Islam - What's your view on it?

[DK]

Well...at the time of the Crusades, he was merely the most important (still alive) person in all of Christendom.

 

[Flaco13]

Well...at the time of the Crusades, he was merely the most important (still alive) person in all of Christendom.

All of Christendom? You should inform yourself some more. Catharists and the Eastern Church, just two examples of other Christian denominations at that time.

No, the concept of a Pope, a "Succesor Petri" is unbiblical.

 

[Scaff]

Domestic violence is unbiblical and absolutely hipocritical.

You seem to have missed the entire old testament in that case.

All of Christendom? You should inform yourself some more. Catharists and the Eastern Church, just two examples of other Christian denominations at that time.

No, the concept of a Pope, a "Succesor Petri" is unbiblical.

Sorry but you don't get to dismiss what was the largest Christian sect at the time (by quite some margin) just because it doesn't fit your version of it.

 

[Flaco13]

You seem to have missed the entire old testament in that case.

Sure, all these years of studying... how could I miss the first 2/3 of the book, don´t be rediculous. Come forth with what you want to come forth.

Just a side note, isn´t it the wrong thread for that?

Sorry but you don't get to dismiss what was the largest Christian sect at the time (by quite some margin) just because it doesn't fit your version of it.

Well, the largest is quite different to all, isn´t it? I don´t dismiss anything, was just correcting DK.

 

[Dotini]

Well...at the time of the Crusades, he was merely the most important (still alive) person in all of Christendom.

Arguably, the Grand Master of the Knights Templar, the military and banking arm of the church, was the most important man in Christendom during the Crusades. It was his responsibility to fund and prosecute it.

Edit: In the end, he failed. For his trouble, he was crucified and burned at the stake.

 

[Scaff]

Sure, all these years of studying... how could I miss the first 2/3 of the book, don´t be rediculous. Come forth with what you want to come forth.

Just a side note, isn´t it the wrong thread for that?

Given that the book in question is a lareg basis of Judaism, Islam and Christianity then arguably no its not the wrong thread (just one of them), and do you raelly need me to point out the issue with domestic violence in the OT?

OK, one example, giving your daughter up to be raped by total strangers to save your mate.

Well, the largest is quite different to all, isn´t it? I don´t dismiss anything, was just correcting DK.

You described what was at the time the largest body fo Christianity as unbiblical, I would say that's rather dismissive.

 

[Flaco13]

Given that the book in question is a lareg basis of Judaism, Islam and Christianity then arguably no its not the wrong thread (just one of them), and do you raelly need me to point out the issue with domestic violence in the OT?

OK, one example, giving your daughter up to be raped by total strangers to save your mate.

Sorry, what? Where is that supposed to be? I think thats one of the typical misinterpretations you guys tend to do because you pick one verse and say: "baaam, see how bad their god is?"

Mind telling me the verse this should stand in?

I thought you would come up with Deut.20,10-18 or Jes.Sir.41,16 (btw I won´t comment on Apocrypha, debate that with a catholic priest)

One of my favourites: Luke 21:23+24, "beheading pregnant women with a sword"... so out of context it almost hurts.

You described what was at the time the largest body fo Christianity as unbiblical, I would say that's rather dismissive.

Oh ok, in that sense, yep I dismiss the "Holy" roman catholic church, their leaders and their doctrine to the full extent. Not every member of said church, because there are those who don´t worship idols (Mary and the Saints) or do any of the other unbiblical stuff and are true believers, meaning converts to Christ.

 

[Michael88]

Simple. I wish it wouldn't exist.

 

[Scaff]

Sorry, what? Where is that supposed to be? I think thats one of the typical misinterpretations you guys tend to do because you pick one verse and say: "baaam, see how bad their god is?"

Mind telling me the verse this should stand in?

I thought you would come up with Deut.20,10-18 or Jes.Sir.41,16 (btw I won´t comment on Apocrypha, debate that with a catholic priest)

One of my favourites: Luke 21:23+24, "beheading pregnant women with a sword"... so out of context it almost hurts.

Nope I've not pick one verse and taken it out of context at all.

Judges 19–20, stranger and his concubine are accepted into a man's house as guests. Group of men surround the house and demand the man is sent out so they can 'have him' (in the most biblical of ways). The house owner offers them his daughter and the man's concubine in exchange, they refuse but the man throws the concubine to them anyway. The group of men then proceded to spend the night rapeing the woman who by morning is dead on the step of the house.

So no I've not pick a verse out of context at all, the inference is quite clear that the value of a woman is significantly lower than that of a man.

Oh ok, in that sense, yep I dismiss the "Holy" roman catholic church, their leaders and their doctrine to the full extent. Not every member of said church, because there are those who don´t worship idols (Mary and the Saints) or do any of the other unbiblical stuff and are true believers, meaning converts to Christ.

And yet the very body that you dismiss resulted in just about every Christian sect that exists today.

Oh and given that my wife's family is catholic I've had plenty of time with them, and am yet to find one that doesn't follow saints or consider mary to be holy, so yes you are pretty much dismissing all of them. You consider it to be idolatry, they don't (I do love it when one group starts considering how they worship the imaginary to be more correct than another's - seriously it does remind me of when my kids were little - sorry but it does).

 

[Flaco13]

Nope I've not pick one verse and taken it out of context at all.

Judges 19–20, stranger and his concubine are accepted into a man's house as guests. Group of men surround the house and demand the man is sent out so they can 'have him' (in the most biblical of ways). The house owner offers them his daughter and the man's concubine in exchange, they refuse but the man throws the concubine to them anyway. The group of men then proceded to spend the night rapeing the woman who by morning is dead on the step of the house.

So no I've not pick a verse out of context at all, the inference is quite clear that the value of a woman is significantly lower than that of a man.

Now it´s getting interesting, I had thought about you ment a verse from Judges or Kings.

So what was the time here, the time of the judges in Israel, right? At the time when the people refused to have God as their King, so He pretty much left them on their own and they did...well what people do without God...When I read those chapters I often see a scaring similarity to the world today... that aside, tell me in Judges 19, how often do you read about God?Like He would perform something, demand something....does He talk at all?

Is any of the content in Judges 19 some sort of comand? Or law?

Almost every verse starts like: And it came to pass...And they sat down...And when the man.... Is that not narration?

See when I say that something is unbiblical, I mean that a Christian doesn´t do it or follow it. (He cant justify a doctrine when you don´t even find it in the Bibel) But when I read a story, what´s there to follow? Do you think Christians, or Jews for that matter could now do the same as those men in Judges, because "Hey they did that aswell"...

No, the time of the Judges was when God left Israel to themselves, and send Judges from time to time until the era of the Kings had come, where it was basically the same just with Kings instead.

It tells people basically how it´s NOT done.

I´ll add this link about Judges, because your fellow countryman can surely explain it much better than I ever could:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/darby/jdg019.htm

And yet the very body that you dismiss resulted in just about every Christian sect that exists today.

Oh and given that my wife's family is catholic I've had plenty of time with them, and am yet to find one that doesn't follow saints or consider mary to be holy, so yes you are pretty much dismissing all of them. You consider it to be idolatry, they don't (I do love it when one group starts considering how they worship the imaginary to be more correct than another's - seriously it does remind me of when my kids were little - sorry but it does).

Yes, I see the catholic influence in your thinking now. No, Christian sects did not result from the catholic church, because although they like to say so, it´s not the "one true church established by Jesus Christ himself" it´s simply not true. The earliest Christians had never anything in mind to establish a headquarter in Rome, putting a Arch-Bishop on a thrown to rule as the highest of all Bishops, collecting Reliquiants, opress people by shade fear of "Hellfire" etc etc....

And also, you know nothing about me, I could be an Armaic Syrian or a Coptic Egyptian Christian, which would make my "sect" one that´s a lot older than the catholic church

Throughout all of church history there have been Christians who didn´t think the catholic way. And Luther wasn´t the first one who had enough courage to do something about it, just so it happened, his movement, which he didn´t want to become a movement he just wanted a reform in the established "big" church, was the first one they couldn´t simply slaughter and burn away.

I have no problem to entertain you for your amusement Scaff, just so you know, I find it at least as amusing as you do.

 

[Denur]

@Flaco13: You're the first religious person I've come across on this forum, who actually seems to know what he is talking about and does not seem to be a complete idiot. 👍

 

[Scaff]

Now it´s getting interesting, I had thought about you ment a verse from Judges or Kings.

So what was the time here, the time of the judges in Israel, right? At the time when the people refused to have God as their King, so He pretty much left them on their own and they did...well what people do without God...When I read those chapters I often see a scaring similarity to the world today... that aside, tell me in Judges 19, how often do you read about God?Like He would perform something, demand something....does He talk at all?

Is any of the content in Judges 19 some sort of comand? Or law?

Almost every verse starts like: And it came to pass...And they sat down...And when the man.... Is that not narration?

See when I say that something is unbiblical, I mean that a Christian doesn´t do it or follow it. (He cant justify a doctrine when you don´t even find it in the Bibel) But when I read a story, what´s there to follow? Do you think Christians, or Jews for that matter could now do the same as those men in Judges, because "Hey they did that aswell"...

No, the time of the Judges was when God left Israel to themselves, and send Judges from time to time until the era of the Kings had come, where it was basically the same just with Kings instead.

It tells people basically how it´s NOT done.

I´ll add this link about Judges, because your fellow countryman can surely explain it much better than I ever could:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/darby/jdg019.htm

OK, you don't like that example, but do you honestly not accept that numerous parts of the OT quite clearly put women and children below men and punishes them for minor indiscretions?

Forcing the victims of rape to marry the attacker, or stoning them if they don't cry out loud enough? Advocate the beating (and worse) of children if they are rude to parents?

Now if Christians had totally removed the OT from its dogma then you light have a point, but the problem is that they haven't (not even close) and as such every Christian sect plays pick and mix with what it wants from the OT. A point that you can then expand to both Judaim and Islam, all of whom use the same core text as the basis of laws (up to and including sharia).

Yes, I see the catholic influence in your thinking now.

Really! If you think I'm sympathetic to the Catholic church you are very, very much mistaken.

I do find it interesting that you go on to chastise me over making assumptions about yourself (when I have not actually done so), yet here we find you doing just that. You know nothing at all of my dealings with Catholic institutions.

My point was (and remains) that to say that Catholics are not Christians is a viewpoint of your particular sect and one that I can assure you many others (not just Catholics) do not share. Hence my point about arguing over who's view of the imaginary is most accurate, rather forgetting that all of you pick and chose which part you want and do not want.

No, Christian sects did not result from the catholic church, because although they like to say so, it´s not the "one true church established by Jesus Christ himself" it´s simply not true. The earliest Christians had never anything in mind to establish a headquarter in Rome, putting a Arch-Bishop on a thrown to rule as the highest of all Bishops, collecting Reliquiants, opress people by shade fear of "Hellfire" etc etc....

No Christian sect resulted from the Catholic church? The church of England most certainly did, and as such the resulting Anglican community is an off-shot of the Catholic church, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, etc. etc.

While you may not view Catholics are 'real' Christians, to argue that they are not the root of the vast majority of Christians worldwide is utterly incorrect.

And also, you know nothing about me, I could be an Armaic Syrian or a Coptic Egyptian Christian, which would make my "sect" one that´s a lot older than the catholic church

Odd as I've not assigned a single view point to you at all, nor actually attached you to any particular sect, quite the opposite I went to great pains to ensure I didn't.

Throughout all of church history there have been Christians who didn´t think the catholic way. And Luther wasn´t the first one who had enough courage to do something about it, just so it happened, his movement, which he didn´t want to become a movement he just wanted a reform in the established "big" church, was the first one they couldn´t simply slaughter and burn away.

I have no problem to entertain you for your amusement Scaff, just so you know, I find it at least as amusing as you do.

Odd you say that as apart from the forth crusade the Catholics didn't burn and murder away the Coptic either, I get a sense that you are looking at a rather edited version of inter-sect relationships here.

Seeming to forget that every the most 'right on' of sects have issues themselves, after all Luther did write on Jews and their lies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

...a volume that among other things called for the following:

1. to avoid Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;
2. to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;
3. for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;
5. to not offer protection for Jews on highways;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping and given back to Jews who truly convert; and
7. to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their noses.

Yep a truly Christian group of values in that lot.

 

[Duke]

I'm late to this party, but I'll throw my basic opinion in: I think Islam is now where Christianity was 500 years ago. Backwards, averse to science because of the danger it poses to their religious political power, and striving to expand further in the world in order to project that power. Both Christianity of 500 years ago and Islam today thrive on keeping their believers uneducated, fanatical, and under control.

I can only hope that in another 500 years, humanity has rid itself of this self-imposed curse that we call religion.

 

[Flaco13]

OK, you don't like that example, but do you honestly not accept that numerous parts of the OT quite clearly put women and children below men and punishes them for minor indiscretions?

Forcing the victims of rape to marry the attacker, or stoning them if they don't cry out loud enough? Advocate the beating (and worse) of children if they are rude to parents?

Now if Christians had totally removed the OT from its dogma then you light have a point, but the problem is that they haven't (not even close) and as such every Christian sect plays pick and mix with what it wants from the OT. A point that you can then expand to both Judaim and Islam, all of whom use the same core text as the basis of laws (up to and including sharia).

Had Israel obeyed their God, He wouldn´t have put them under the law, the punishments for minor indiscretions, as you call them are all part of the laws of the Sinai.

If you talk about Deuteronomy 21:10-14, it´s about a woman from a conquered city, if a soldier falls in love with her, he can invite her to his home, there she should cut her hair, he is to let her be for a month so she can mourn her parents and after that they can marry, but he can also let her go but may not sell her for money.

There´s no mention of rape nor stoning her, you seemed to be quite obsessed with such horrible thoughts...

anyway, next would be Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (?) Yes, it is a hard law, but seriously, how many times do you think it happened that a parents had gone all the way to the end? If I lived at that time, and no matter how rebelious my son would´ve been, I would´ve never let him be stoned! I would have disobeyed the law, yes, and would pray to the Lord for forgiveness ... and kill and sacrifice a sheep or something that was pretty trendy back then.

I don´t need to tell you how Jesus acted, when people tried to stone a woman. But, ah, well... I forgot you are unable to see the connections.

No need to remove anything and thats not a problem at all, the problems would come when it would be removed.

Know what these laws really are? They are road sign that tells you how fast you should drive, in Germany most people wouldn´t care and go a lot faster than the number on the sign, because the fines there are rediculously low (14km/h = 25€), whereas if you are in Norway ... you would think twice if it´s a good idea to speed there because if they get you, you could be fined with 3x your monthly salary! That´s all the laws for Israel (!) are in the OT, a speeding ticket worth 9.000€. An exaggerated punishment, very few people would be dumb enough to violate wilfully.

Again, the laws are for Israel. The OT to Christians is a reminder, it includes prophecy and parables and poems that are important to us, removing anything is not an option!

Really! If you think I'm sympathetic to the Catholic church you are very, very much mistaken.

I do find it interesting that you go on to chastise me over making assumptions about yourself (when I have not actually done so), yet here we find you doing just that. You know nothing at all of my dealings with Catholic institutions.

My point was (and remains) that to say that Catholics are not Christians is a viewpoint of your particular sect and one that I can assure you many others (not just Catholics) do not share. Hence my point about arguing over who's view of the imaginary is most accurate, rather forgetting that all of you pick and chose which part you want and do not want.


No Christian sect resulted from the Catholic church? The church of England most certainly did, and as such the resulting Anglican community is an off-shot of the Catholic church, Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, etc. etc.

While you may not view Catholics are 'real' Christians, to argue that they are not the root of the vast majority of Christians worldwide is utterly incorrect.



Odd as I've not assigned a single view point to you at all, nor actually attached you to any particular sect, quite the opposite I went to great pains to ensure I didn't.



Odd you say that as apart from the forth crusade the Catholics didn't burn and murder away the Coptic either, I get a sense that you are looking at a rather edited version of inter-sect relationships here.

Seeming to forget that every the most 'right on' of sects have issues themselves, after all Luther did write on Jews and their lies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

...a volume that among other things called for the following:

1. to avoid Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;
2. to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;
3. for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;
5. to not offer protection for Jews on highways;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping and given back to Jews who truly convert; and
7. to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their noses.

Yep a truly Christian group of values in that lot.

Oh no, I didn´t think you sympathise with the catholic church. I think you only ever had contact to catholics, as you mentioned your family partly is, and that´s where your ideas of generalizing Christianity under the lids of catholicism might come from. Or you might have had talked to nonbelieving pastors or liberal theologists. I assumed that, because you kept generalizing and seemed a bit perplex about me having totaly different views from what you´ve heard so far, just assuming not accusing you of anything there.

"No Christian sect resulted from the Catholic church?" - I never said that

You: "And yet the very body that you dismiss resulted in just about every Christian sect that exists today"

And I explained you that there have always been groups of Christians beside the one big institutional one. I´m not saying the reformed/Evangelical Church didn´t result from there, I´m saying there have been sects before that. And there are sects today that rely on the earliest Church and the opressed Church, which where quite unknown so I don´t blame you for not knowing about it, that had lived through centuries, persecuted by the "big one". And of course after the reformation those groups all joined the new Evangelical Church.

About the Coptic/Armaic, I was simply adressing two examples of Christian sects that did not come from Catholic Church, but existed long before that.

Hope we cleared that now, because I don´t actually know what the use is here, debating who knows more about church history.

About the Luther vs. Jews thing I agree with you. I can´t stand it when I see people placed a statue of that man in front of their churches, as seen very often in Germany, and in Wittenberg, Germany where he lived most of his life, they actually have a lively cult about him ... A man who said such things... It´s beyond me, I mean I´m glad the reformation took place somehow, I wouldn´t want to imagine what the Vatican would like today.

"As soon a coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." - Johann Tetzel

 

[Scaff]

There´s no mention of rape nor stoning her, you seemed to be quite obsessed with such horrible thoughts...

Oh its not me obsessed with these things.

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24"
As I said if a women is raped (within the city walls) and doesn't cry out loud enough she will be stoned to death with the rapist.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29"
Raped! Well as long as you dad gets his money then its no problem, you just have to marry him.

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18"
Taken as a slave during a war, well if you male your going to be dead, if your a women who has been raped your going to be dead, if your a virgin well your going to be a slave.

I repeat, I'm not the one with the issue here. Now don't get me wrong, none of this surprises me from a bronze age tribe, what does surprise me is using it as the underpinnings of a way of life in the 21st century

Again, the laws are for Israel. The OT to Christians is a reminder, it includes prophecy and parables and poems that are important to us, removing anything is not an option!

So despite it being the literal word of god, you get to pick and chose. Explain the bit about how god got it so wrong again that you have to pick which bits he/she got right?

Oh no, I didn´t think you sympathise with the catholic church. I think you only ever had contact to catholics, as you mentioned your family partly is, and that´s where your ideas of generalizing Christianity under the lids of catholicism might come from. Or you might have had talked to nonbelieving pastors or liberal theologists. I assumed that, because you kept generalizing and seemed a bit perplex about me having totaly different views from what you´ve heard so far, just assuming not accusing you of anything there.

Off you go with those assumptions again.

I'm not catholic, my wife was and her family are.

If you think I have only had contact with Catholics you are so wrong its laughable. My own background is mixed Jewish/Protestant, I've lived and worked with Muslims, and on my (long) journey through faiths to my atheism I have investigated and read the works of every major faith on the planet.

Keep in mind that you are the one who has stated specifics about what a Christian must do to be a Christian, I have simply pointed out that not all Christians (and in fact likely the majority) may well not agree with you.

"No Christian sect resulted from the Catholic church?" - I never said that

You: "And yet the very body that you dismiss resulted in just about every Christian sect that exists today"

And I explained you that there have always been groups of Christians beside the one big institutional one. I´m not saying the reformed/Evangelical Church didn´t result from there, I´m saying there have been sects before that. And there are sects today that rely on the earliest Church and the opressed Church, which where quite unknown so I don´t blame you for not knowing about it, that had lived through centuries, persecuted by the "big one". And of course after the reformation those groups all joined the new Evangelical Church.

I quote you directly:

No, Christian sects did not result from the catholic church....

Now you may not have meant it, but that is exactly what you said.

About the Coptic/Armaic, I was simply adressing two examples of Christian sects that did not come from Catholic Church, but existed long before that.

And I simply said that they don't represent the bulk of the Christian groups on the planet, you are the one a tad obsessed with stating that they are part of a sect that is not actualy Christian.

Hope we cleared that now, because I don´t actually know what the use is here, debating who knows more about church history.

Why? The point of a discussion forum is to discuss and debate.

About the Luther vs. Jews thing I agree with you. I can´t stand it when I see people placed a statue of that man in front of their churches, as seen very often in Germany, and in Wittenberg, Germany where he lived most of his life, they actually have a lively cult about him ... A man who said such things... It´s beyond me, I mean I´m glad the reformation took place somehow, I wouldn´t want to imagine what the Vatican would like today.
"As soon a coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." - Johann Tetzel

You know the way you feel about that part of the church. That's how I feel about religion as a whole (and please by that understand that I mean all faiths).

 

[Flaco13]

Oh its not me obsessed with these things.

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24"
As I said if a women is raped (within the city walls) and doesn't cry out loud enough she will be stoned to death with the rapist.

Not sure if you think she should have cryied out loud while being raped, but it would be wrong. She should scream before that man touches her, so help can come and deal with the molester. And if she didn´t even resist, I´m not sure one could call it a rape. Every women will scream in such a situation. And why she should be stoned with him if she didn´t is explained in the verse 22 , to keep Israel off evil.
Verse 28 explaines how if the situation would happen in a field, and she screamed for help, but none heard it to help her, she may not be killed, because it wasn´t her fault! Picture that!

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29"
Raped! Well as long as you dad gets his money then its no problem, you just have to marry him.

He has to marry the girl he raped, has to pay money for it, and may never divorce her! What´s the sentence for a rape today? A couple of years and they are free again... I actually think the law in Deuteronomy keeps sick minded idiots who can´t control their sex drive away from doing such a thing, far more than if all he has to fear is a couple of years prison. In this case I have to say, too bad that law was only for Israel.

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18"

Taken as a slave during a war, well if you male your going to be dead, if your a women who has been raped your going to be dead, if your a virgin well your going to be a slave.

The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry.

The above is from a commentary. Just so it happened in wars over a city or country, at least here they spared the children, have other tribes in that area and time spared anybody when they conquered a city? Have the bombs over Hiroshima etc. spared anybody? But when God comanded it, it is 20 times as bad.

I repeat, I'm not the one with the issue here. Now don't get me wrong, none of this surprises me from a bronze age tribe, what does surprise me is using it as the underpinnings of a way of life in the 21st century

But who does that??? Who runs around, using these verses to justify criminal acts of any kind? Explain that to me.

So despite it being the literal word of god, you get to pick and chose. Explain the bit about how god got it so wrong again that you have to pick which bits he/she got right?

He got nothing wrong at all and I don´t pick and chose. We take the bibel as the word of God, yes. We take parables as parables, narrations as narrations, poetic language as poetic language and depictions as depictions. There probably is the difference to
those who think the bibel must be read like a novel.

If you think I have only had contact with Catholics you are so wrong its laughable. My own background is mixed Jewish/Protestant, I've lived and worked with Muslims, and on my (long) journey through faiths to my atheism I have investigated and read the works of every major faith on the planet.

Keep in mind that you are the one who has stated specifics about what a Christian must do to be a Christian, I have simply pointed out that not all Christians (and in fact likely the majority) may well not agree with you.


And I simply said that they don't represent the bulk of the Christian groups on the planet, you are the one a tad obsessed with stating that they are part of a sect that is not actualy Christian.


You know the way you feel about that part of the church. That's how I feel about religion as a whole (and please by that understand that I mean all faiths).

You got it a bit wrong, I didn´t mean to say a Catholic is not a Christian, sure they claim Jesus Christ as the foundation so it sure is Christian, I dismiss their teachings, though. I consider a true Christian as someone who, repent his sins in prayer to Jesus, the so called conversion. And the biggest problem I have with the catholic church (I could just aswell talk about pentecostal movement or 7th day adventists) is that they use Mary as a intermediary, which means they could possibly convert to her instead. When Jesus in the NT clearly says that "no one comes to the father but through me". As a Christian, of course, I want everyone to be saved. If there is the possibility that the concept of getting saved and live on in the presence of God, I just wouldn´t want to take the risk to miss it. If it´s wrong, well I haven´t really lost anything.

Like yours, my journey was very long and I pretty much went down the same road, searching here and there, I have some knowledge of every major religion and I went into Darwin, Marx (at a time when I didn´t believe in anything anymore) and I have even read Alister Crowleys stuff... In my background none is really faithful, when I was a kid I couldn´t get any answers when I asked about God, other than maybe "I don´t know if there is one, I can´t tell you anything about it." So I went through pretty much everything, let´s say "spiritualy".

I know, and I understand the way you feel about religion.

What Luther wrote there is absolutely insane, doesn´t look like him, but its sadly proven he really wrote that. But I think he simply got it wrong, his translations weren´t very accurate either, he should´ve sat together with Rabbi´s IMO, to help him translating from hebrew, and he obviously wasn´t very good in greek either.

 

[DK]

He has to marry the girl he raped, has to pay money for it, and may never divorce her! What´s the sentence for a rape today? A couple of years and they are free again... I actually think the law in Deuteronomy keeps sick minded idiots who can´t control their sex drive away from doing such a thing, far more than if all he has to fear is a couple of years prison. In this case I have to say, too bad that law was only for Israel.

wat.

How do you think the rape victim feels, being forced to marry her rapist and never being allowed to divorce him? Do you honestly believe that her rapist will be any more gentle towards her because they're married?

 

[Flaco13]

wat.

How do you think the rape victim feels, being forced to marry her rapist and never being allowed to divorce him? Do you honestly believe that her rapist will be any more gentle towards her because they're married?

Well, that´s a good point actually. I might have ignored the feelings of the woman in that case, Im sorry. But my point was that that law, as it stands, might have prevented many such cases from happening. Many more than a 2year sentence does.

Again, if ticket for speeding in country A costs you 25$ ; and in country B it´s your monthly salary x 3. In which country are you more likely to go and risk a fine for speeding? I bet in country B there are by far less speeding cases.

If a man is sick enough to have such feelings, and would do something as disgusting as to rape a woman, IMO he would less likely do it if he had to pay a lot of money, is forced to marry her and may never divorce her. It´s a greater punishment than spending prison time, where he has hope to come out soon.

But in the case a man really did that and got caught, I agree it seems unjust towards the victim.

 

[DK]

How would forced marriage prevent rape?

 

[Blitz24]

How would forced marriage prevent rape?

Going on the notion that if the man now has to permanently care for her and it is upheld by the courts, he would think twice about defiling her.

 

[Scaff]

Not sure if you think she should have cryied out loud while being raped, but it would be wrong. She should scream before that man touches her, so help can come and deal with the molester. And if she didn´t even resist, I´m not sure one could call it a rape. Every women will scream in such a situation. And why she should be stoned with him if she didn´t is explained in the verse 22 , to keep Israel off evil.
Verse 28 explaines how if the situation would happen in a field, and she screamed for help, but none heard it to help her, she may not be killed, because it wasn´t her fault! Picture that!

He has to marry the girl he raped, has to pay money for it, and may never divorce her! What´s the sentence for a rape today? A couple of years and they are free again... I actually think the law in Deuteronomy keeps sick minded idiots who can´t control their sex drive away from doing such a thing, far more than if all he has to fear is a couple of years prison. In this case I have to say, too bad that law was only for Israel.

The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry.

The above is from a commentary. Just so it happened in wars over a city or country, at least here they spared the children, have other tribes in that area and time spared anybody when they conquered a city? Have the bombs over Hiroshima etc. spared anybody? But when God comanded it, it is 20 times as bad.

I'm stunned that you are actually serious in this regard.

Not only are you condoning the utterly barbaric but you are utterly ignoring the victim in all of this.

You do realise that as well as covering rape the first one covers adultery and you have just stated that you are perfectly happy for the penalty for adulatory to e death by stoning!

I do love that you are also now assigning positions to me that I have note commented on, and then basically positioning me as supporting them. Not only is it a strawman, but much as I condone 'collateral damage' that is not what we are talking about here. What is being described is the cold-blooded murder of innocent bystanders.

But who does that??? Who runs around, using these verses to justify criminal acts of any kind? Explain that to me.

Doesn't take long to find them:

http://www.examiner.com/article/ano...f-murder-for-parenting-by-to-train-up-a-child

He got nothing wrong at all and I don´t pick and chose. We take the bibel as the word of God, yes. We take parables as parables, narrations as narrations, poetic language as poetic language and depictions as depictions. There probably is the difference to
those who think the bibel must be read like a novel.

Nothing wrong.

So you do agree that homosexuals and adulators should be stoned to death, alongside children who are rude to parents.

You got it a bit wrong, I didn´t mean to say a Catholic is not a Christian, sure they claim Jesus Christ as the foundation so it sure is Christian, I dismiss their teachings, though. I consider a true Christian as someone who, repent his sins in prayer to Jesus, the so called conversion. And the biggest problem I have with the catholic church (I could just aswell talk about pentecostal movement or 7th day adventists) is that they use Mary as a intermediary, which means they could possibly convert to her instead. When Jesus in the NT clearly says that "no one comes to the father but through me". As a Christian, of course, I want everyone to be saved. If there is the possibility that the concept of getting saved and live on in the presence of God, I just wouldn´t want to take the risk to miss it. If it´s wrong, well I haven´t really lost anything.

Like yours, my journey was very long and I pretty much went down the same road, searching here and there, I have some knowledge of every major religion and I went into Darwin, Marx (at a time when I didn´t believe in anything anymore) and I have even read Alister Crowleys stuff... In my background none is really faithful, when I was a kid I couldn´t get any answers when I asked about God, other than maybe "I don´t know if there is one, I can´t tell you anything about it." So I went through pretty much everything, let´s say "spiritualy".

I know, and I understand the way you feel about religion.

What Luther wrote there is absolutely insane, doesn´t look like him, but its sadly proven he really wrote that. But I think he simply got it wrong, his translations weren´t very accurate either, he should´ve sat together with Rabbi´s IMO, to help him translating from hebrew, and he obviously wasn´t very good in greek either.

I didn't get anything wrong.

Let's be clear on this, I simply quoted your words here, what is however far more disturbing is the barbarism that you seem to be taking as the word of god and therefore divine, all the while ignoring the victims in it.

How would forced marriage prevent rape?

It wouldn't. Its far more likely to perpetuate it.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think Islam is now where Christianity was 500 years ago. Backwards, averse to science because of the danger it poses to their religious political power, and striving to expand further in the world in order to project that power. Both Christianity of 500 years ago and Islam today thrive on keeping their believers uneducated, fanatical, and under control.

I can only hope that in another 500 years, humanity has rid itself of this self-imposed curse that we call religion.

Agreed, in general. A huge thing for me is the way that rather than the religion informing the culture, the culture has too often informed the religion. And once this once cultural stuff is set in religious stone, it doesn't move easily. Just think about how antiquated the views of so called "civilised" societies were only 50 years ago, let alone when the religious texts were written, and within those cultures.

Until a religious person can concede that at the very least The Bible and the like were written filtered though the "eyes" of humans and the cultures of the area and era, I wouldn't seriously consider any of their input.

Edit: Comment removed due to further consideration .

 

[Denur]

As a Christian, of course, I want everyone to be saved. If there is the possibility that the concept of getting saved and live on in the presence of God, I just wouldn´t want to take the risk to miss it. If it´s wrong, well I haven´t really lost anything.

I have always found this often-used argument (better safe than sorry) peculiar in a religious context. In engineering it is perfectly valid, because experience has shown that one cannot know all relevant factors when e.g. designing a bridge (future traffic load, earthquake magnitudes, etc). But when you apply it to your god, that means that you are not completely confident that He is the One or that you are following the right doctrine. I even find it to be a very weak argument, one that one would use when trying to convince a potential church member: "Why don't you join me in church today and sing a few psalms along with use? If it doesn't work for you, nothing is lost, right?". In my opinion, it is a first stepping stone towards indoctrination and brain washing. Maybe that is what happened to you, and now you are clinging to it vehemently.

You say that "you really haven't lost anything" when you are wrong. I strongly disagree with you on this, especially when one is so deeply religious, that his/her entire life revolves around it. From having wasted time in church, where you could have enjoyed your hobby or playing with your children, to the extreme, by having taken someone's head for merely having another or no believe.

Do you think, like me, that there are Islamic people (or any other religion for that matter) who also hold to "better safe than sorry" when dealing with their religion? What if the Catholics are right after all (I used to be catholic), or the Jews, and you still end up in Hell? How safe do you feel in following your version? This is a serious question, so please answer this.

But I will leave you with this little sketch:

 

[Dotini]

All of Christendom? You should inform yourself some more. Catharists and the Eastern Church, just two examples of other Christian denominations at that time.

No, the concept of a Pope, a "Succesor Petri" is unbiblical.

The Cathars were peaceful gnostic heretics who thought the church of Rome corrupt and materialistic. Dualists, they believed the God of the old testament to be evil, and the God of the new testament to be good. They believed in reincarnation. They even went so far as to encourage females in their equivalent of the priesthood. For their heresies, they were exterminated from their homes, villages, towns and castles all across southern Europe in the Albigensian Crusades, 1209-29.

The eastern church was essentially confined behind the massive walls of Constantinople until they were blasted out by Turks with large cannon.

With Christianity, as with all else, might made right. The pope may have carried a bible, but he swung a bloody heavy sword through the stout arms of his order of Knights militant. "Kill them all, God will sort out their souls", said his Inquisitor.

 

[Flaco13]

I'm stunned that you are actually serious in this regard.

Not only are you condoning the utterly barbaric but you are utterly ignoring the victim in all of this.

You do realise that as well as covering rape the first one covers adultery and you have just stated that you are perfectly happy for the penalty for adulatory to e death by stoning!

You are ascribing to me that I would be happy if adultery was punished by stoning? Yet it´s you who thinks that what is described here was valid for Christians and Jews today. "...to keep Israel off evil..." Israel being a tribe of people at that time. Past = one thing; present = another... Don´t know how you go on ignoring this.

If that was still so there would be a lot of stoning going on everywhere in the world. I´m sure a stoning would be intensly reported in the news, when was the last one?

Arguably, I say that back then the laws have prevented some the cases from happening!

Again, these were rules to the people at that time, they are not valid anymore.

I do love that you are also now assigning positions to me that I have note commented on, and then basically positioning me as supporting them. Not only is it a strawman, but much as I condone 'collateral damage' that is not what we are talking about here. What is being described is the cold-blooded murder of innocent bystanders.

I´m sorry I didn´t understand anything of that?

Doesn't take long to find them:

http://www.examiner.com/article/ano...f-murder-for-parenting-by-to-train-up-a-child

^ And of course these people would have never done all that, were they not religious. Since you didn´t really answer the question, I´ll do it. Who are they? Hypocrits, who willingly misuse the bibel.

And I´m being put up on the same level just because I consider myself Christian and so did they, well that´s really great...

If you could prove being religious equals to people led to do barbaric acts you might have a point.

Or isn´t there another source for those problems in the world? One that´s within humans, with or without a tend to religiousness?

http://www.examiner.com/article/mom...her-adults-payed-to-watch?cid=taboola_inbound

http://www.examiner.com/article/nei...rape-murder-of-9-year-old-girl-left-trash-bin

 

[BobK]

Again, these were rules to the people at that time, they are not valid anymore.

Just where in the Bible does it say "This rule is no longer in effect"? I must have missed it somehow.

 

[Flaco13]

I have always found this often-used argument (better safe than sorry) peculiar in a religious context. In engineering it is perfectly valid, because experience has shown that one cannot know all relevant factors when e.g. designing a bridge (future traffic load, earthquake magnitudes, etc). But when you apply it to your god, that means that you are not completely confident that He is the One or that you are following the right doctrine. I even find it to be a very weak argument, one that one would use when trying to convince a potential church member: "Why don't you join me in church today and sing a few psalms along with use? If it doesn't work for you, nothing is lost, right?". In my opinion, it is a first stepping stone towards indoctrination and brain washing. Maybe that is what happened to you, and now you are clinging to it vehemently.

You say that "you really haven't lost anything" when you are wrong. I strongly disagree with you on this, especially when one is so deeply religious, that his/her entire life revolves around it. From having wasted time in church, where you could have enjoyed your hobby or playing with your children, to the extreme, by having taken someone's head for merely having another or no believe.

Do you think, like me, that there are Islamic people (or any other religion for that matter) who also hold to "better safe than sorry" when dealing with their religion? What if the Catholics are right after all (I used to be catholic), or the Jews, and you still end up in Hell? How safe do you feel in following your version? This is a serious question, so please answer this.

But I will leave you with this little sketch:

Well I hope you don´t think I used this as an argument to convince my adversary here. No, I know that´s not going to happen. Please don´t think I would want to try to evangelise here, I really don´t.

Read the words good "... I just wouldn´t want to miss it" I wasn´t talking about my own confidence in God, had I sayed "I don´t want to miss it", your point would be understandable. Don´t worry, my confident in God is strong, I have no doubts about His existance or that the bible is the word of God (I have only doubts about the correct translations and canons in some bibles).

Ok, you think that about 2 hours a week is a time that when I sume it up at the end of my live I might have wasted it in church instead of doing something else or play with my children? Seriously? Most other Hobbies are more time-consuming than that, so with every Hobby I have I have lost that time for my children. 2 hours isn´t much, IMO and the rest of the time in reading and studying, at house circles etc. my children can still be with me. I can lay the book aside at any time to play with my children.

Good we are getting back on the actual topic. You must understand I can not put all religion under one lid like you guys, I must seperate more, so, Islam. No I don´t think in Islam you have a "better save than sorry concept", fundamentally, to minister is the least important way of spreading the religion, there is a tendency today though, were more and more minstry is done from Muslims, it would apply to them, sure but thats a very new trend and not fundamental in Islam.

Sorry, impossible that Catholic doctrine is right, that would mean, most importantly, that Mary was a intermediary, and I covered that already in earlier post, there´s only one verse in the Bible necessary to clearly refute that.

About Jews, they aren´t really wrong. How can I put that understandable? (I probably can´t) .... The concept of grace through faith has worked for people in the OT, it´s not a protestant invention. But, the Jews missed the Messiah, they are still waiting for him. Messiah will come again, some Rabbis even state that there are two comings of Messiah, a suffering- and a triumphant Messia. Prophecy says they will seek Messiah when they come home to their land from the scattering (Not from Babylon, from all over the world), so before they had a problem with Messiah (they rejected Jesus), but seek (an awakening) him at the end. Their chance to convert is far higher than that of a european Catholic, that doesn´t mean that there aren´t any Catholic converts (praying to Jesus only, not to Mary). In the west, there is no awakening, instead a great apostasy, as Jesus foretold.

I feel perfectly well in my "version", as you call it.

Just where in the Bible does it say "This rule is no longer in effect"? I must have missed it somehow.

John 1,17

Romans 3,19-20 and 31

 

[BobK]

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Nope, nothing rescinding the law there.

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Not there, either.

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

And that one says quite clearly the law is still in effect. You still gotta dash babies' brains out against the rocks if they're of the enemy's tribe. Kill people who eat shrimp. All that kind of thing.

 

[Dotini]

You still gotta dash babies' brains out against the rocks if they're of the enemy's tribe.

This is a spectacular law, currently on display in A Game of Thrones. In the real world, the western world, it hasn't been enforced since the Wars of the Roses.

 

[Scaff]

You are ascribing to me that I would be happy if adultery was punished by stoning? Yet it´s you who thinks that what is described here was valid for Christians and Jews today. "...to keep Israel off evil..." Israel being a tribe of people at that time. Past = one thing; present = another... Don´t know how you go on ignoring this.

No I asked why as a Christian you don't still follow the law as laid down in the OT?

Now you can cite John and Romans but the fact is that neither specifically cancel the old laws, and the fact that modern Christians and Jews are happy to follow the ten commandments also clearly indicates that the old laws are still followed.

Hence my question and the point I raised in regard to picking only what Christians want to follow, which strikes me as odd given that you claim its the word of god.

If that was still so there would be a lot of stoning going on everywhere in the world. I´m sure a stoning would be intensly reported in the news, when was the last one?

Oh I think you will find that the Abrahamic law that cited stoning to death for adultery is unfortunately very much alive.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=woman stoned to death for adultery&oq=woman stoned to death&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.4935j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Arguably, I say that back then the laws have prevented some the cases from happening!

So you consider them to be proportionate?

Again, these were rules to the people at that time, they are not valid anymore.

Still picking what you like and ignoring what you don't. How does it feel to get to override god when you don't agree with him?

^ And of course these people would have never done all that, were they not religious. Since you didn´t really answer the question, I´ll do it. Who are they? Hypocrits, who willingly misuse the bibel.

I did answer your question, I posted a link to people who wrote a book that follows the Abrahamic laws regarding children's behaviour and punishment that is followed by fundamental Christian and has resulted in the unlawful death of minors.

You might not like the answer, but in regard to your question that's exactly what it is. I'm sure you will wheel out your line that they are not real Christians (remind me under what authority you get to make that decision again), they and many others would disagree.

And I´m being put up on the same level just because I consider myself Christian and so did they, well that´s really great...

Who did that? I certainly didn't!

If you could prove being religious equals to people led to do barbaric acts you might have a point.

Follow the link in regard to stoning. In particular watch the videos and then come back and honestly repeat that statement.

Or isn´t there another source for those problems in the world? One that´s within humans, with or without a tend to religiousness?

http://www.examiner.com/article/mom...her-adults-payed-to-watch?cid=taboola_inbound

http://www.examiner.com/article/nei...rape-murder-of-9-year-old-girl-left-trash-bin

And they were follwoing exactly what piece of secular dogma that instucted them to act this way?

This is another example of your attempt at strawman arguments.

No one has claimed that everything bad that happens in the world is down to religion, rather that religion can and does cause people to do bad things. Those are quite different statements and to attempt to turn one into the other is not going to work.

Simple point of fact, people kill in the name of religion, pretty much every day. How many people kill in the name of atheism (and specifically that)?