards women in the surrounding culture, I would conclude the exact opposite.

As a Christian, if I read something clearly inappropriate in the Bible, I am very uncomfortable with dismissing it as a mythic attribution and/or cultural artifact for these reasons.

I believe "attitudes towards women in the surrounding culture" would be considered a "cultural artifact".

Braden

12-11-2002, 01:49 PM

"And Osama may think it acceptable to disregard what Allah says by inferring a specific statement in context refers to all situations out of context, but he cannot rightly apply his bias to all Muslims, nor can you point to his bias as a failing of the Quran instead of a failing in himself."

I've never made any remarks here about Osama in any context.

"Really? It calls it a 'vile lust' and described as a 'shame'. What do you consider condemning, exactly?"

You seem to be picking translations with care. King James says they are given to 'vile affections,' which is a description of their godless state, not of ****sexual love. Similarly, not shame, but 'men with men working that which is unseemly'. Moreover, none of this is a reference to a sin of ****sexuality which put them in a state of chaos, but rather to a sin of godlessness which put them in a state of chaos. The reference to ****sexuality is an allusion to the myth of Sodom. If you start at the beginning of the passage, that their sin is godlessness and not ****sexuality is perfectly clear, even in absence of recognizing the allusions: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptable God into an image made like a corruptable man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts [Romans 1:22-24]."

"Describing ****sexuals as not among the just, and including them in such listing with murderers, kidnappers, and patricides/matricides. Ditto."

A sodomite isn't a ****sexual. Moreover, you're missing the entire point of the passage. Paul includes himself in that list as well, as he states in no uncertain terms a few lines after your quote: "And I am the foremost of sinners. [1 Timothy 1:15]."

"Actually...seems to be saying not to bring disputes between Christians before non-Christian courts. And even if it precludes judging other Christians (which is all it seems to be referring to, not judging nonbelievers) specifically excluding ****sexuals from the kingdom of Heaven doesn't exactly promote tolerance and brotherhood."

You don't understand the quote. The saints are in heaven, not a court down the street.

"I believe 'attitudes towards women in the surrounding culture' would be considered a 'cultural artifact'."

What's your point?

FatherDog

12-11-2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"And Osama may think it acceptable to disregard what Allah says by inferring a specific statement in context refers to all situations out of context, but he cannot rightly apply his bias to all Muslims, nor can you point to his bias as a failing of the Quran instead of a failing in himself."

I've never made any remarks here about Osama in any context.

No, but your original remarks were regarding portions of the Quran that made you afraid, presumably in regards to what their interpretation might lead to. I am furnishing you with verses from the Bible which make me afraid for the same reason. Your statement regarding the interpretation of them is equally well-applied to interpretations of the Quran.

You seem to be picking translations with care.

Actually, when at home, I've been using the Revised Standard Version, because that's the version I happen to own. When at work, I've been doing a google search for "online Bible" and using whatever one came up first. It's probably been the New International Version most of the time, since that's the one that seems to have the most web versions floating around.

King James says they are given to 'vile affections,' which is a description of their godless state, not of ****sexual love. Similarly, not shame, but 'men with men working that which is unseemly'. Moreover, none of this is a reference to a sin of ****sexuality which put them in a state of chaos, but rather to a sin of godlessness which put them in a state of chaos.

...however, the ****sexuality was included as a list of things that, as results of the sin of godlessness, are looked at as wrong and undesirable.

"Describing ****sexuals as not among the just, and including them in such listing with murderers, kidnappers, and patricides/matricides. Ditto."

A sodomite isn't a ****sexual.

But a ****sexual is a sodomite.

Moreover, you're missing the entire point of the passage. Paul includes himself in that list as well, as he states in no uncertain terms a few lines after your quote: "And I am the foremost of sinners. [1 Timothy 1:15]."

Yes, he includes himself in that list as the foremost of sinners. Assuming that being the foremost of sinners is regarded as negative and undesirable, and murdering, kidnapping, and patricide/matricide is regarded as undesirable, the inclusion of ****sexuality/sodomy in the list implies strongly that it, too, is extremly undesirable.

"Actually...seems to be saying not to bring disputes between Christians before non-Christian courts. And even if it precludes judging other Christians (which is all it seems to be referring to, not judging nonbelievers) specifically excluding ****sexuals from the kingdom of Heaven doesn't exactly promote tolerance and brotherhood."

You don't understand the quote. The saints are in heaven, not a court down the street.

Which doesn't change the fact that ****sexuals explicit exclusion from the kingdom of heaven implies strongly that ****sexuality is simply wrong and evil.

"I believe 'attitudes towards women in the surrounding culture' would be considered a 'cultural artifact'."

What's your point?

My point is that, as you said, things you find troubling in a holy book cannot be dismissed as cultural artifacts of the time. Requiring women to cover or shave their heads when they pray and subordinate themselves to their husbands is not an enlightened attitude towards women, and you cannot claim it is by comparing it to surrounding cultural attitudes of the time.

Braden

12-11-2002, 03:32 PM

"No, but your original remarks were regarding portions of the Quran..."

The difference is that I am not simply saying, 'It could be the case that you are wrong about these Christian ideas.' I am saying, this is in fact the case, and demonstrating how your misunderstanding comes from selective quoting. Yes, it could be the case that this is also true of the parts of the Quran I quoted. I never claimed otherwise. However, raising the spectre of possibility is not proving. If you feel this is the case, I encourage you to demonstrate it.

"...however, the ****sexuality was included as a list of things that, as results of the sin of godlessness, are looked at as wrong and undesirable."

If all dogs have four legs, not everything with four legs is a dog. This is one of the most basic errrors of logic. Lustfullness of any sort was seen as undesirable, and the result of a society without a moral beacon. But the passage is explicitly clear on the point that their sin was godlessness and not ****sexuality.

"But a ****sexual is a sodomite."

Not necessarily. A sodomite is a kind of male prostitude associated with religious practice.

"Yes, he includes himself in that list as the foremost of sinners. Assuming that being the foremost of sinners is regarded as negative and undesirable, and murdering, kidnapping, and patricide/matricide is regarded as undesirable, the inclusion of ****sexuality/sodomy in the list implies strongly that it, too, is extremly undesirable."

If your conclusion is that a ****sexual is equally as sinfull as Paul, then I will agree. I'm not sure that's a particularly ****ing remark though.

"Which doesn't change the fact that ****sexuals explicit exclusion from the kingdom of heaven implies strongly that ****sexuality is simply wrong and evil."

I never agreed with such an exclusion. Paul's point in Corinthians, as I pointed out and you seemed to accept, was that we cannot judge. I'm not sure how you rationalize using this scripture then as a basis for judgement. Nonetheless, if you're going to do so, you should at least read the entire thing - including the end where he notes (as he does in Timothy), that any such list will include all of us, yet nonetheless we are saved via the grace of God. You should also check your King James which does not translate it ****sexuals.

"My point is that, as you said, things you find troubling in a holy book cannot be dismissed as cultural artifacts of the time. Requiring women to cover or shave their heads when they pray and subordinate themselves to their husbands is not an enlightened attitude towards women, and you cannot claim it is by comparing it to surrounding cultural attitudes of the time."

'Enlightened attitude' by definition is a social construct. You can't define a society's attitude without reference to society, surely. That the Christian conception is a dramatic step forwards is a completely reasonable point to bring up. Yet all the same, I'm not dismissing anything as a cultural artifact; I'm only staying informed about cultural reality. Once again, you should have read the entire passage rather than an isolated quote. After commenting on cultural practices of his time, Paul notes that things are different, notably equal, in the eyes of God: "Nevertheless, neither is man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [1 Cor 11:11-12]."

FatherDog

12-11-2002, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"No, but your original remarks were regarding portions of the Quran..."

The difference is that I am not simply saying, 'It could be the case that you are wrong about these Christian ideas.' I am saying, this is in fact the case, and demonstrating how your misunderstanding comes from selective quoting.

...according to your interpretation of Christianity. The fact is that many people DO interpret these passages in the way I have outlined, rather than the way you do. This is why I take issue with your apparent belief that the Bible is somehow less subject to misinterpretation or use as an excuse than the Quran.

Yes, it could be the case that this is also true of the parts of the Quran I quoted. I never claimed otherwise. However, raising the spectre of possibility is not proving. If you feel this is the case, I encourage you to demonstrate it.

I believe dezhen has already done so, if you look back a ways. To summarize; they are statements regarding specific situations, and to apply them generally goes against statements by Allah in the Quran regarding general practice. 'Selective quoting', in other words.

"But a ****sexual is a sodomite."

Not necessarily. A sodomite is a kind of male prostitude associated with religious practice.

That is the definition of sodomite in Hebrew. Since the New Testament was not written in Hebrew, it does not apply. That is most certainly not the Greek definition of sodomite, which is what the New Testament was written in and translated from.

"Yes, he includes himself in that list as the foremost of sinners. Assuming that being the foremost of sinners is regarded as negative and undesirable, and murdering, kidnapping, and patricide/matricide is regarded as undesirable, the inclusion of ****sexuality/sodomy in the list implies strongly that it, too, is extremly undesirable."

If your conclusion is that a ****sexual is equally as sinfull as Paul, then I will agree. I'm not sure that's a particularly ****ing remark though.

My conclusion is that something that is listed with murder, patricide, fratricide, kidnapping, lying, and 'the greatest of sinners' is being referred to as something wrong and undesirable.
I find it difficult to understand how being grouped together with these can refer to ****sexuality as anything other than negative.

"My point is that, as you said, things you find troubling in a holy book cannot be dismissed as cultural artifacts of the time. Requiring women to cover or shave their heads when they pray and subordinate themselves to their husbands is not an enlightened attitude towards women, and you cannot claim it is by comparing it to surrounding cultural attitudes of the time."

'Enlightened attitude' by definition is a social construct. You can't define a society's attitude without reference to society, surely. That the Christian conception is a dramatic step forwards is a completely reasonable point to bring up. Yet all the same, I'm not dismissing anything as a cultural artifact; I'm only staying informed about cultural reality. Once again, you should have read the entire passage rather than an isolated quote. After commenting on cultural practices of his time, Paul notes that things are different, notably equal, in the eyes of God: "Nevertheless, neither is man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [1 Cor 11:11-12]."

Whether or not women and men are equal in the eyes of God, the instruction that women be subordinate to their husband, be silent in church, and cover their heads when they pray, is making it very clear that they are not to be treated equally by men. Paul is not 'commenting on cultural practices of his time', he is instructing people in what should be done. The verse does not say "this is how things are in our churches", it says "ought" and "let her"; these are statements of instruction. If you accept that Paul's words are divinely inspired as part of the Bible, it follows that, although they are equal in the eyes of God, women are to be treated as subordinates by their husbands and not given a voice in the church.

Braden

12-11-2002, 05:31 PM

"This is why I take issue with your apparent belief that the Bible is somehow less subject to misinterpretation or use as an excuse than the Quran."

I never espoused such a belief. I've only been speaking with how a Christian would interpret the Bible. It's absurd to consider every possible use of the book.

"I believe dezhen has already done so, if you look back a ways. To summarize; they are statements regarding specific situations, and to apply them generally goes against statements by Allah in the Quran regarding general practice. 'Selective quoting', in other words."

Dezhen elaborated some historical concerns explaining the writing of the passages. This is quite different than explaining what they mandate. When I say selective quoting, I mean ignoring the words around a quoted passage in order to alter it's meaning, which has been the primary source of your misunderstandings so far. I would truly love to be shown that I have made similar mistakes in quoting the Quran.

"That is the definition of sodomite in Hebrew. Since the New Testament was not written in Hebrew, it does not apply. That is most certainly not the Greek definition of sodomite, which is what the New Testament was written in and translated from."

No, sodomite is neither a Greek nor a Hebrew word, but an English word we've used to translate Greek and Hebrew concepts. Nonetheless, in neither case does it refer to ****sexuality in the general sense.

"My conclusion is that something that is listed with murder, patricide, fratricide, kidnapping, lying, and 'the greatest of sinners' is being referred to as something wrong and undesirable."

I see you've put Paul and ****sexuals on the same list. Do you contend now it is Christian thought to believe Paul is an abomination?

"I find it difficult to understand how being grouped together with these can refer to ****sexuality as anything other than negative."

First, it's not ****sexuality but pedastry in this context. Secondly, even so, it's being grouped together with everything in existence. Either one of these in isolation would violate your argument.

"Paul is not 'commenting on cultural practices of his time', he is instructing people in what should be done."

The reasoning he provides is that people find it most pleasing when women have long hair and men have short hair [1 Cor 11:13]. This is quite clearly a cultural practice. He contrasts this explicitly with the word of God, which is that both sexes are equal [1 Cor 11:11].

"If you accept that Paul's words are divinely inspired as part of the Bible..."

If you believe Paul's words are divinely inspired, then you believe him when he says flat out that God sees man and woman as equal regardless of church practice, you don't construct a house of cards to try and prove the exact opposite.

"...women are to be treated as subordinates by their husbands and not given a voice in the church."

Where does it say this?

Dedication

12-11-2002, 08:41 PM

Alot of what he said was true and alot of it is bull****.

I hate religions, and i think the jews are a crock of **** over in isreal, but the palestinians are JUST AS BAD. Palestine was never owned by anyone except westerners after the Roman Empire.

All these islamics are hypocrites themselves and refuse to help themselves or change their ways.

Yes the US has done alot of bad ****, but re-read that speech and all the things he points out that we have done......hes done alot of himself. Yes hes mr.anti american oil, but he comes from a billionare family of oil merchants.

Now in spite of the atrocities we have committed, ask yourself this.

Is a member of your family more important to you then the average guy on the street? If yes, then you will see why our 3000 is more important then the muslims we are going to kill.

If you answered no, then you are darwinism gone wrong and you should be an extinct human.

Politics and morality are on opposite ends of the spectrum, sometimes you just gotta take a bite outta that big **** sandwhich though.

FatherDog

12-11-2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Braden
I never espoused such a belief. I've only been speaking with how a Christian would interpret the Bible. It's absurd to consider every possible use of the book.

And yet, there are many, many Christians, often prominent Christians, who interpret it in the way that I have outlined. This is why, as I stated, many portions of the Bible frighten me, just as many portions of the Quran frighten you. I am not speaking just of verses that could be used to justify hatred, but verses that have been used to justify hatred, repeatedly and widely.

Dezhen elaborated some historical concerns explaining the writing of the passages. This is quite different than explaining what they mandate.

The selected passages, shown in context, are specific instructions regarding a specific situation to a specific listener. They do not obviate the general mandates against violence and hatred that Allah gives in other parts of the Quran, any more than God instructing the Hebrews to kill their enemies in Canaan obviates "Thou shalt not kill".

No, sodomite is neither a Greek nor a Hebrew word, but an English word we've used to translate Greek and Hebrew concepts. Nonetheless, in neither case does it refer to ****sexuality in the general sense.

To be more specific, the Hebrew word that is translated as "sodomite" means a male temple prostitute, as you said. The Greek word that is translated as sodomite does not, and is close in meaning to the modern English term, said meaning including most ****sexuals.

"My conclusion is that something that is listed with murder, patricide, fratricide, kidnapping, lying, and 'the greatest of sinners' is being referred to as something wrong and undesirable."

I see you've put Paul and ****sexuals on the same list. Do you contend now it is Christian thought to believe Paul is an abomination?

No. I contend that when someone lists a large number of things, all of which are explicitly defined as sinful elsewhere, and ends the list with "and I am the greatest sinner of all", it is reasonable to assume from context that the ONE THING on that list not elsewhere explicitly defined to be a sin, is also regarded as a sin.

First, it's not ****sexuality but pedastry in this context.

I find nothing in either translation that supports this. Please explain.

Secondly, even so, it's being grouped together with everything in existence.

No, it is not. Everyone in existence is described as a sinner. Everything in existence is not being described as a sin.

"If you accept that Paul's words are divinely inspired as part of the Bible..."

If you believe Paul's words are divinely inspired, then you believe him when he says flat out that God sees man and woman as equal regardless of church practice, you don't construct a house of cards to try and prove the exact opposite.

He says that they are equal in the eyes of God, and immediately says that they are to be treated differently by men. Okay, so he says that they should be viewed as equal, but treated as subordinates. This isn't a house of cards; this is pure hypocrisy.

"...women are to be treated as subordinates by their husbands and not given a voice in the church."

Where does it say this?

I've already quoted it to you twice.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Braden

12-12-2002, 12:31 AM

"And yet, there are many, many Christians..."

Mostly a result of the many, many people who insist on telling everyone else what's in the Bible without having first understood it themselves.

"The selected passages, shown in context, are specific instructions regarding a specific situation to a specific listener. They do not obviate the general mandates against violence and hatred that Allah gives in other parts of the Quran, any more than God instructing the Hebrews to kill their enemies in Canaan obviates 'Thou shalt not kill'."

Actually, I find both of these cases problematic.

"The Greek word that is translated as sodomite does not, and is close in meaning to the modern English term, said meaning including most ****sexuals."

There are multiple Greek words translated as sodomite. Taking the passages individually, some are referring to pedastry, and others are clearly emulating the Old Testament style. Neither of these cases describes ****sexuality in general. And even if they did, as I have pointed out, my argument still stands.

"I contend that when someone lists a large number of things, all of which are explicitly defined as sinful elsewhere..."

The bulk of things on the list are not defined elsewhere as sinfull in the big scheme (ie. not against an explicit commandment). In the more general sense, immoral lust, ****sexual or heterosexual is 'lawless and disobediant', as has been discussed. This is directly from the scripture whereas your interpretation is not.

"Okay, so he says that they should be viewed as equal, but treated as subordinates. This isn't a house of cards; this is pure hypocrisy."

No, it's precisely what he says it is. It's a statement of cultural aspect explicitly noted for it's difference (but not opposition) to a fundamental statement of natural order. _Exactly_ like he says, just as women are appealing to us with long hair, so are they appealing to us in this context with veils. So as this is not misinterpreted, he remarks specifically that he does not mean this to be indicative of any gender-related value statement in the eyes of God. What more could you ask for?

"Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands..."

Which was directly preceeded by "Be subject to one another..." and directly followed by "Husbands love your wives." and finally "... so the two shall become one."

Amazing how dropping off a few words can change the meaning of a quote.

I think we should stop this while the optimist in me still thinks you're being that dishonest by accident.

FatherDog

12-12-2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Braden
"And yet, there are many, many Christians..."

Mostly a result of the many, many people who insist on telling everyone else what's in the Bible without having first understood it themselves.

I don't see how this alters or even relates to my point.

Actually, I find both of these cases problematic.

Which is my point; the Bible is just as problematic in many areas as the Quran is.

"I contend that when someone lists a large number of things, all of which are explicitly defined as sinful elsewhere..."

The bulk of things on the list are not defined elsewhere as sinfull in the big scheme (ie. not against an explicit commandment). In the more general sense, immoral lust, ****sexual or heterosexual is 'lawless and disobediant', as has been discussed. This is directly from the scripture whereas your interpretation is not.

The list again: (this time from King James, since it is what you seem to prefer as a translation)

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For *****mongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

In King James, the corresponding clause of the list to what is translated as "****sexuals" elsewhere seems to be "them that defile themselves with mankind." This syntax is used elsewhere to denote male ****sexuals. If you look at the list in total, I find it difficult to believe that you would conclude that including ****sexuality in it portrays it in anything other than a negative light. And in fact, its inclusion in the list that immediately follows the phrase "not..for a righteous man, but for" implies that a ****sexual is necessarily not a righteous man, and the fact that the list immediately precedes the phrase "any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" implies that ****sexuality is contrary to sound doctrine.

"Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands..."

Which was directly preceeded by "Be subject to one another..."

"Subject" can mean "dependent on". "Submit" can mean nothing but an inferior role.

and directly followed by "Husbands love your wives." and finally "... so the two shall become one."

I don't see how this alters the meaning of "submit yourself to your husbands." If it had been followed by "likewise, husbands submit yourselves to your wives" that would have been one thing, but "love" and "submit" are two very different things. As a child, my parents loved me, and I (for the most part) submitted and obeyed their instructions. I don't consider that a good or enlightened model for a husband/wife relationship.

You still have not addressed the issue of Paul's instruction that women should have no voice within the church.

I think we should stop this while the optimist in me still thinks you're being that dishonest by accident.

Ad hominem attacks, veiled or otherwise, do nothing to advance your argument.

Braden

12-13-2002, 05:24 PM

"I don't see how this alters or even relates to my point."

I never disagreed. In fact, I agreed, as I have throughout this conversation with many of your points. Your insistence on assuming everything I say is in implied defiance of your posts, even when I explicitly point out otherwise, has been a consistent problem in conversing with you.

"Ad hominem attacks, veiled or otherwise, do nothing to advance your argument."

It wasn't offered up to advance my argument. It was offered up to explain the ceasing of my argument. An attack against an error someone makes in presenting supporting points isn't an ad hominem anyway.

FatherDog

12-14-2002, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Braden
"I don't see how this alters or even relates to my point."

I never disagreed. In fact, I agreed, as I have throughout this conversation with many of your points. Your insistence on assuming everything I say is in implied defiance of your posts, even when I explicitly point out otherwise, has been a consistent problem in conversing with you.

I didn't say you disagreed. However, given what my actual argument was, your response seemed like a complete non sequitor.

"Ad hominem attacks, veiled or otherwise, do nothing to advance your argument."

It wasn't offered up to advance my argument. It was offered up to explain the ceasing of my argument. An attack against an error someone makes in presenting supporting points isn't an ad hominem anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]

That wasn't an attack on an error; it was an implication that I am dishonest. That is an ad hominem attack.

You still haven't responded to my other points.

Braden

12-14-2002, 12:34 AM

"That wasn't an attack on an error; it was an implication that I am dishonest. That is an ad hominem attack."

I apologize sincerely if you took it to mean offense. I worded it "that dishonesty" purposefully, to refer to the specific misrepresentation of omitting parts of a quote to change it's meaning, as I had just discussed.

"You still haven't responded to my other points."

Since you quoted me remarking on ending the argument, I have to believe you read it. Is there some ambiguity I am missing here?

FatherDog

12-14-2002, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Braden
"That wasn't an attack on an error; it was an implication that I am dishonest. That is an ad hominem attack."

I apologize sincerely if you took it to mean offense. I worded it "that dishonesty" purposefully, to refer to the specific misrepresentation of omitting parts of a quote to change it's meaning, as I had just discussed.

No, you didn't. You worded it "that dishonest" to refer to an unspecified degree of dishonesty.

I have never omitted part of a quote. I have occasionally omitted the sentences before and after a quote, because I did not consider them relevant. In those cases that you did consider them relevant, I have responded to your concerns; you have not responded to my clarifications.

"You still haven't responded to my other points."

Since you quoted me remarking on ending the argument, I have to believe you read it. Is there some ambiguity I am missing here?

You remarked "perhaps we should". Which is not an affirmation that you definitely will. And you are continuing to argue; you are simply ignoring certain points I am making and arguing about the manner in which I am arguing.

Braden

12-14-2002, 01:00 AM

"No, you didn't. You worded it 'that dishonest' to refer to an unspecified degree of dishonesty."

What an absurd remark.

"You remarked 'perhaps we should'. Which is not an affirmation that you definitely will. And you are continuing to argue; you are simply ignoring certain points I am making and arguing about the manner in which I am arguing."

Then I will clarify. My intention was to definitely cease. I apologize for the ambiguous phrasing.

While I have continued to reply to questions you level at me on a public forum, you will note I have been faithfull in avoiding the argument concerning Christianity.

FatherDog

12-14-2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Braden
"No, you didn't. You worded it 'that dishonest' to refer to an unspecified degree of dishonesty."

What an absurd remark.

Once again, you choose to belittle my argument without actually addressing it.

"You remarked 'perhaps we should'. Which is not an affirmation that you definitely will. And you are continuing to argue; you are simply ignoring certain points I am making and arguing about the manner in which I am arguing."

Then I will clarify. My intention was to definitely cease. I apologize for the ambiguous phrasing.

While I have continued to reply to questions you level at me on a public forum, you will note I have been faithfull in avoiding the argument concerning Christianity.

I note that you have been faithful in arguing about how I am arguing, rather than addressing my actual points.

Braden

12-14-2002, 01:38 AM

"Once again, you choose to belittle my argument without actually addressing it."

Call someone a liar, when they defend themselves, say they're belittling you. Interesting strategy.

"I note that you have been faithful in arguing about how I am arguing, rather than addressing my actual points."

Honestly, I couldn't find an actual point in your post to reply to. Characterizing my argument strategy like that after page upon page of me dissecting your posts phrase by phrase is ridiculous.

If you wish to continue the earlier discussion, provided it's in an appropriate manner, feel free to email me. The address is on my profile. I won't be replying here further, ontopic or off.

FatherDog

12-14-2002, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Braden
"Once again, you choose to belittle my argument without actually addressing it."

Call someone a liar, when they defend themselves, say they're belittling you. Interesting strategy.

Yes, it is. Makes me wonder why you employed it.

"I note that you have been faithful in arguing about how I am arguing, rather than addressing my actual points."

Honestly, I couldn't find an actual point in your post to reply to. Characterizing my argument strategy like that after page upon page of me dissecting your posts phrase by phrase is ridiculous.

My actual point was, as it has always been, that the Bible contains just as many troublesome points as the Quran. You disagreed, and attempted to defend the troublesome points of the Bible I brought up. You did so successfully in a few cases, and I admitted such. In others, you did so unsuccessfully. When I pointed them out, you stopped talking about them, and started talking exclusively about how I have been 'dishonest' by quoting out of context. I replied by pointing out, quite correctly, that calling me dishonest is an ad hominem attack and not relevant to the discussion, and also that each time you have disagreed with a verse because of its lack of context, I have quoted the surrounding passages and detailed why I did not consider them to change the meaning of the underlying verse. You did not reply to that, choosing to instead continue to belittle my arguments rather than addressing them. You have, indeed, been "dissecting my posts phrase by phrase", but each time you have ignored phrases that you (presumably) had no answer to, and continued to ignore them when I brought up the fact that you were ignoring them (for instance, Paul's instruction that women have no voice in the church.) With each successive post, your 'dissection' grew more and more selective, until we reach the current point, where you do not address any of my assertions, but continue to quibble about who called who what.

If you wish to continue the earlier discussion, provided it's in an appropriate manner, feel free to email me. The address is on my profile. I won't be replying here further, ontopic or off.

I have no faith that an e-mail correspondence will be any different than this series of posts. Since you've already discontinued discussion of anything relevant to my point by means of simply ignoring it, I have no problem with discontinuing the discussion itself.