[TippinTaco]

I cannot believe people are taking this thread seriously enough to actually respond to it. You are all such suckers! :lol:

i felt compelled to I'm guilty. but none of this will ever change the fact that we were attacked by muslims...

Did anyone else know this?

"Everybody knows that a bishop or church pastor ... cannot have any sort of sexual relations or sexual relationship with one of your parishioners," the lawyer, B.J. Bernstein, said at a news conference Tuesday evening. "And even worse to have it with two young men who trusted him and got to know him at a very young age."

question is why did this just come out apparently this has been going on for 2+ years.. If these boys really felt violated they should've said something then.

I can hear it now: Ohh they trusted him for guidance, he's a pastor he should be trusted...

If you believe any of that you're a sucker. Religion is a really good topic on this forum thats for sure. I'm just curious as to why the OP feels its so important to defend muslims in general?. I'm not saying that american muslims should ever be targets of hate crimes or anything or be treated differently than any of us, but I like to call this the Shock syndrom. It's like when a kid gets bitten by a dog at an early age theres a chance that child may grow up to be scared of dogs. In this case we got "bitten" by muslims who attacked our country on 9/11 and we are more cautious now than we ever were. The good muslims should hate the bad muslims for making good muslims lives hell... just sayin. know what i mean verne?

 

[robfromga]

This thread goes places! :screwy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5A3yF0b ... re=related

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Did anyone even read the original article? These are adults! One was recently arrested for burglarizing church property. I was already discharged honorably from the military when I was 21.

:roll:

The "pastor" denies the allegations.

As for calling this religion "christianity," well, I am not sure the title fits, unless your argument is that anybody claiming they are part of christianity are a part of christianity, no matter how outlandish their beliefs and teachings. This is kind of like calling Nation of Islam a part of Islam, just because they say so.

 

[Hack Causality]

Did anyone even read the original article? These are adults! One was recently arrested for burglarizing church property. I was already discharged honorably from the military when I was 21.

:roll:

The "pastor" denies the allegations.

As for calling this religion "christianity," well, I am not sure the title fits, unless your argument is that anybody claiming they are part of christianity are a part of christianity, no matter how outlandish their beliefs and teachings. This is kind of like calling Nation of Islam a part of Islam, just because they say so.

People in the group typically have much stricter parameters for categorizing someone as a member than outsiders. For instance, most Muslims don't consider al-Qaeda, etc. Muslims.

 

[68908]

2) The Qur'an does condemn the shedding of[ b]innocent[/b] blood.
[17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)''

“Whoever kills a soul â€" unless for another soul or for corruption (vice and mischief spread) in the land â€" it is as if he had slain the whole of mankind. And whoever saves one â€" it is as if he had saved the whole of mankind.†[Surah Ma’idah 5:32]

And yet it still happens.

Notice, the key word, INNOCENT, in bold, non-believers are by definition, not innocent according to the Qur'an.

Really, is that why it also says to smite the necks of the unbelievers, later in the Qur'an, which we all know is supposed to be followed when there is a contradiction? Its known as abrogation. We'll touch on that later, though.

8:12
I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

Moreover Allah says of those who reject him. Because, Allah has already sentenced them to death.

Can you say beheadings?

2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them

5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself

I have all this evidence that the Qur'an teaches violence and murder against non-believers and those that don't follow Sharia Law. I believe you are practicing Taqiyya, anyway. Lying for the faith in order to deceive defeat the non-believers. Its supplied to you right in the Qur'an.

Taqiyya

Also, the Qur'an itself answers the question, if two passages conflict, the passage revealed later is better than the one revealed earlier. The policy is known as abrogation. These violent passages were written later in the Qur'an, which means they are the correct passages. The Qur'an was peaceful early in its writings, but then as it went on, it preached violence to the non-believers.

The two key abrogation passages in the Qur'an are these:

2:106 "Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path."

16:101 "When We exchange one verse for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say, 'You are making this up.' Most of them do not understand."

Sorry, bdee, we've gone over this a million times on this forum, and I don't believe your Taqiyya. I can read the Qur'an, and I know what it says.

Killing innocent blood would be killing a believer of Allah. In the Koran, it makes it plain as day that non-believers are not innocent and need to be killed in the name of Allah. I believe what you are doing is Taqiyya, which is allowed in the Koran.

Nobody is buying it anymore.

 

[TippinTaco]

Sorry, bdee, we've gone over this a million times on this forum, and I don't believe your Taqiyya. I can read the Qur'an, and I know what it says.

Killing innocent blood would be killing a believer of Allah. In the Koran, it makes it plain as day that non-believers are not innocent and need to be killed in the name of Allah. I believe what you are doing is Taqiyya, which is allowed in the Koran.

Nobody is buying it anymore.

Sooo thats why he is defending it so much is because he is muslim. Thats cool at least he stands tall to his religion and firm believes what he believes. No harm in that.

But just because theres 57 flavors of islam doesn't mean any of it is worth the paper its written on. Same goes for the Holy bible. I would have a better mind set if everyone followed the ORIGINAL BOOK in every religion. But these things change as leaders of those religions see fit. How many bibles is there? Well lets take a looksie:

There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek

Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin

Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.

King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.

Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text

New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version

The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

So this basically saids through out history this book has been re-written SEVERAL times. A few of those times ti was re-written by some who didn't know hebrew well which leaves a loophole of things being misunderstoof or misinterpereted. So as time has passed on and its being re-done and misunderstood people put their own thoughts as to the meaning of the scriptures... hmmm sounds like a possible conspiracy to me..

 

[68908]

Well for one, there is no Sharia Law equivalent at the moment for Christianity. No state sanctioned Christian law Theocracy.

We don't execute people for being adulterous, we don't stone people for converting, we don't behead non-believers or those who broke part of Sharia Law. We don't sanction the murder of homosexuals in America. Thank God our laws changed here and we no longer treat women like 2nd class citizens here like they do under Sharia. We don't state sanction killing someone who doesn't believe in Christianity here. Sharia Law allows all this.

There are people who would probably like to see that kind of stuff in the U.S. as far as far right radical Christians. They'd probably like to see a Christian Theocracy here. Our laws do not allow for it.

There are also Muslims in the U.S. today that want to see Sharia law in America, or Sharia to actually take the place of, or be just as powerful as our Bill of Rights and Constitution. With some of the lefty loonies in office, I could see it happening.

Kagan, Obama's appointee already stated that she thinks that parts of Sharia law should be added into our legal system. That's at least one Supreme Court justice that believes that. How about Sotomayor?

I will not obey Sharia, and I will certainly not obey a government that tries to force Sharia on me, either. I guess they can just behead me.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

How many bibles is there? Well lets take a looksie:

There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek

Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin

Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.

King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.

Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text

New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version

The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

So this basically saids through out history this book has been re-written SEVERAL times. A few of those times ti was re-written by some who didn't know hebrew well which leaves a loophole of things being misunderstoof or misinterpereted. So as time has passed on and its being re-done and misunderstood people put their own thoughts as to the meaning of the scriptures... hmmm sounds like a possible conspiracy to me..

:lol: Ok, so translations it counts for "how many bibles are there?" :rotfl2: Wow, you missed a bunch. You are not even in the 1% category.

And if you think the NIV is "very good" . . . well, I guess I do not need to go down that road. I'll just classify it as "reasonably reliable" if you have some other versions for comparison.

Oh, and your dating is way, way off for the Septuagint. You are not even in the right century. You did not even get the "AD" part correct. Maybe you should study a little instead of just getting stuff off of the internet and pasting it here.

As for Young's, it is useful, but a lot older manuscripts have been discovered since 1898.

As for the KJV, you fault their understanding of Hebrew, but they were not so good at Greek, either. Even where they got it right, some of the meanings from 1611 do not translate well into modern English, leaving people befuddled. They also sought to conceal the original meaning of the Greek verb baptizo (immerse) to accomodate a belief system of sprinkling or pouring. Unfortunately, every commercially successful translation since then has followed the KJV's lead, seeking to placate those who twist the meaning of the word to suit their own inventions. It is not really open to debate that this was not a misunderstanding of the word and how to translate it, but an intentional obfuscation of the meaning of the original text by the KJV translators.

 

[bdee]

Boy you are all suckers. The post was about the idiocy of painting some broad brush across an entire religion for the actions of certain individuals who claim membership in that group. Instead some of you went on your old worn out rants about Islam just to prove my point. One can no more claim that this man or any preacher accused of sexual molestation as being representative of Christianity, as you can make judgements about Islam based on some radicalized faction that most denounce.

Malum,
I am sure that most of the Catholic priests denied their activities as well. On this case we'll see. (Does it follow that these two young men have had legal troubles in the past, therefore the molestation did not take place?) And as a good defense lawyer I am sure it is good practice to to attack the character and therefore the credibility of an accuser to convince a jury of your client's innocence. That's probably why most molestation and rape cases never make it to trial. For fear of those tactics.

 

[68908]

Boy you are all suckers. The post was about the idiocy of painting some broad brush across an entire religion for the actions of certain individuals who claim membership in that group. Instead some of you went on your old worn out rants about Islam just to prove my point. One can no more claim that this man or any preacher accused of sexual molestation as being representative of Christianity, as you can make judgements about Islam based on some radicalized faction that most denounce.

Are you denying that the Qur'an states to smite the neck of unbelievers? I can read it for myself in plain English, through a recognized translation.

 

[bdee]

EJR,
You are so filled with hate, it is frightening. Get counseling. Seriously. You can wrap that hate in decontextualized excerpts from the Qur'an, just as any decently educated person can do to the Bible, and it still doesn't remove the hatred in your writing.

The Bible, specifically Jesus said, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And when one man stepped up, his sins were revealed.

And yet some Christians continue to believe in the death penalty, despite this clear prohibition. It seems to me that anyone who claims to be a Christian would be faith bound to oppose capital punishment...... Unless of course you read other portions of the Bible that seemingly support it. It is up to every Christian to create a belief system that they feel coincides with their interpretation of the Bible. The same holds true for Muslims and the Qur'an. The vast majority of believe it to be a religion of peace and tolerance. Some use the religion for their own purposes.

BTW, I heard a justice from the Alabama Supreme court say that the entire basis of the American judicial system was on the Ten Commandments. That's Shar'ia. Shar'ia law is the interpretation of the Qur'an by 'experts' to put into law what God has commanded. It is all based on human interpretation.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Malum,
I am sure that most of the Catholic priests denied their activities as well. On this case we'll see. (Does it follow that these two young men have had legal troubles in the past, therefore the molestation did not take place?)

Molestation? Of a 21 year old? :lol:

 

[rah45]

I've read several excerpts of the Quran myself, in college. I cannot quote it from memory, but it most definitely said to kill unbelievers when you find them if they will either not convert or you cannot or will not enslave them.

Regarding the Bible, all my life my parents raised me in Christianity, in the Baptist and Pentecostal beliefs. Maybe I'm just the odd one out, but I seem to be the only one in my family who actually questions the validity of the book. I believe that there is a higher power out there, and I choose to call him God. However, I cannot bring myself to trust a book that not only has been misused for over a thousand years to further the agenda of men and governments, but whose founding documents were created at the Council of Nicaea, where the Roman emperor Constantine (who personally combined the worship of Jesus and the god Apollo in his religious life) presided over, and had a great say in, the critique of the many different texts that were evaluated at Nicaea. I do not trust that that event itself was not just another way for man and government to twist the writing given to them. So, I cannot trust the modern-day Biblical translation, as it is based on the results that came from the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

but was itself also created at the Council of Nicaea

You get an F for your history course.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

the many different texts that were evaluated at Nicaea

You can buy most of them online or at Barnes and Noble. Take a read. It will not take you long to figure out why some were rejected as inauthentic, later creations.

 

[rah45]

but was itself also created at the Council of Nicaea

You get an F for your history course.

Ah, I see the error. I was typing faster than I was thinking. Fixed!

 

[bdee]

Malum,
I am sure that most of the Catholic priests denied their activities as well. On this case we'll see. (Does it follow that these two young men have had legal troubles in the past, therefore the molestation did not take place?)

Molestation? Of a 21 year old? :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/22/geo ... index.html

It sounds like the abuse started when Parris was 14, and Flagg said he was molested at Coretta Scott King's funeral when he was 17. So yes these two men are NOW 21, but that doesn't mean they have always been 21.

But the case will be hard to prove regardless. That's not the point of this thread.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

rah45, I am not trying to be harsh, but your edit is no better. None of the documents were "created" during the time period you claim. None of them were created in that century, even, or the century before that, or the century before that.

There were some decisions made to accept or reject documents (letters and books) based on careful study, with very little dissent (but there was dissent, and heads did not roll).

All of the rejected books are available for your study and easy to obtain. Take a gander. Seriously.

 

[rah45]

the many different texts that were evaluated at Nicaea

You can buy most of them online or at Barnes and Noble. Take a read. It will not take you long to figure out why some were rejected as inauthentic, later creations.

I actually did not know that. For some reason, I was under the impression that they were destroyed at Nicaea. I'd like to view them, actually. I think I'll search for them.

Thanks. :righton:

 

[68908]

EJR,
You are so filled with hate, it is frightening. Get counseling. Seriously. You can wrap that hate in decontextualized excerpts from the Qur'an, just as any decently educated person can do to the Bible, and it still doesn't remove the hatred in your writing.

The Bible, specifically Jesus said, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And when one man stepped up, his sins were revealed.

And yet some Christians continue to believe in the death penalty, despite this clear prohibition. It seems to me that anyone who claims to be a Christian would be faith bound to oppose capital punishment...... Unless of course you read other portions of the Bible that seemingly support it. It is up to every Christian to create a belief system that they feel coincides with their interpretation of the Bible. The same holds true for Muslims and the Qur'an. The vast majority of believe it to be a religion of peace and tolerance. Some use the religion for their own purposes.

BTW, I heard a justice from the Alabama Supreme court say that the entire basis of the American judicial system was on the Ten Commandments. That's Shar'ia. Shar'ia law is the interpretation of the Qur'an by 'experts' to put into law what God has commanded. It is all based on human interpretation.

:lol: Nice try to paint me as some hate-filled nut job that needs counseling, did you learn that one from MSNBC or the Huffington Post? Your reply is so typical it is laughable.

I don't hate any Muslims. I'm dealing with facts here. You are using ad hominem attacks on me because you know you cannot argue with facts.

There is no hate in my writing. I don't hate a single Muslim person. That is a complete lie and falsehood.

What does my post have anything to do with Christianity? Strawman. That Alabama Supreme court justice is a fool for saying such a thing, and furthermore, what did that have to do with my post? Nothing. Strawman.

The Alabama Supreme Court Justice's opinion is easily unproven. Nowhere in the 10 Commandments does it say that you have to have freedom of religion, the press, or assembly, nowhere does it say that you have to have the freedom to bare arms, nowhere does it say you can't have soldiers stationed in your home without your consent... nowhere does it say that you have the right to be secure in your effects, nowhere does it say that you have the freedom to remain silent.

Do not murder, do not steal are common law, that almost every country and ever state agrees on... just because they happen to be in The Bible doesn't mean we are a theocracy in America. Its laughable.

This isn't the first time you've attacked me on this forum. I believe last time you called me a hate-filled bigot. I remember proving to you that it was false, and you still never manned up and admitted that you were wrong.

Now you're trying to use the same techniques that all the liberals use which is to call me crazy, suggest I need couseling, and that I'm so full of hate. All this instead of actually arguing the facts without using personal attacks, ad hominem, to try and discredit me and strawmen.

What exactly did any of your post above have to do with my post?

Nice try, but I'm onto you.