And Nothing Heard My Scream

[kieran]

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed

I'm not prepared to argue levitical law. As I understand it there are 613 different commandments and more commentary than you could get your mind around if you spent a lifetime with it. I think one of the greatest torah scholars was Jesus and he summed up the law like this:

• Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
• Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
• Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
• Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Gene

There are many personal "rules" by which I live my life. My own ethics, standards etc resonate well with v39 "love thy neighbour as thyself". (Gene, we've had this dicussion on another of Jeff Corkern's threads.)

However, I don't think you need God or his messenger to convey the wisdom of that idea (although you might need a poet to convey it any more succinctly).

Also, this second law/commandment (v39) is not bound to the first (v37). It is completely independent. I think that you and me will have to disagree on the importance of the first one.

 

[Roboramma]

From the close of the thirteenth century a band of Ottoman Turks, driven out of Central Asia by Mongol invasions, had founded a military state in Asia Minor and now threatened to invade Europe. They captured Ephesus in 1308, and in 1326 Othman, their sultan, established his residence at Broussa (Prusa) in Bithynia under Ourkhan, moreover, they organized the regular foot-guards of janizaries against whom the undisciplined troops of Western knights could not hold out. The Turks entered Nicomedia in 1328 and Nicæa in 1330; when they threatened the Emperors of Constantinople, the latter renewed negotiations with the popes with a view towards the reconciliation of the Greek and Roman Churches, for which purpose Barlaam was sent as ambassador to Avignon, in 1339.

Gene

I'm sorry. I was aware of that little episode. I didn't realise that was what you were referring to because the context of your remark suggested that the main reason that the crusades happened was to prevent an Islamic invasion of Europe - rather than one particular crusade being in part motived by that.

Because of this, I assumed you meant the first crusade -without which the others might not have happened - or that there was a constant threat.
Sorry for misinterpreting you in that regard.

On the other hand, how do you justify the context of your remark, that seems to apologise for all of the Crusades with that statement?

 

[AgingYoung]

kieran,

Feel free to continue to select your quotes
from the Bible/Torah/Koran for your own
purposes

You are too kind. I can't think of
any other way to compare the lives and thoughts of the
two founders than to cite from the text that we have.

• They have also been the subject of much
  translation, interpretation and mis-representation
  throughout the ages. For many biblical quotes, there
  is a contradictory passage. Why are you allowed the
  luxury of cherry picking and
  interpretation?

The volume of manuscripts we have of the new testament
are greater than any other work of antiquity and
although there are differences in many of those
manuscripts there isn't a single fundamental doctrine
(teaching) of the christian faith that rests on any
discrepancy. To the point of the above text in bold;
you're going to have to be specific before I can address
it. I can't read your mind. If I could I'd enter the Randi.

I have never argued that right and wrong don't exist.
I do think that they can be discovered using your
intellect and reasoning.

• There are many personal "rules" by which I live my
  life. My own ethics, standards etc resonate well with
  v39 "love thy neighbour as thyself".

I think that most people would agree with that yet I
don't think you understand the level to which you'll
be held to those standards. That level is absolute
prefection. You judge if you've hit that mark. My
guess is that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

I didn't mention all the possibilities and there's one
you might consider. You can dismiss judgement and if
it doesn't happen you're fine. If on the other hand
you find yourself in judgement there's the smack down.
God has that offer out there to any takers and you
can read about it here.

Other than that the only way to make it thru judgment
is with righteousness. Whether it's your own or it is
the righteousness of Christ that a christian has Jesus
will inspect it. Either way you have to go thru him
to enter into life.

Gene

 

[kieran]

kieran,
You are too kind. I can't think of any other way to compare the lives and thoughts of the two founders than to cite from the text that we have.

• They have also been the subject of much translation, interpretation and mis-representation throughout the ages. For many biblical quotes, there
  is a contradictory passage. Why are you allowed the luxury of cherry picking and interpretation?

The volume of manuscripts we have of the new testament are greater than any other work of antiquity and although there are differences in many of those manuscripts there isn't a single fundamental doctrine (teaching) of the christian faith that rests on any discrepancy. To the point of the above text in bold; you're going to have to be specific before I can address it. I can't read your mind. If I could I'd enter the Randi.

Well not being a biblical scholar I'm going to have to resort to obvious an example ... why is the following biblical text not to adhered to literally: (Mat 5:29) And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (KJV)

I'd also be interested to here your opinion of Genesis compared to current scientific theory. If Genesis is a figurative description, then how do you decide what else is literal and what else is figurative?

I have never argued that right and wrong don't exist.
I do think that they can be discovered using your intellect and reasoning.

• There are many personal "rules" by which I live my life. My own ethics, standards etc resonate well with v39 "love thy neighbour as thyself".

I think that most people would agree with that yet I don't think you understand the level to which you'll be held to those standards. That level is absolute prefection. You judge if you've hit that mark. My guess is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think you missed a couple of words there ... "I don't think you understand the level to which I believe you'll be held to those standards" ... we are only talking about your (unproveable) belief here ... aren't we?

I didn't mention all the possibilities and there's one you might consider. You can dismiss judgement and if it doesn't happen you're fine. If on the other hand you find yourself in judgement there's the smack down. God has that offer out there to any takers and you
can read about it here.

Are you saying that you believe in God as a gamble? Or that others should. I'd like to see the actuarial tables on that one! Also, what happens to you if you backed the wrong horse - maybe the Vikings were right all along! You'd look silly in the halls of Valhalla, quaking unders Odin's judgement, but looking for Jesus - why don't you back that one as well just to make sure? (Oh but we've been here before - you've already made your choice - which happened to be based on where and when you were born.)

Other than that the only way to make it thru judgment is with righteousness. Whether it's your own or it is the righteousness of Christ that a christian has, Jesus will inspect it. Either way you have to go thru him to enter into life.
Gene

Please start putting the necessary "I believe"s in your text. You keep stating things as though they are fact - they are not - they are your beliefs. As pointed out before, these are unproveable. Stating them as fact does not make them fact.

OK - I've tried to address each of your points. Now play fair. Why did you omit my main question from my previous posts ... namely your own inconsistency in the necessity of the belief in Jesus as the only path to salvation. Care to address this?

 

[AgingYoung]

OK - I've tried to address each of your points.
Now play fair. Why did you omit my main question from
my previous posts ... namely your own inconsistency in
the necessity of the belief in Jesus as the only path
to salvation. Care to address this?

• Other than that the only way to make it thru judgment
  is with righteousness. Whether it's your own or it is
  the righteousness of Christ that a christian has Jesus
  will inspect it. Either way you have to go thru
  him to enter into life.

Specifically Jesus said:

• Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the
  truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
  but by me.

Jesus is that perfect judge that will judge your
righteousness. I did address your question but you
missed it.

I think you missed a couple of words there ...
"I don't think you understand the level to which (I
believe) you'll be held to those standards" ... we are
only talking about your (unproveable) belief
here ... aren't we?

That depends on how you want to define proof. In the
legal sense the gospel account is admissible (rules of
evidence) in a court of law. Now I could do the leg
work to support that point but let's pause a moment.
Often thru all of this I mentioned it was off topic.
I fully understand you won't be persuaded and have
felt that from the very beginning.

We could discuss the mythical nature of the norse gods
or those of the greeks and compare that with the
evidence of an historical Jesus and his teachings yet
the very idea that you'd suggest it tells me you
either aren't serious or haven't seriously considered
the matter. It's sometimes claimed that Jesus is a
myth yet the evidence doesn't support that idea. Most
modern scholars consider an historical Jesus a fact
but if you'd like to offer a differing opinion I'd
consider looking at it and the reasoning for it.

In all I said I've detailed not my belief or opinion
about judgment but the actual possibilities. It
either is or isn't. I've given you the point that if
there is no judgment you're fine. On the other hand
if there is, there are only so many options. As God
mentions in Job if you can whip his butt you're good to
go. Other than that if you can get by with your own
righteousness you're fine. That is given the point
that there is a judgment.

I've made the point that there is right and wrong and
with the intellect and reasoning you can find it.
It's no wonder to me that people come to about the
same conclusions about a sense of fairness with
others. The truth is that's the right thing to do.
Now if the only thing that is true is that most
reasonable people come to the same conclusion
(eventually) as to what is right or wrong then it's
strictly a matter of opinion. When you tell me it's
wrong for someone to smack you down and rob you you're
explaining to me your opinion or your belief.

If on the other hand there is a judgment and you are
accountable for what you've done with your life then
the right and wrong that reasonable people tend to
conclude exists becomes more than opinion. It becomes
a truth. Is the idea 'testable'? As the song says
'only our dying will tell.' There is an other option.
You can study the evidence that exists for one that
has claimed to have been there and done that. There's
no need for you to explain again that you've
considered the evidence and dismiss it. I got that
point and actually I suspected all along that was the
case. I would like to make the point that in my
opinion (or it is my belief) you've taken a very
shallow look at the matter.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Now for the sake of argument I'll give anyone the
point that there is no judgment. How is it that right
and wrong can be anything but opinion. It has been
mentioned that most reasonable people conclude that
it's the truth. I'll give you that point also:

• right and wrong is a popular opinion

Is it possible that it can be anything else?

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

All right, so it was intended bigotry, which doesn’t makes it any more right.

What is with everyone’s obsession with spouting the superiority of his or her morality?

I need to think more about what you said.

Gene

Well, aren’t you a clever fellow. Sure caught me on that one. It is no wonder you continue to express such nonsense. When you take words out of context you can make them mean anything you like. While you’re thinking more about it, why don’t you include the rest of what I said. Like this:

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on whether or not you believe your morals are superior. The true test of the validity of your morals is how those around you perceive them. If everyone thinks you’re an [rule 8] then your standard of ethics is probably too low.

I can’t think of a better way to form that impression than by expounding on your intolerance. I’m sure many others on here would agree. Also, since you seem so good at manipulating what people say, how about you try reversing the prospective view of this sentence.

However, if they only reason they dislike you are because your beliefs differ from theirs, then it is not your morals that need to be examined.

Now I’d like to quote some text. I’m sorry, but mine doesn’t include numbered passages. Hope that doesn’t render this invalid.

You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

That was taken from the introduction of the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. I, by all means, afford you the right to hold such opinions of intolerance. Just don’t be surprised if my opinion and the opinions of others about the merit of your character are affected negatively by your expression of such opinions.

Actually, I think I’d like to share a few more paragraphs from that excellent piece of writing.

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this — for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so — it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

If you haven’t read this, I would recommend you do. I happen to own a hard copy, but if you’re unwilling to pay for the book you can read it here for free. Unless of course, reading something that speaks unfavorably of your religion is blasphemous. Wouldn’t want to be responsible for condemning you and such.

 

[AgingYoung]

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on
whether or not you believe your morals are superior.
The true test of the validity of your morals is how
those around you perceive them.

Now I think I understand what you're saying. If
you're around bikers and hells angels you have one
standard but if you're playing bingo with nuns you
have another. I think that kind of sort of makes
something that might be construed as sense. I'll give
you the point though.

• right and wrong (or morality) is a popular opinion
  of the crowd you're hanging out with. Everyone is
  entitled to theirs.

I will note that it seems like some people are more
entitled to their opinion than others.

Gene

 

[I less than three logic]

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on
whether or not you believe your morals are superior.
The true test of the validity of your morals is how
those around you perceive them.

Now I think I understand what you're saying. If
you're around bikers and hells angels you have one
standard but if you're playing bingo with nuns you
have another. I think that kind of sort of makes
something that might be construed as sense. I'll give
you the point though.

• right and wrong (or morality) is a popular opinion
  of the crowd you're hanging out with. Everyone is
  entitled to theirs.

Well, that’s not exactly what I was getting at, but given your history of making irrational leaps of logic I can see how you’ve come to this conclusion. I was thinking more about your family, friends, people that actually care about you, and the public in general. I should have articulated this a bit better. I don’t know about you, but I, and the majority of the public, would consider the way the Hell’s Angels act to be more consistent with a [rule 8] or criminal than a gentleman.

Also, I wouldn’t want to make the nuns feel left out, so I’d better mention them as well. Although they do provide some valuable services towards the community, they have a problem, as many religious people do, with trying to force their opinions on others, and having enough arrogance to believe they are better people for doing so.

I will note that it seems like some people are more
entitled to their opinion than others.

Gene

I don’t see any reason one person should be more entitled to their opinions than anyone else. Can you elaborate on this for me?

Also, I would appreciate it if you addressed any points I’ve made in their entirety, instead of just my words out of context.

 

[AgingYoung]

I less than three logic,

As you see it morality is the popular, majority
opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong yet nothing that
you've pointed to would make morality anything more
than an opinion. Essentially morality is a function
of the situation.

I'd like to consider this superfluous statement of
yours ....

• Well, that’s not exactly what I was getting at,
  but given your history of making irrational leaps
  of logic I can see how you’ve come to this
  conclusion.

in light of your logic in this understanding...

• I see nothing here that implies the right to rape
  slaves. Do all religious conclusions include
  irrational leaps of logic? Let’s say you’re forbidden
  to eat chocolate, save for white chocolate. Does that
  imply that you should be allowed to steal white
  chocolate bars from a store? It seems to be saying
  that they are not forbidden, how does not forbidden
  translate into take by force.

I think if you own the store you can steal all the
white chocolate you want. Yet if you own the store
(your right hand possesses it) how can you steal from
yourself? If it's your slave you own it. Slaves are
considered property. How would you interpret 'are not
forbidden from you'?

There is a quranic justification for a muslim that
owns a person (a slave) to not be forbidden that
slave, even if they are a married woman. Or if the
married woman would agree then the quran condones
adultery. I have no idea how you could leap to this
conclusion...

• I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as
  rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is
  the case.

given the context of my point was the moral teachings
of the founders of the two faiths. Who knows what a
muslim would or wouldn't do with their property.

So to the point of the moral teachings Jesus; taught
that you should turn your other cheek while allah has
given mohommed ...

• O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy
  wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and
  those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom
  Allah hath given thee as spoils of war

the moral authority to wage war and take booty.
What I imagine you term 'bigoted' is what I see as
clear moral difference.

Now if morality is only a matter of the popular majority
opinion it makes no difference.

Gene

 

[Pup]

We could discuss the mythical nature of the norse gods
or those of the greeks and compare that with the
evidence of an historical Jesus and his teachings yet
the very idea that you'd suggest it tells me you
either aren't serious or haven't seriously considered
the matter. It's sometimes claimed that Jesus is a
myth yet the evidence doesn't support that idea. Most
modern scholars consider an historical Jesus a fact
but if you'd like to offer a differing opinion I'd
consider looking at it and the reasoning for it.

The historic existence of Jesus is as irrelevant as, say, the historic existence of Joseph Smith, who lived close enough to the modern era that his history is in no doubt. Over the centuries, there have been lots of people who claim to talk to god, bring messages from god, be half gods, etc. Some have been more successful than others in gaining followers. But just because they exist, it doesn't mean that what they say is true.

Jesus's god only seems more real to you, because that's what you believe, for whatever reasons. To someone who believed in the Norse gods, or any other god(s), the christian myths about the nature of god, would seems as unimportant to them as their myths seem to you.

 

[AgingYoung]

Pup,

The historic existence of Jesus is as
irrelevant as, say, the historic existence of Joseph
Smith, who lived close enough to the modern era that
his history is in no doubt.

People dismiss the idea of Jesus for a number of
reasons one of them being that he was a myth or even
that he never existed. Myths take some time to
develop but there's a record of a first century
church. I do agree that just because there is an
historical Jesus that's no indication to accept
everything said about him at face value. That is a
good point. My point is that is no reason to dismiss
the entire matter. The greeks understood that
their myths were myths. There has never been that
understanding in christianity from the very beginning.

Mr. Paine has numerous opinions about it yet his
strongest reasonable argument is that it is hearsay.
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule if
it were a matter of bringing it into court to try the
evidence yet in Mr. Paine's opinion it doesn't merit
examination. Most of what he says is strictly opinion
and his opinion of hearsay is inaccurate.

You make a strong point.

Gene

 

[drkitten]

People dismiss the idea of Jesus for a number of
reasons one of them being that he was a myth or even
that he never existed. Myths take some time to
develop but there's a record of a first century
church.

There's also a record of 19-th century misrepresentations of Joseph Smith, promulgated by Brigham Young and the other early Mormon followers.

There's also an extensive record of myths regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and that happened only forty years ago.

Hell, 'Kaz' is telling her followers myths about what she was doing on 9/11, less than five years ago. And people are believing her.

It's never too early to start spreading lies, especially ones that serve your own best interests. And sufficiently gullible people will take your word for it about what happened at lunchtime.

My point is that is no reason to dismiss
the entire matter.

No. But there's also no reason to accept any of the entire matter.

 

[Pup]

It's never too early to start spreading lies, especially ones that serve your own best interests. And sufficiently gullible people will take your word for it about what happened at lunchtime.

A contemporary example that comes to mind is Bomjan, the "Buddha Boy." It took what, only a few months? for his handlers to get things underway. My personal opinion is that some people were taking advantage of a situation where a mixed-up kid was acting out in a bizarre way, but regardless, a public following developed almost immediately.

Whether he gains a permanent following that outlasts his lifetime, or history forgets him as just another religiously-obsessed person, I bet you could find folks today who honestly believe he has some special spark of divinity, and swear that he can live without food. And they'd be just as sincere as those in the early days of any church's founding.

 

[I less than three logic]

So very, very much to address in this post, just don’t know where to begin.

As you see it morality is the popular, majority
opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong yet nothing that
you've pointed to would make morality anything more
than an opinion. Essentially morality is a function
of the situation.

As I see it, yes morality is based on the popular, majority opinion. A good judge of popular, majority opinions on morals are laws, but I now realize a mistake in my logic. I’m taking for granted the area in which I live and how this influences the observation I made. The laws within my area are required to conform to a constitution based on many ideas consistent with ethical philosophy of humanism.

Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on our ability to determine what is right using the qualities innate to humanity, particularly rationality. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought.

Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on our capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

Humanism – Wikipedia
American Humanist Association
British Humanist Association
Humanist International
The Philosophy of Humanism (PDF file)

I'd like to consider this superfluous statement of
yours ....

• Well, that’s not exactly what I was getting at,
  but given your history of making irrational leaps
  of logic I can see how you’ve come to this
  conclusion.

in light of your logic in this understanding...

• I see nothing here that implies the right to rape
  slaves. Do all religious conclusions include
  irrational leaps of logic? Let’s say you’re forbidden
  to eat chocolate, save for white chocolate. Does that
  imply that you should be allowed to steal white
  chocolate bars from a store? It seems to be saying
  that they are not forbidden, how does not forbidden
  translate into take by force.

I think if you own the store you can steal all the
white chocolate you want. Yet if you own the store
(your right hand possesses it) how can you steal from
yourself? If it's your slave you own it. Slaves are
considered property. How would you interpret 'are not
forbidden from you'?

There is a quranic justification for a muslim that
owns a person (a slave) to not be forbidden that
slave, even if they are a married woman. Or if the
married woman would agree then the quran condones
adultery. I have no idea how you could leap to this
conclusion...

• I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as
  rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is
  the case.

given the context of my point was the moral teachings
of the founders of the two faiths. Who knows what a
muslim would or wouldn't do with their property.

I’ve already addressed this; did you not read all of the post?

You’re right. Once they are slaves you can make them do anything. If it is not forbidden to sleep with them, then you could make them sleep with you as well. This, however, is a problem inherent to slavery in general. Not necessarily a right to rape granted by the Quran. I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is the case.

I still don’t see how “not forbidden” translates into “take by force”. I don’t even see how something not forbidden must be taken at all. I’ll assume it is not a sin (not forbidden) for you to drink milk; does that mean you must or even should drink milk? (This question assumes you own some milk.) This doesn’t follow any logic I’m familiar with.

The passage you quoted does not explicitly state nor imply the right to rape. It says you are forbidden to sleep with married women, except those that are your slaves. The problem here is with the idea of slavery, which already includes everything necessary for rape. I’d also point out that Christianity isn’t free from the taint of slavery either. Making it illegal according to our laws abolished slavery, not the doctrines of Christianity, and you could probably find quite a few Christians that would adamantly disagree with these particular laws.

The main difference I see here is the Christian’s genophobia-like attitude towards sex in general, where the Muslim’s have a far less restrictive stance, even allowing adultery. I guess if everything was consensual, the practice is socially acceptable, and it doesn’t upset anyone then it wouldn’t be considered immoral. From my own ethical perspective, I wouldn’t consider adultery moral since forming a relationship with someone includes a promise of monogamy.

So to the point of the moral teachings Jesus; taught
that you should turn your other cheek while allah has
given mohommed ...

• O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy
  wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and
  those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom
  Allah hath given thee as spoils of war

the moral authority to wage war and take booty.

Yet, that hasn’t prevented Christians from doing just that for centuries.

What I imagine you term 'bigoted' is what I see as
clear moral difference.

No, what I consider bigoted are statements like these:

There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim.

This statement implies that every Muslim is a rapist, or at least no better than one. To assign such a negative view to millions, perhaps billions (more then Christians if I recall correctly), of people using merely your opinions about their belief system and providing no evidence to support such a claim is bigotry.

Also, I see you’ve made another post.

Mr. Paine has numerous opinions about it yet his
strongest reasonable argument is that it is hearsay.
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule if
it were a matter of bringing it into court to try the
evidence yet in Mr. Paine's opinion it doesn't merit
examination. Most of what he says is strictly opinion
and his opinion of hearsay is inaccurate.

Hope you don’t mind, but I’ll consider this statement evidence that you didn’t actually read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason any more than what I supplied you with here.

 

[Roboramma]

AgingYoung, is slavery forbidden by Christianity?

I don't see it anywhere...

Is it forbidden to Christians to rape their slaves?

If not, Christians must be rapists, right?

Do you see the problem with that logic? It's the same logic you're applying to Muslims.

 

[kieran]

Jesus is that perfect judge that will judge your righteousness. I did address your question but you missed it.

Sorry - I must have got confused when you stated (post #153 of this thread) that anyone that did not "believe that Jesus is the Messiah" is "destined for hell". Please read that post again - that is what I have been asking you about.

Now you seem to be saying that Jesus has a bit of wiggle room based on "righteousness". Your post (#153) sounds very much like you are claiming to already know Jesus' perfect judgement ... and you have not allowed any wiggle room there.

So it seems to me like you never did answer my question - just phaffed around making it up as you went along. Please answer my (now twice repeated) question and try to resolve your personal contradictions.

 

[kieran]

There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim.

This statement implies that every Muslim is a rapist, or at least no better than one. To assign such a negative view to millions, perhaps billions (more then Christians if I recall correctly), of people using merely your opinions about their belief system and providing no evidence to support such a claim is bigotry.

Hold on ILT3L ... I would be extremely surprised if Gene did not actually mean "There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim that rapes."

(Gene, feel free to correct me if this misrepresents you.)

 

[AgingYoung]

kieran,
In one way there is little difference in that
regardless of the moral authority of the quran to own
people or slaves and to do with them as you please
that's wrong.

* 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden
unto you) save those (captives) whom your right
hands possess.

Quibbling over the idea of what 'are forbidden unto
you' doesn't address the quranic basis for married
women not being forbidden unto you if you own them.
I'll admit the term is vague yet there's no vagueness
in the foundational teaching of the quran and the
explanation of mohommed to

* 33:50 ... Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy
wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and
those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom
Allah hath given thee as spoils of war

wage war and take booty. Dancing around the point by
stating a conclusion of a sweeping generalization for
me and further changing the point to me and further
moving from a reasoned manner to an emotional one by
name calling doesn't address that clear moral basis
the muslim has based on the teaching of the quran and
the life example of their founder.

In another respect there is huge difference (not a
little) in that there is no moral basis for a
christian to do that. To make the point that in spite
of that lack of moral basis from the teachings and
example of Jesus that didn't prevent the papacy from
waging war is moot. Clearly they were wrong if you
judge them by that standard.

There are people that have been in remote parts of the
world with no interference with the rest of
civilization and have a moral code. They'll be judged
by that same code. If they've lived their life
flawlessly by that code and are perfect they'll enter
the kingdom of God. If what I suspect about human
nature is true there is no one that has lived a
perfect life. You could look at your own life and see
if that's the case. I know from personal experience
I've lied. I've stolen. I've missed the mark. I've
also told the truth knowing that the consequences
weren't going to be good for me. Even though that was
after I became a christian my whole life is judged.

If you were in court for drinking while driving and
every once in a while the judge would turn a way and
pull a pint out of his back pocket and take a swig you
might get a little indignant. Here is someone judging
you for driving while impaired and he himself is
impaired and working on getting even more impaired.
It would be very hard to take to be judged by someone
that didn't live up to the same standard they were
holding you up to. You might not believe the gospel
account yet the record is that after they ripped his
back off and nailed him to the cross Jesus asked God
to forgive them because they didn't' know what they
were doing. There's more to it yet he lived the truth
that he taught to his death. There is no record of
sin in his life.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Rob,

AgingYoung, is slavery forbidden by
Christianity?
I don't see it anywhere...
Is it forbidden to Christians to rape their slaves?
If not, Christians must be rapists, right?
Do you see the problem with that logic? It's the same
logic you're applying to Muslims.

The point is the foundational teachings and the life
example of the founder. Jesus didn't own slaves.
mohommed did. Jesus didn't wage war. mohommed did.
There is a moral prohibition in christianity to be
adulterous. There is the explicit teaching in the
quran that

• 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden
  unto you) save those (captives) whom your right
  hands possess.

If you own them or they're your slave it's a different
matter. It's clear also that a married free woman has
different rights than a slave. By all means draw your
own conclusions. Slavery is prevalent today in the
sudan. Now if it's a matter of you're right I'm wrong
and arguing over the meaning of 'are forbidden unto
you' then it's a game. For some in the world it's
more than that. It's quite real.

Gene