|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the Bible, it states that God decrees that the punishment for working on the Sabbath is being stoned to death. That's pretty clear - there's no confusion apparent in the verse - you work on a Sunday, you're dead, end of story. There's no verse that explicitly states that that requirement is repealed. I'm a lawyer, and I can tell you that I would need a lot more clarity before I advised a client to work on a Sabbath, if we were governed by biblical law. Their relatives would sue the pants off me if I did. I hope I've made the point that the Sabbath has been fulfilled and that it was given to Israel in any case and not to anyone else. We don't just reinterpret things, there are clearcut historical reasons why the Law no longer applies to Christians, reasons foreshadowed in the Old Testament but fulfilled in the New. As I understand it some sects of Islam reinterpret some of the language in their sacred writings in a spiritualized way that removes the physical violence, and that's probably because they are better people than their religion; but other sects call that hypocrisy and the actual language in the books is so clearly physical the spiritual interpretations sound rather flimsy and subjective, and there is nothing really certain about them. I'd certainly rather admit to the country those who are members of the spiritualizing sects of course, however tenuous that system of thought. There has also always been some confusion about Christian interpretations of the Bible, but they aren't just subjectively determined, there are historical and theological contexts that define their meaning, making them more stable it seems to me. And in any case none of them promotes any kind of violence against anybody.
Now I know that you and other Christians believe that Jesus wiped away that law - and I'm extremely happy you do. Um, He didn't "wipe it away," He fulfilled it so that we are freed from its judgment of it. Most of the Moral Law is still in operation because it's a universal law that operates inexorably on all of humanity, because we are made in God's image, whether or not it is recognized in any given culture. But that may be a nitpick in this context. In any case, wherever the Sabbath is still observed, since some Christian sects do still believe in observing it, it is recognized to be fulfilled in Christ even among them, and it is not enforced by the severe punishments of the OT. I've been part of a church that preached that we should honor the Sabbath Day by making it a day spent in honoring God and quiet forms of recreation, and avoiding all the forms of work we do the rest of the week; but that's hardly to be compared with how the Israelites were taught to observe the Sabbath. I think it probably was punished in some of the Puritan colonies but not by the death penalty and I'm not even sure it was punished at all so take it with a grain of salt. I always thought it was nice when businesses closed on Sunday, one day a week when work stopped in honor of God. No punishments, just a nice custom. That's really as far as any western country will go to honor the Sabbath these days so you don't have to worry how you deal with your clients.
But the basis upon which you believe that is very convoluted. Not really. Sometimes people are confused about what it means, but I think the explanation I've given above should sort it out pretty well.
It involves interpretations and references to history and practice, and above all an appeal to belief. You turn to scholarly debate and interpretation, because the language is completely nonspecific and vague and open to interpretation. So when we point out that the Bible advocates this brutal practice, you tell us that a proper Christian interpretation is that this is an incorrect view. Well, yes and no. I think it should be answered as I answered it in the previous post. It is about the extreme importance of the Sabbath in God's relationship; with the nation of Israel, so that to profane it or violate it was an extreme offense and deserved an extreme punishment, and again, there wouldn't have been a single soul among the Israelites who hadn't heard the law thousands of times, making them inescapably guilty if they disobeyed it. I would guess nobody did ever disobey it for that reason, unless it was during those periods when the Law was forgotten, which did happen. But since nobody in those times knew the Law anyway, nobody would have been punished either.
And that is precisely what the vast majority of Muslims do when it comes to the Quran. They explain why their religion does not in fact include following the more outrageous and brutal things that people can cherry pick if they're minded to. I don't consider anything in the Law of God to be "brutal." abe: Or let me rephraise that: it's not GRATUITOUSLY brutal which is what you mean. /abe The Law is very clear and its punishments are clear and they apply only to the nation of Israel anyway. I'm very glad there are Islamic sects that interpret away the violence in their writings, but there really isn't any comparison. They are explaining away actual commands for the reader to commit violence against unbelievers. The reason we don't follow the Old Testament Law is theologically explained by the mission of Christ, but there was never any command to the reader to hurt anyone.
So you're allowing yourself to explain away the brutal aspects of the Bible, but not allowing Muslims to explain away the brutal aspects of the Quran. As usual I think there is a failure here to understand the different contexts involved.
There's the basic problem. Seems to me this basic problem is due to your inability or disinclination to recognize the clearly different contexts.
(And the double standard is not explained by the lying thing - the vast majority of Muslims take the relevant passages (which are pretty broad, and don't say what you've been told they say) to mean they can lie about being a Muslim to save themselves from being killed etc., not as a nefarious method of taking over the world).
In context that is exactly what it means, and it is not reserved for that one dire situation in any case. And Christians by the way are forbidden to lie to protect ourselves. That is considered to be betraying Christ.
And of course there are extremist fundamentalist Muslims who are vile specimens of humanity - No, I don't believe that. I don't think any of this has to do with the character of the people themselves. It's not Muslims, it's the ideology of Islam that is the problem. What turns one Muslim into a jihadi and not another is probably not some shared characteristic among the two groups. Sometimes the Muslim may be an idealist captivated by the idea of dying for God; sometimes it may be a Muslim who feels he has nothing left to live for. The Muslims who took the planes to their doom on 9/11 were known to be very nice intelligent guys in their regular lives.
just as there are extremist fundamentalist believers of other faiths. The more "fundamentalist" a Christian becomes, the more the Bible is taken to heart, and therefore the more kind and self-sacrificing he becomes and the less inclined to fleshly expressions of violence. It's all in the ideology, in the books rather than in the person. The fundamentalist Muslim is steeped in commands to violence, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his personality, it's all about the ideology.
But they are in the overall minority - most people of faith in my experience are broadly kind, attentive and peace-loving. I'm glad, but you absolutely misunderstand the dynamics involved in these two religions.
So apply the same standards - either admit that the Bible is a brutal, warmongering, tribal handbook, or do what you want us to do with you, and listen to what actual Muslims actually say about their faith. Sorry, you've got it all upside down and backwards. I truly AM sorry. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Faith writes: THEY ARE ALREADY ENEMIES by their ideology. Millions of muslims live peacefully and thankfully in the US. Islam is not our enemy. When we start discriminating against muslims based on their religious beliefs, then we are showing ourselves to be an enemy of Islam. It is really that simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
THEY ARE ALREADY ENEMIES by their ideology. Millions of muslims live peacefully and thankfully in the US. Islam is not our enemy. When we start discriminating against muslims based on their religious beliefs, then we are showing ourselves to be an enemy of Islam. It is really that simple. I could have been clearer because I always mean to say it's the IDEOLOGY THAT IS OUR ENEMY. Any Muslim however holds that ideology. If they belong to a moderate sect they will spiritualize the violent teachings, but unless you know exactly who those are, you don't know who is an enemy or not. Again, it's about the IDEOLOGY they hold, it is not about the people themselves. We ARE an enemy of Islam, not Muslims as such but ISLAM, the IDEOLOGY that is SHEER EVIL. What we need to know about individual Muslims is what form of the ideology they hold, and since that is subject to fluctuation even that doesn't guarantee a permanent attitude of peace.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9975 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: I could have been clearer because I always mean to say it's the IDEOLOGY THAT IS OUR ENEMY. Millions of muslims living peacefully in the US, contributing at every level in our economy, disproves your claim. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
This is NOT ABOUT THE OP, it's a specific point I brought up. What is "this"? My Message 66 was a reply to the OP. In Message 66 I said this, in reply to a point your quoted in your OP:
quote:quote:Odd you never used this to defend Obama's actions. That's what I've been talking about. That's what this discussion is about.
I've understood that all your convoluted posts on this subject are addressing that one simple point that started it all The statement "Odd you never used this to defend Obama's actions" is not all that convoluted. You replied:
quote: So I replied, in Message 69 with examples of you and other right wing people protesting when he issued EOs. You then called me a liar in Message 71 I reiterated my point in Message 102:
quote: That's the only point I've been making. It's not convoluted. It's perfectly straight forward. The convolutions have been yours alone. Why not provision me with an answer to the query I raised in the first place? Why are you brining up different points and telling me that that is what this discussion is about, in contradiction to the facts that I was responding to a point you raised in the OP that was nothing to do with Obama making similar executive orders?
I understood that Obama had MADE A SIMILAR EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TRUMP'S but nobody protested him. And I have agreed to address this problem, once you had addressed the point I was originally making. You continue to avoid addressing my issue, so I don't see why I should address this point of yours. Address my point, and I'll address yours. This is the crux of a discussion in good faith. If you can't engage in such a discussion, we're just going to continue pointlessly going around in circles. I asked a question of a point YOU raised. Please address that point, I'll address your later points at that time. You could kill two birds with one post by addressing my criticism and telling me what about the two EOs was similar, and why those similarities are relevant to the protests to Trump's EO.
You are bringing in all kinds of other things that do not address this point. One thin only, a note regarding YOUR argument brought in the OP. You are declining to defend my criticism and are trying to shift the discussion to some other point that I have never made and have as yet never commented on. Address me and my points in good faith, I'll return the favour.
You haven't given me any reason to consider any other issue. You raised it in your OP. That's the only reason to consider my counterargument to what you raised in the OP. If you are incapable of defending your OP, why should I address something else that isn't in your OP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
could have been clearer because I always mean to say it's the IDEOLOGY THAT IS OUR ENEMY. Millions of muslims living peacefully in the US, contributing at every level in our economy, disproves your claim. No it doesn't. You've missed the whole point. You don't get it and I guess you won't until it reaches critical mass. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Christians have killed more Americans in the USA than muslims since 9/11.
If you even allow for the population disparities, muslims have been less violent. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Christians have killed more Americans in the USA than muslims since 9/11. Evidence please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Justifying Trump's policies with reference to an entirely fictitious incident, "the Bowling Green massacre" which "most people don’t know [about] because it didn’t get covered".
Kellyanne Conway Cites Fake Bowling Green Massacre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the Bible, it states that God decrees that the punishment for working on the Sabbath is being stoned to death. That's pretty clear - there's no confusion apparent in the verse - you work on a Sunday, you're dead, end of story. Saturday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
If Christianity can change Christ's birthday from Spring to the middle of winter, it won't bat an eyelid about moving the sabbath a day forward ;-)
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Theodoric writes: Christians have killed more Americans in the USA than muslims since 9/11. Faith writes: Evidence please Faith, what you are doing here is taking on a sucker's bet. The percentage of Muslims in this country is tiny; on the order of 1 percent. The total population of Muslim's is something on the order of 3 million out of a US population of over 300 million. If you really want to press the issue, you would instead ask about who was more violent per capita. Terrorism is responsible for something on the order of 50 people last year with most of those occurring at the Pulse nightclub. On the other hand, something like 11000 folks were killed in gun homicides alone last year. There is no rational justification for Trump’s travel ban - VoxTriangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security - Now I am sure you will want to argue that anyone who kills is not a true Scotsman or Christian, but such arguments aren't worthwhile. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Catholicism often violates Christian principles. Northern Ireland's problems are all caused by the Vatican
Faith as somebody whose parents are from the North and with ancestors on both sides of the conflict, I suggest that you pick up an actual text on the history of the North before pumping out such nonsense. I seriously cannot imagine how you think the conflict was caused by the Vatican. I would be willing to enter a great debate with you on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Sources listed.
via SIZZLEFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith as somebody whose parents are from the North and with ancestors on both sides of the conflict, I suggest that you pick up an actual text on the history of the North before pumping out such nonsense. I seriously cannot imagine how you think the conflict was caused by the Vatican. Well, here's the history as I've heard it, which you can hear about on the audio sermon below. Ireland was originally Christianized by an Englishman, Patrick, and developed a strongly evangelical faith, sending out missionaries themselves. Some centuries later the then-Catholic English king conquered Ireland under pressure from the Pope, and Ireland became Catholic. Twelfth century IIRC. Then the Reformation came along and England went Protestant. So did Scotland, and exchanges between Scotland and Northern Ireland mixed the two religions. England which by then was only nominally Protestant, saw political value in moving Protestants to Northern Ireland, and that happened and became the foundation of the Catholic-Protestant conflicts that have continued since. The IRA terrorist organization formed later and attacked the Protestants in the effort to bring the North under the Catholic government of the South. Eventually a nominally Protestant Loyalist group sprang up that retaliated with violence, but they were condemned by other Protestants. The violence has generally been initiated by the Catholics, and the audio report below claims suppression of the truth by the Catholics. I know there was terrible mistreatment of Ireland by the English in the famous potato famine. But I also know that the action by Cromwell against Ireland earlier, which was pretty severe, was nevertheless provoked by the Catholics who were attacking the Protestants, which is what Cromwell's action was intended to settle. So, what have I left out? Here's the sermon on the history of the conflicts that I mention above:http://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=121... Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024