Cartoons - offence must be retaliated

[ludahai]

The Christian Bible in no way calls for the extermination of those who believe in another faith. The Christian Bible says that the "gods" of other faith's are not gods, but are false prophets. dude, get your facts straight.

I am sure you have seem him take a number of verses and completely twisted them out of context. I have called him on it and am still awaiting his reply. Unless he has turned tail and decided to run and hide.

 

[MSgt]

And they have since dug their own eyes out of their skulls at the sight of you. Can't the Marines do better? But I digress.

My Mom has always said that I'm a special little guy, so I don't know what you are talking about.

You know bro, I just say, "Free the Women".

Little long winded, but still, nice job.

There's more to "free the women" than people think....

At the core of many a terrorist leader is a spoiled brat disappointed by the failures of adulthood. Perhaps the most routine commonality between the "practical" and "apocalyptic" terrorist is the male terrorist's inability to develop and maintain healthy, enduring relationships with women – although the practical terrorist is more apt to idealize members of the opposite sex, who then disappoint him, and to imagine himself re-created as a storybook hero of the sort he believes would appeal to his fantasy woman (Timothy Mcveigh). While the apocalyptic terrorist fears, despises, and hates females (Mohammed Atta, whose testament perfectly captured the Islamic fanatic’s revulsion toward women). Practical terrorist may be puritanical, but they are much more likely to accord women admission to and high status in their organizations (from numerous historical left-wing terrorist groups to the Tamil Tigers). The Apocalyptic terrorist usually mistrusts and shuns women (Al Queda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are classic examples, although some Christian fringe groups also seem to believe that the word “evil” is derived from the root word “Eve”).

Terrorists are disturbed, unhappy men. There are exceptions, but the general rule is that the more repressed the society and the more fervent its rejection of reciprocity in sexual relations, the more terrorists it produces, and the greater the gap in social status between men and women in the society, the more likely it is to produce suicidal male terrorists. Societies that dehumanize women dehumanize everyone except those males in authority positions – and the ability to dehumanize his targets is essential to the psychology of the terrorist. While those who will become terrorists may wed to accommodate social norms or familial insistence, the rarest form of human being may be a happily-married terrorist.


Long winded?

 

[vergiss]

Mods or Admin, whoever has the authority, can someone check the IP of this "Fakhri" guy? I'm betting 10 bucks it's jamesrage, although his spelling's a little too good.

 

[ludahai]

Mods or Admin, whoever has the authority, can someone check the IP of this "Fakhri" guy? I'm betting 10 bucks it's jamesrage, although his spelling's a little too good.

If it isn't, does that mean you will donate 10 dollars to debate politics?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Mods or Admin, whoever has the authority, can someone check the IP of this "Fakhri" guy? I'm betting 10 bucks it's jamesrage, although his spelling's a little too good.

I would expect that if it is indeed a Muslim then English probably isn't his first language and his spelling and grammar would naturally be poor.

 

[jamesrage]

Mods or Admin, whoever has the authority, can someone check the IP of this "Fakhri" guy? I'm betting 10 bucks it's jamesrage, although his spelling's a little too good.

I am amazed what liberals think.I do not need to impersonate anyone to **** people off or to stir people up.

Why are you so convinced this this "Fakhri" guy is neocon,or conservative masquerading as a muslim?Is it hard for you to grasp the concept that real crazy muslims use the internet too?They use the internet all the time.He could be some muslim who is not aware of the disrespect that other muslims have for other religions and is living under some delusion that muslims are innocent of anywrong doing.

It could be a demoncats,after all the demoncats have their racist roots.They could be exploiting the situation

 

[teacher]

My Mom has always said that I'm a special little guy, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Ladies, Gentlemen and Billo.

Gunny brought it.

There's more to "free the women" than people think....

At the core of many a terrorist leader is a spoiled brat disappointed by the failures of adulthood. Perhaps the most routine commonality between the "practical" and "apocalyptic" terrorist is the male terrorist's inability to develop and maintain healthy, enduring relationships with women – although the practical terrorist is more apt to idealize members of the opposite sex, who then disappoint him, and to imagine himself re-created as a storybook hero of the sort he believes would appeal to his fantasy woman (Timothy Mcveigh). While the apocalyptic terrorist fears, despises, and hates females (Mohammed Atta, whose testament perfectly captured the Islamic fanatic’s revulsion toward women). Practical terrorist may be puritanical, but they are much more likely to accord women admission to and high status in their organizations (from numerous historical left-wing terrorist groups to the Tamil Tigers). The Apocalyptic terrorist usually mistrusts and shuns women (Al Queda and other Islamic terrorist organizations are classic examples, although some Christian fringe groups also seem to believe that the word “evil” is derived from the root word “Eve”).

Terrorists are disturbed, unhappy men. There are exceptions, but the general rule is that the more repressed the society and the more fervent its rejection of reciprocity in sexual relations, the more terrorists it produces, and the greater the gap in social status between men and women in the society, the more likely it is to produce suicidal male terrorists. Societies that dehumanize women dehumanize everyone except those males in authority positions – and the ability to dehumanize his targets is essential to the psychology of the terrorist. While those who will become terrorists may wed to accommodate social norms or familial insistence, the rarest form of human being may be a happily-married terrorist.

So basically what you are saying is terrorists are dreadfully frightened of that little piece of real estate that women have and the power it has over them.

Long winded?

Yes. But then I just yell "Free the Women" and then leave you to do the heavy lifting.

Don't recall seeing that particular rant from you before Gunny.

Very nice work. Very nice work indeed.

You left wingers should commit this post by Gunny to memory. This IS what it is all about. Our women are free. They just can't friggin stand that. Be it because they know it through movies, music, or snippets on CNN where they see our women voting. The biggest thing they fear is losing their slaves. Half the population kids. What we offer the Arab men is the lose of sex on demand. What we offer the Arab women is the ability to deny Arab men sex on demand. It IS that friggin simple. Well, also the bit about the ruling rich Arabs losing power. This nation took away black slaves from white monsters long ago. This is no different. This is not about oil, foreign policy, Bush, imperialism or whatever weak ass shi*t you lefties and the EU claim.

This is about women.

Here's a friggin question for you.

If your neighbor forced his wife to wear a tent and then beat her with a stick because she didn't, would you still say it's not your problem?

But some line on a map makes the difference?

******s.

 

[teacher]

Mods or Admin, whoever has the authority, can someone check the IP of this "Fakhri" guy?

Why? Let him roll. Gives me something to do. Or do you not have the intellect or character to rebuke his words? If you don't. Stay off the thread, I'll smack him for you. I'm just getting warmed up to him. If he has the balls to come back, it's gonna get ugly. And there are many waiting for him besides me equally qualified to drive his ass into the ground. Or is that just a rhetorical question? If it is, my bad.

Fakhri, come out and pla-ay.

 

[oldreliable67]

Gunny and teacher,

:clap: :good_job: You guys are da' :bomb:

 

[kal-el]

I am not being anal-retentive. I simply pointed out that you took the scripture COMPLETELY out of context!

Bla/Bla, that is always theists responses to verses that are pointed out to be filled with hate, and other absurdidites. God has killed way more people than the likes of Hitler and Napolean combined.

Are you making up scriptures now? Exodus 22:20 states:

"You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens in the land of Egypt." The TRUE rendering of that passage is actually very TOLERANT!

Umm, the verse you quoted was Exodus 22:21 dude.:doh I quoted Exodus 22:20, courtesy the NIV study bible. You're right about the verse you quoted as tolerant, but I made no refence to that verse. Please rebut my verse
(Exodus 22:20) thanks. But I was just reading, and I happened to notice the verse almost directly after yours:

Exodus 22:24
My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.

Wow, what a loving fellow that god is.LOL

This is definately a reference to the Hebrews " the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt." Who ELSE was this a reference to.

No **** dude.

It refers to Numbers 14:35 which is a clear outlining of the law that the HEBREWS are required to follow, no one else.

Yes, and it also says the lord destroyed those that did not believe. This fellow seems not to have any tolerance for those who refuse to kiss his ass. But if you kiss his ass, he won't send diseases on you:

Exodus 15:26
He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the lord your god and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commandsand keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any diseases I brought on the Egyptians,for I am the lord, who heals you."

If you include the entire passage, it is clear that this is delivered to Israel.

Wow, you're batting 1000 today!:lol: Nothing gets by you.

"Thus the word of the Lord came to me: Son of man, turn toward the mountains of Israel, and prophesy against them: Mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord God." Ezekiel 6:1-3a

Take one line out of context. Include the context, and you know what it really means. You can't bamboozle me this easily!

Listen wastrel, I know I'm parrotting myself, but you theists keep parrotting this "out of context" ****, if something is perfect, it is impossible for an imperfect being to take it out of context. By you asserting that I am, you're saying the bible is not perfect. Listen up dunce, the bible says you must follow Moses' law, or you shouldn't even bothewr praying:

Proverbs 28:9
If anyone turns a deaf ear to the law, even his prayers are destable.

A little FYI, you can't pontificate your normal cop-out of "is was meant for the Israelites only". He may have only written it for the Hebrews as no other nationality is even mentioned as being in god's good graces, if there were other groups, I'm sure he would have wrote very similar laws to govern them. He wouldn't question his own laws then change them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why would anyone else's laws be any differnent? If you say he shows favoritism towars the Israelites, which he does, he's not perfect. Proverbs had many authors including Soloman and Agur. It was written by Hebrews, but it is godly worldview and insights for living. Soloman is an ancestor of Jesus (Matthew 1:6-7), and he was the 3rd king of Israel for a period of about 40 years. Agur was basically a name given to hired hands. Sure, most of god's laws are directed to the Hebrews, but who else did the bible talk about that was in god's favor? Certainly not the Egyptians, or not the Midianites, not the Amorites, or not the Ammonites. What the hell, this "god" fellow and his entourage the Israelites, had alot of friends!:lol:

Malachi 2:1 " And not, O priests, this commandment is for you: If you don not listen.

That one wasn't even for all of the Hebrews, only the priests.

Yea, that single quote was, but the whole book is for Malachi's people. He calls on his people to put aside their apathy, and make right their attitudes of adulation by trusting god. Mlachi foretold the comings of john the baptist and Jesus.

That's odd that you quote a verse from Malachi. But let's take a look at Malachi a sec, ok? Hows about the last verse in the OT:

Malachi 4:5-6
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."

Wow, this diety loves utilizing threats of violence to get his way, sounds like the ideal definition of terrorism to me.:lol: And people actually adulate such a diety, tsk, tsk.

Yes, they all were (or were even more restricted in their audience.)

Malachi wasn't referring to the Hebrews, he reprimanded his people for the exact same practices that the Hebrews committed since they arrived in their land. Sure, most of his people were Jews, as the Hebrews married among many foreigners, and worshipped their idols. Actaully, that verse I quoted in Jude could apply to Christians, or gentiles. It doesn't mention their exact location.

I love it when anti-Christians take the Word of God out of context! Don't worry, I won't riot in reponse to your blasphemy!

Blasphemy? Everything that I have asserted is supported in scripture, where do you see a lie? Word of god? So it is perfect? If that's the case, I cannot take it out of context.

 

[kal-el]

The Christian Bible in no way calls for the extermination of those who believe in another faith.The Christian Bible says that the "gods" of other faith's are not gods, but are false prophets. dude, get your facts straight.

I bet you went to see Brokeback Mountain with this "god" fellow. It seems like you are so sure of yourself here, I think you are wrong.

Deuteronomy 6:15
But those who hate him he will repay to their face by destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.

That verse explicitly states that god will destroy those who hate him, so you better suck the **** out of his ass. You should think about this verse the next time you get on your knees and pray to him.:lol:

Deuteronomy 12:30-31
and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods?" We will do the same." You must not worship the lord your god in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of destable thingd the lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

He should talk about other faiths requiring blood sacrifices.:doh Does he even realize he's a hypocrite, or does he like insulting the Israelites intelligence?

 

[ludahai]

Don't you just love it when anti-Christians like Kal-el think they can take a Bible verse in isolation, then cite it out of context, then go apopletic when they are called on it.

I hate to use this word, but it is the mark of someone bigoted against the Christian faith.

 

[jamesrage]

Bla/Bla, that is always theists responses to verses that are pointed out to be filled with hate, and other absurdidites. God has killed way more people than the likes of Hitler and Napolean combined.

Umm, the verse you quoted was Exodus 22:21 dude.:doh I quoted Exodus 22:20, courtesy the NIV study bible. You're right about the verse you quoted as tolerant, but I made no refence to that verse. Please rebut my verse
(Exodus 22:20) thanks. But I was just reading, and I happened to notice the verse almost directly after yours:

Wow, what a loving fellow that god is.LOL

No **** dude.

Yes, and it also says the lord destroyed those that did not believe. This fellow seems not to have any tolerance for those who refuse to kiss his ass. But if you kiss his ass, he won't send diseases on you:

Wow, you're batting 1000 today!:lol: Nothing gets by you.

Listen wastrel, I know I'm parrotting myself, but you theists keep parrotting this "out of context" ****, if something is perfect, it is impossible for an imperfect being to take it out of context. By you asserting that I am, you're saying the bible is not perfect. Listen up dunce, the bible says you must follow Moses' law, or you shouldn't even bothewr praying:

A little FYI, you can't pontificate your normal cop-out of "is was meant for the Israelites only". He may have only written it for the Hebrews as no other nationality is even mentioned as being in god's good graces, if there were other groups, I'm sure he would have wrote very similar laws to govern them. He wouldn't question his own laws then change them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why would anyone else's laws be any differnent? If you say he shows favoritism towars the Israelites, which he does, he's not perfect. Proverbs had many authors including Soloman and Agur. It was written by Hebrews, but it is godly worldview and insights for living. Soloman is an ancestor of Jesus (Matthew 1:6-7), and he was the 3rd king of Israel for a period of about 40 years. Agur was basically a name given to hired hands. Sure, most of god's laws are directed to the Hebrews, but who else did the bible talk about that was in god's favor? Certainly not the Egyptians, or not the Midianites, not the Amorites, or not the Ammonites. What the hell, this "god" fellow and his entourage the Israelites, had alot of friends!:lol:




Yea, that single quote was, but the whole book is for Malachi's people. He calls on his people to put aside their apathy, and make right their attitudes of adulation by trusting god. Mlachi foretold the comings of john the baptist and Jesus.

That's odd that you quote a verse from Malachi. But let's take a look at Malachi a sec, ok? Hows about the last verse in the OT:



Wow, this diety loves utilizing threats of violence to get his way, sounds like the ideal definition of terrorism to me.:lol: And people actually adulate such a diety, tsk, tsk.






Malachi wasn't referring to the Hebrews, he reprimanded his people for the exact same practices that the Hebrews committed since they arrived in their land. Sure, most of his people were Jews, as the Hebrews married among many foreigners, and worshipped their idols. Actaully, that verse I quoted in Jude could apply to Christians, or gentiles. It doesn't mention their exact location.




Blasphemy? Everything that I have asserted is supported in scripture, where do you see a lie? Word of god? So it is perfect? If that's the case, I cannot take it out of context.

ANd this has to do with what?It certianly does not back up your claim that christians are commanded to kill non-beleavers.

 

[ludahai]

Bla/Bla, that is always theists responses to verses that are pointed out to be filled with hate, and other absurdidites. God has killed way more people than the likes of Hitler and Napolean combined.

Care to take any more scripture verses out of context?

Umm, the verse you quoted was Exodus 22:21 dude.:doh I quoted Exodus 22:20, courtesy the NIV study bible. You're right about the verse you quoted as tolerant, but I made no refence to that verse. Please rebut my verse
(Exodus 22:20) thanks. But I was just reading, and I happened to notice the verse almost directly after yours:

Wrong. 22:20-21 says "You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt. (21)You shall not wrong any widow or orphan."

Source: New American Bible. Imprimatur granted by Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle.

Exodus 22:24
My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.

Where did you get this from?

Exodus 22:24 says, "If you lend money to one of your poor neighbors among my people, you shall not act like an extortioner toward him by demanding interest from him."

Same source as above. I am trying to figure out where you are getting this nonsense from.

Exodus 15:26
He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the lord your god and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commandsand keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any diseases I brought on the Egyptians,for I am the lord, who heals you."

Why were the Egyptians afflicted with diseases? Because the Pharoah wouldn't let the people of Israel go.

Wow, you're batting 1000 today!:lol: Nothing gets by you.

This isn't the first time an anti- Chrisitan bigot has tried using scripture out of context to slander the Christian faith.

Listen wastrel, I know I'm parrotting myself, but you theists keep parrotting this "out of context" ****, if something is perfect, it is impossible for an imperfect being to take it out of context. By you asserting that I am, you're saying the bible is not perfect. Listen up dunce, the bible says you must follow Moses' law, or you shouldn't even bothewr praying:

Well, you must be mistaking me for a sola scriptura Protestant. We don't believe that the Bible is "perfect" or the complete story of salvation. You ARE taking these passages out of context, that is CLEAR. If you read the passages in their ENTIRETY, that is obvious! As for the law, that was given to the Hebrews. The New Testament makes that clear as well.

A little FYI, you can't pontificate your normal cop-out of "is was meant for the Israelites only". He may have only written it for the Hebrews as no other nationality is even mentioned as being in god's good graces, if there were other groups, I'm sure he would have wrote very similar laws to govern them. He wouldn't question his own laws then change them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why would anyone else's laws be any differnent? If you say he shows favoritism towars the Israelites, which he does, he's not perfect. Proverbs had many authors including Soloman and Agur. It was written by Hebrews, but it is godly worldview and insights for living. Soloman is an ancestor of Jesus (Matthew 1:6-7), and he was the 3rd king of Israel for a period of about 40 years. Agur was basically a name given to hired hands. Sure, most of god's laws are directed to the Hebrews, but who else did the bible talk about that was in god's favor? Certainly not the Egyptians, or not the Midianites, not the Amorites, or not the Ammonites. What the hell, this "god" fellow and his entourage the Israelites, had alot of friends!:lol:

Shows a lack of understanding of God's plan, of which no person has full or complete knowledge. As I said, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that the scriptures are the complete salvation stories as many Protestant denominations do.

Malachi 4:5-6
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."

Malachi wasn't referring to the Hebrews, he reprimanded his people for the exact same practices that the Hebrews committed since they arrived in their land. Sure, most of his people were Jews, as the Hebrews married among many foreigners, and worshipped their idols. Actaully, that verse I quoted in Jude could apply to Christians, or gentiles. It doesn't mention their exact location.

Malachi only has THREE chapters!

You take scripture out of context and you make up things that are not even in the Holy Scriptures. How do you expect me to take you seriously?

 

[kal-el]

Care to take any more scripture verses out of context?

I have taken none out of context.

Wrong. 22:20-21 says "You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt. (21)You shall not wrong any widow or orphan."

Source: New American Bible. Imprimatur granted by Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle.

I see there's a huge differnce between the NIV and the NASB. Thought for thought is somewhat differnet from word for word translations, another reason why the bible is not infallible.

Where did you get this from?

The New International Version

Exodus 22:24 says, "If you lend money to one of your poor neighbors among my people, you shall not act like an extortioner toward him by demanding interest from him."

Same source as above. I am trying to figure out where you are getting this nonsense from.

Actaully, you'll find this "nonsense" in any thought for thought translation. Like the NLT, NIV, TLB, or NRSB. It seems you prefer the word for word translations, and that's fine, but don't discount my verses simply because of the fact they are not phrased like so in your NASB.

Why were the Egyptians afflicted with diseases? Because the Pharoah wouldn't let the people of Israel go.

Uhh, that's a moot point. In that verse he was threatening the Hebrews with the same diseases that he struck the Egyptians with.

This isn't the first time an anti- Chrisitan bigot

Actually, I'm an atheist, not a bigot. I'd say look to the author's of the bible that perverted your sky leprechaun's "word."

has tried using scripture out of context to slander the Christian faith.

I don't have to "slander" the Christian faith or god as by reading the bible, it seems to do a pretty decent job of demoralizing this god fellow and painting him to be an emotionally insecure, baleful, murdering thug. What does that say about the people who choose to worship the god of the bible?

Well, you must be mistaking me for a sola scriptura Protestant. We don't believe that the Bible is "perfect" or the complete story of salvation. You ARE taking these passages out of context, that is CLEAR. If you read the passages in their ENTIRETY, that is obvious! As for the law, that was given to the Hebrews. The New Testament makes that clear as well.

Yep, as Jesus came to fullfill the laws, not abolish them. Do you believe in Jesus? I guess you can move mountains, cast out demons, and are immune to deadly poisons. As for the "out of context" anarchistic, humanistic claim, you seem so stubborn, I have read the entire bible, and I'm quite sure anyone can come to the same conclusion that I did. That probably depends how you go about reading it. If you read it biasin either way, of course you'll only force yourself to see certain things, but if you read it with an open mind and a clean slate, the blatant misconceptions should be apparent.

Shows a lack of understanding of God's plan, of which no person has full or complete knowledge.

Ok, you yourself admit that no person has knowledge of it, so please stop talking as if you know what it is.

As I said, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that the scriptures are the complete salvation stories as many Protestant denominations do.

Utterly irrelevant. What the hell do I care what the Catholic Church teaches? They blatanly call themselves "father" when Jesus explicitly forbids this.

Malachi only has THREE chapters!

And your point being? It's the context that's important, not the lenght of the book.

You take scripture out of context and you make up things that are not even in the Holy Scriptures.

Protrusive dishonesty. I have lied about nothing. Everything I have stated is entailed in the bible.

How do you expect me to take you seriously?

And you expect me to take you seriously? You cry "out of context" every single time your bible is shown as having errors. Actually, I'm pretty bored with the religion forums, you just serve as an ample chew toy.

 

[kal-el]

ANd this has to do with what?It certianly does not back up your claim that christians are commanded to kill non-beleavers.

Haha, that post was responding to your brokeback mountain buddy's post, not meant to back that claim up. But:

Deuteronomy 6:15
Fear the lord your god, serve him only, and take your oaths in his name. Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the lord your god who is among you, is a jealous god, and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.

He's basically telling the Hebrews if they adulate the wrong god, he'll kill them. But that sends out a loving message! And I would think if one worships another god, that is a different faith?

And the defunct carpenter says to only worship the biblegod:

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, "Away from me Satan! For it is written, Worship the lord your god, and serve him only."

 

[debate_junkie]

I bet you went to see Brokeback Mountain with this "god" fellow. It seems like you are so sure of yourself here, I think you are wrong.



That verse explicitly states that god will destroy those who hate him, so you better suck the **** out of his ass. You should think about this verse the next time you get on your knees and pray to him.:lol:



He should talk about other faiths requiring blood sacrifices.:doh Does he even realize he's a hypocrite, or does he like insulting the Israelites intelligence?

LMAO And you're quoting Old Testament BC... hmmm before Christ. God had every right to be pissed off at the people before Christ came to earth. Hell, the first man and woman he created took it upon themselves to be something they weren't. BUT... if God hated the people so much, why is there a New Testament? Why is there celebrations of Christ's birth, and subsequent death on the cross? But God hates mankind so much. Try reading the New Testament.. and then tell me once that God wants to destroy man. If that were the case, the entire earth would have been gone LONG before this, and there would have never been the need for him to send Christ to earth. He could have just started over :roll:

 

[debate_junkie]

I bet you went to see Brokeback Mountain with this "god" fellow. It seems like you are so sure of yourself here, I think you are wrong.



That verse explicitly states that god will destroy those who hate him, so you better suck the **** out of his ass. You should think about this verse the next time you get on your knees and pray to him.:lol:



He should talk about other faiths requiring blood sacrifices.:doh Does he even realize he's a hypocrite, or does he like insulting the Israelites intelligence?

Dude, it's apparent you've not truly read the Old Testament, because the Israelites were FAR from intelligent. They were selfish, they whined constantly.. notice how they roamed the desert for 40 years because they continually wished to be enslaved in Egypt again. Moses, leading the people out of Egypt, sat and watched as these moron's built statues and such adulating other God's, and these people were just praising god because they'd been freed from Pharoah. But because the road to freedom, was a difficult one, they would rather be slaves? Give me a break.

Hmm, name me one time when God required ANY person in the Bible to sacrifice his/her children? The sacrifices required were animals, in atonement for their MANY sins. So how is it hypocritical that God detests those who burn his/her children, when he's never required it? Hmmm Einstein.

 

[debate_junkie]

Haha, that post was responding to your brokeback mountain buddy's post, not meant to back that claim up. But:



He's basically telling the Hebrews if they adulate the wrong god, he'll kill them. But that sends out a loving message! And I would think if one worships another god, that is a different faith?

And the defunct carpenter says to only worship the biblegod:

Hmmm your claim was that the Bible commanded Christians to kill non believers? But now your assertion is God will kill non-believers? Again, read the New Testament. When Christ was born, and came to earth, and fulfilled God's plan for Salvation (geesh, even my children understand this concept) MOST of the old law.. the Old Testament.. was swept away. No longer were required animal sacrifices as atonement for sin... Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, and belief in him brought about salvation to ANYONE... ANYONE who chose to do so. God, through Jesus, commanded his followers to spread the Gospel, the umm Great Commission if you will, to all the corner's of the earth, springing forth the message of hope and faith in Jesus Christ.

Your arguments are weak, and here's what's funny. I don't actively participate in religion of any kind.. and I can understand CLEARLY the meanings of the old and new testaments without batting an eyelash. But then again, I look outside the box, and rather than pick apart a verse here and there, I read them ALL. Try it sometime... you might just understand.

 

[Gardener]

Hmm, name me one time when God required ANY person in the Bible to sacrifice his/her children?

There is always the binding of Isaac.

Interesting story, as it qualifies in one respect but not in another. God DID require Abraham to go through the motions as a test of faith, but substituted that lamb. From Isaac's point of view, though, the whole event must have been terrifying.

I'd be pretty freaked out if my father had done something like that, anyway.

 

[jamesrage]

Haha, that post was responding to your brokeback mountain buddy's post, not meant to back that claim up. But:



He's basically telling the Hebrews if they adulate the wrong god, he'll kill them. But that sends out a loving message! And I would think if one worships another god, that is a different faith?

And the defunct carpenter says to only worship the biblegod:

It is not a commandment to christians to destroy nonbeleavers.It does not state when he will destroy them for not beleaving in him and following his
commandments.
Perhaps you should messing with those fake liberal christian sites that just pull a verses out of their ass to demonize real christians.If you actually read the bible you would know that things in the bibile progresss throught the books in the bible.For exaple at first it was okay to eat any kind of meat,then it was not okay to eat any kind of meat and now it is okay to eat any kind of meat.If you actually read the bible you should be able to find those verses,I do not think those liberal sites will help you.

 

[easyt65]

You're just jealous he can speak about reality without desperately lunging for the first "politically correct" cushion you see. I guess for some people there is nothing these people can do that will make them stand up and say "no more."

There are two options..

1) As a member of the free world, choose to restrict your freedoms when ever a Muslim might get upset and throw a temper tantrum.

2) As a member of the free world, choose to celebrate your freedoms and tell a Muslim to grow up and act civilized.


There are plenty of things I do not like. I do not like seeing cartoons of "soldiers" with their limbs hacked off. I don't like seeing images of Jesus in a parady (Makes me uncomfortable). Should I take to the streets, kidnap, murder, burn, and destroy and demand the deaths of countries and people?

This is what you are not getting.....to these people, their behavior is perfectly acceptable in the defense of their "God." These are not the sort of people that we should allow to define our freedoms.

Gunny, Gunny, Gunny - Hey, it was sarcasm, man. I'm right with you! You got a big 'Amen' outta me on this last post!

 

[easyt65]

Did you ever think those cowards were going to put their own lives in jeopardy, LOL?:rofl

No, they go after the soft targets, the middle class, average Joe, and they know he will not, or can not fight back, cowards to the end!:roll:

The both truly funny and shameful thing about the Islamix extremists that promote terror, especially suicide bombings, is just what you pointed out above - the leaders NEVER personally exercise the BS they are shoveling out to the brain-washed youth/masses that blindly follow them.

Yasser Arafat, Osama Bin laden, Zarqawi - they all call for Muslims to sacrifice themselves for the common Islamic good, for jihad while THEY never step up to the proverbial plate! Arafat, the leader of the Fatah movement/Palestenians stole BILLIONS in foreign aid and other palestenian money, driving the nicest cars, living it up, and while hispretty French wife sat on a Righteous bank account back in France. All the while, the palestenian people answered the continued call for suicide bombings against Israel. Hamas just won the election, removing the corrupt Arafat organization from power. Actually, it is not as much that they won as the people were tired of the corrupt Arafat Org. that kept stealing all their money without giving back anything. Hamas may be a terrorist organization, but they have built hospitals, schools, and homes. In essence, they have BOUGHT their way into power.

But, NO - you will never see any of the leadership - you will never EVER see OBL - strapped with a suicide bomber's vest!

 

[MSgt]

The both truly funny and shameful thing about the Islamix extremists that promote terror, especially suicide bombings, is just what you pointed out above - the leaders NEVER personally exercise the BS they are shoveling out to the brain-washed youth/masses that blindly follow them.

Yasser Arafat, Osama Bin laden, Zarqawi - they all call for Muslims to sacrifice themselves for the common Islamic good, for jihad while THEY never step up to the proverbial plate! Arafat, the leader of the Fatah movement/Palestenians stole BILLIONS in foreign aid and other palestenian money, driving the nicest cars, living it up, and while hispretty French wife sat on a Righteous bank account back in France. All the while, the palestenian people answered the continued call for suicide bombings against Israel. Hamas just won the election, removing the corrupt Arafat organization from power. Actually, it is not as much that they won as the people were tired of the corrupt Arafat Org. that kept stealing all their money without giving back anything. Hamas may be a terrorist organization, but they have built hospitals, schools, and homes. In essence, they have BOUGHT their way into power.

But, NO - you will never see any of the leadership - you will never EVER see OBL - strapped with a suicide bomber's vest!

Good observation.

Both types of terrorists (Practical and Apocalyptic) draw accomplices and foot-soldiers from the uneducated masses, but the leadership in each type of movement tends to have at least a smattering of higher education and may even be highly-intelligent and learned in terms of the host society's norms. In both cases, however, their vanity cannot satisfy itself with what the system offers. The terrorist is always an egotist with a (desperate, fragile) sense of unappreciated superiority, aggravated by hisinability to establish satisfying social, personal or vocational relationaships. The terrorist is convinced that he is right, but is not much concerned with being just. He wants to "show" the world or even God. Like I said..."At the core of many a terrorist leader is a spoiled brat disappointed by the failures of adulthood.

An obvious encounter-argument to the suggestion that apocalyptic terrorists are possessed by a suicidal impulse is that Osama Bin Laden seems to want to stay very much alive. But the desire for self-annihilation takes many forms. In the case of the operational leaders of 9/11 there was indeed, an impatience with this world and a readiness to embrace a self-justifying excuse for leaving it behind. Men who are at peace with themselves and the world do not destroy themselves and as large a portion of the world as they can take down witrh them. As dangerous as those terrorists were, those of the Osama Bin Laden cast are much more worrisome. With or without WMD, the foot-soldier terrorists rushing to kill themselves in a dramatic annihilating gesture may create plenty of horror and havoc, but the "long-run suicides," those who judge themselves too imortant to throw away in a "minor" episode, are more dangerous by far. Osama Bin Laden is willing to die, but he wants a commensurate effect when he goes. He is in no hurry and takes great pleasure from the rising crescendo of destruction he can effect through his underlings. But he is not a survive-at-any-cost figure (unlike bureaucratic terrorists, such as Saddam or Milosevic). When he imagines his end, it is less a vision of entering a physical paradise and more a sense of merging with his god. He wants to go out with a very big bang, but in the mean time he finds great satisfaction in watching the deperate youth throw their lives away for what he believes. Al-Queda is a cult.

There are many varieties of madness, and Hitler can plan very well under congenial circumstances; so, too, does Osama bin Laden. But he cannot be dealt with as a rational actor, since, under the cunning surface, he is irrational in the extreme. His methods make cruel sense, but his goals are far beyond the demise of a particularregime of the recognitions of a Palestinian state. He wants to destroy, at the very least, a civilization he has cast as Satanic. He does not want to defeat the West - he wants to annihilate us. If he had the technology today, he would use it. This man and thousands of Clerics havebeen able to convince countless Muslims that his vision is the purest and proudest Islamic form.

We are dealing with a delusional civilization - and this is a new problem in history. Certainly the degree of delusion varies from individual top individual, to some extent between social classes, and somewhat between peoples and states. But it means that the American and Western tradition of reasoning with opponents, of convincing doubters, and of marshalling evidence has far less potency - and often non - in dealing with the Islamic world. We may believe with great satisfaction that we have the truth on our side - but myth is on their side, and myth can be more powerful than truth. Some noble or hapless souls may sacrifice their lives in service to the truth. But millions will rush to die for a cherished myth of themselves.

 

[Maya]

I agree that those pictures should not have been printed, but probably not because of the same reason you do. The fact that those people rioted over a few cartoons, further proves to me that they are primitive, caveman-esque people, incapable of thinking logiclly and rationally. And we want to give them a democratic government? "Hypothetically" if a newspaper would print pictures in the United States depicting Jesus in a spoof, Chrisitians would not riot, why? Because we are civilized. That's the difference between us and them.

Nor would the Hindus from India or the Buddhists !!!!!

Islam is the most intolerant religon in the world . When the Taliban Goverment blew up the Tallest standing statue- 157 feet in the World of Lord Buddha , why do you think India (where Buddhism is born ...but not practises) or any Buddhist react ???????They protested and were horrified . They offered to take the statue into India . But the Islam that thinks of all statues as evil ignored all pleas !

When a Muslim painter in India , M.F .Hussain few days ago drew a nude hindu goddess , there were protests for an apology .He apologises and the topic was over !! But the Hindus did not take out the so called fatwa that Muslims take out to execute Mr.Hussain !!! Why ???????? Because Hindus are tolerant lot . Also its considered insulting to wear gods and goddeses on t-shirts by Hindus . But in the West i see clothes that depict Krishna and Ganeshji . But we don't have Hindus shouting 9/11

I was watching CNN , when they showed very anti - semetic and offensive cartoons published in the Saudi Newspapers since last year . I haven't heard of the Jewish people making an issue about that ???

I am an Indian that is a regular at a forum for S.E .Asians . You should read the nonsence Muslims write . They just want to blow up the word , but call themselves a peacefull lot !!!:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

The problem with Muslims are they are a violent religon by nature !!!!! And highly highly hypocritical !!!!!!!