Shocking video of children in Philadelphia Muslim Society: 'We will chop off their heads' for Allah

[JustHanging]

“The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians.”
― H.L. Mencken

"Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it."
-- paraphrase of GB Shaw

Yep. Lots of people have made that discovery, Ghandi comes to mind:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

 

[dixon01767]

And I've already quoted a dozen verses in the bible that prove my assertion, .

No you cite old testament verses that are not followed by Christians because the new testament says


Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

HE HAS NOT abrogated the old testament for the Jews "because only in Christ is it taken away." Its complicated. You wouldnt understand.

 

[JustHanging]

No you cite old testament verses that are not followed by Christians because the new testament says


Ephesians 2
15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 8
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

HE HAS NOT abrogated the old testament for the Jews "because only in Christ is it taken away." Its complicated. You wouldnt understand.

We've been through this. You're jumping all over hell's back acre trying to change what Jesus said very clearly:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The words are crystal clear: The earth hasn't passed, so the OT laws still apply. Don't Christians believe in the Ten Commandments?

Let's try a new approach: The bible is written/inspired by an all-knowing/all powerful being, correct? So I only see a few ways that you could be correct:

1. Your god can't write a coherent paragraph at the level of middle school student.
2. Your god was lying.
3. Your god was confused the day he wrote this.

Or????

 

[dixon01767]

We've been through this. You're jumping all over hell's back acre trying to change what Jesus said very clearly:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

"because only in Christ is it taken away." Jews still arent supposed to eat shellfish. Christians now can. The law still applies to the jews. It has not been taken away. Whats so hard for you to understand?

 

[JustHanging]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Nope, you're deflecting. Let's try this again:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The words are crystal clear: The earth hasn't passed, so the OT laws still apply. Don't Christians believe in the Ten Commandments?

The bible is written/inspired by an all-knowing/all powerful being, correct? So I only see a few ways that you could be correct:

1. Your god can't write a coherent paragraph at the level of middle school student.
2. Your god was lying.
3. Your god was confused the day he wrote this.

Or????


I would like to know your answer, so I can understand your logic. I sincerely can't understand why you ignore the very plain words of Jesus, and go jumping all over hell's back acre of the bible, instead of accepting what is right before your eyes.

 

[dixon01767]

Nope, you're deflecting. Let's try this again:.

Im quoting the bible which YOU consider to be a deflection in a discussion of the bible.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yep. Lots of people have made that discovery, Ghandi comes to mind:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I recall a quote that runs along the lines of "Communism, like Christianity, is a good idea. It's too bad that no one has ever tried them." but simply can't find it.

 

[dixon01767]

The bible is written/inspired by an all-knowing/all powerful being, correct? .

Im an atheist. The bible was written by men.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

"because only in Christ is it taken away." Jews still arent supposed to eat shellfish. Christians now can. The law still applies to the jews. It has not been taken away. Whats so hard for you to understand?

Those are good points.

I suppose that, since the admonition against "spilling one's seed on the ground" is contained in the Old Testament, that must mean that it's OK for (male) Christians to be homosexuals (there, of course, not being any "Biblical admonition" against "spilling one's eggs" female Jews and female Christians have always been free to engage in same-sex sexual relations - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Im quoting the bible which YOU consider to be a deflection in a discussion of the bible.

To point out that something doesn't say what someone else says it says DOES "deflect" from the fact that it says what they say it says.

This is one of the basic and immutable laws of "Internet debate".

 

[dixon01767]

Those are good points.

I suppose that, since the admonition against "spilling one's seed on the ground" is contained in the Old Testament, that must mean that it's OK for (male) Christians to be homosexuals (there, of course, not being any "Biblical admonition" against "spilling one's eggs" female Jews and female Christians have always been free to engage in same-sex sexual relations - right?

I would probably interpret christianity, as far as homosexuality is concerned to be saying its a sin, but the old testament law requiring death no longer apply. Just as death for adultery no longer applies but is still sinful.

Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?(old testament)”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more......”"

"For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

Certainly sounds more logical than this silly insistence that Christianity includes death for adulterers and homosexuals because the old testament says . Crazy religious types can use tortured and twisted interpretations of any religous doctrine to justify about anything. Problem with the koran and hadiths is that a plain literal interpretation justifies waging war against the unbelievers to establish world wide governance of an Islamic Caliphate applying Islamic doctrine as law. Its not a misinterpretation of Islamic doctrine that lead to 1300 years out of 1387 of Islamic history including such a caliphate applying Islamic law and Millions of Muslims willing to fight to establish, expand and defend the caliphate. Christian doctrine doesnt concern itself with such temporal matters as government and law here on earth. Its about winning your ticket to the appropriate afterlife.

 

[dixon01767]

To point out that something doesn't say what someone else says it says DOES "deflect" from the fact that it says what they say it says.

This is one of the basic and immutable laws of "Internet debate".

NOPE. He claims it says "The earth hasn't passed, so the OT laws still apply". Bible doesnt say that. Thats his silly simpleton interpretation. "till all be fulfilled" doesnt mean "the earth has passed". He likes to pretend the verse immediately before 5:18

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

when the individual accepts Jesus as lord and savior and all of that, the laws no longer apply. The law has been fulfilled. As described below.

Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.(*)

Romans 7
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

2 Corinthians 3
13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

Galatians 3 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.


But it doesnt surprise me for a moment that you believe Christianity requires death for homosexuals and adulterers, because the new testament says so. Youd probably be among the first to defend Islam using similiar, tortured interpretations.

 

[JustHanging]

Im quoting the bible which YOU consider to be a deflection in a discussion of the bible.

Yes, you're quoting from completely different sections of the bible. Our discussion began with Matthew 5:18, so can we please finish up with that before moving on to different chapters in the bible?

Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"

So, could you please answer the following questions:

The words in Matthew 5:18 are crystal clear: The earth hasn't passed, so the OT laws still apply.

The bible is written/inspired by an all-knowing/all powerful being, correct? So I only see a few ways that you could be correct:

1. Your god can't write a coherent paragraph at the level of middle school student.
2. Your god was lying.
3. Your god was confused the day he wrote this.

Or????

 

[JustHanging]

NOPE. He claims it says "The earth hasn't passed, so the OT laws still apply". Bible doesnt say that. Thats his silly simpleton interpretation.

Believing the actual words is "silly simpleton interpretation"?

You are saying that your god is incapable of writing a coherent paragraph at say the level of modern middle school student. I don't find this surprising, given a modern middle school student is far better educated than the people who originally wrote the bible.

But you actually believe an all-knowing and all-powerful god wrote or inspired the bible. That is correct? So why do you think your god is unable to write at a middle school level?

 

[dixon01767]

Yes, you're quoting from completely different sections of the bible.
[/I]

5:17 isnt in a diferent section of the bible from 5;18. Its the verse that immediately preceeds it.

 

[dixon01767]

Believing the actual words is "silly simpleton interpretation"?

You are saying that your god is incapable of writing a coherent paragraph at say the level of modern middle school student. I don't find this surprising, given a modern middle school student is far better educated than the people who originally wrote the bible.

But you actually believe an all-knowing and all-powerful god wrote or inspired the bible. That is correct? So why do you think your god is unable to write at a middle school level?

Im an atheist. He isnt my god. Revealing how many times Ive pointed this out to you yet you continue to insist I am a Christian. Reality is more interesting. Try to grasp some of it if you can.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I would probably interpret christianity, as far as homosexuality is concerned to be saying its a sin, but the old testament law requiring death no longer apply. Just as death for adultery no longer applies but is still sinful.

Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?(old testament)”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more......”"

"For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

Two minor points on those bits:

1. at no point does "The Bible" issue any admonition against females having sexual relations with females (which means that since it is NOT "forbidden" it is "allowed"); and
2. Jesus' words can equally be interpreted to mean "Yes, you can kill that person, but I'm not going to because my conscience is not clear enough for me to act as judge and jury AND I tell you to examine your own consciences to see if they are pure enough for you to act as the judge and jury.".

Certainly sounds more logical than this silly insistence that Christianity includes death for adulterers and homosexuals because the old testament says .

Indeed it does.

Crazy religious types can use tortured and twisted interpretations of any religous doctrine to justify about anything.

Yep.

Problem with the koran and hadiths is that a plain literal interpretation justifies waging war against the unbelievers to establish world wide governance of an Islamic Caliphate applying Islamic doctrine as law.

Which is one of the problems that arise when people who simply have no concept of the historical context decide on what the words "actually mean".

Its not a misinterpretation of Islamic doctrine that lead to 1300 years out of 1387 of Islamic history including such a caliphate applying Islamic law and Millions of Muslims willing to fight to establish, expand and defend the caliphate.

If the misinterpretation was on the part of the "movers and shakers" of the Islamic world, it just might well be.

Christian doctrine doesnt concern itself with such temporal matters as government and law here on earth. Its about winning your ticket to the appropriate afterlife.

Yep, and if the way that the "Christian leaders" interpret "The Bible" means that you send out your soldiers and missionaries to "convert the heathen by death" then that is "What God Wants You To Do" - isn't it?

PS - One of the major differences between "The Qu'ran" and "The Bible" is that "The Qu'ran" is very specific that it is only "the (persistent) idolaters" who are to be killed AND that that means those who do not worship the same God as the Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship. Jews and Christians may be "less than fully correct" but they are NOT "idolaters".

PS - Please do not interpret that to mean that I have any sympathy for the stupid pathetic losers who indulge in "Terrorism In The Name Of God" REGARDLESS of what religion they claim provides their justification for doing so.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But it doesnt surprise me for a moment that you believe Christianity requires death for homosexuals and adulterers, because the new testament says so. Youd probably be among the first to defend Islam using similiar, tortured interpretations.

That's a rather blatant misinterpretation of what I said, isn't it?

BTW - "The Bible" (as "marketed") is really "corporate management PR" since it only includes those things that support the preeminence of "corporate management". The same can be said for both "The Torah" and "The Qu'ran".

 

[JustHanging]

5:17 isnt in a diferent section of the bible from 5;18. Its the verse that immediately preceeds it.

The rest of the verses are from different sections.

And 17 does NOT say that Jesus has fulfilled everything, nor has the earth passed away, so why even bring it up?

Again, in Matthew 5:18 Jesus is very clear. Can you please quit deflecting and dodging, and actually answer the questions?

So, could you please answer the following questions:

The words in Matthew 5:18 are crystal clear: The earth hasn't passed, so the OT laws still apply.

The bible is written/inspired by an all-knowing/all powerful being, correct? So I only see a few ways that you could be correct:

1. Your god can't write a coherent paragraph at the level of middle school student.
2. Your god was lying.
3. Your god was confused the day he wrote this.

Or????

 

[JustHanging]

Im an atheist. He isnt my god. Revealing how many times Ive pointed this out to you yet you continue to insist I am a Christian. Reality is more interesting. Try to grasp some of it if you can.

I wish I could, but you absolutely refuse to simple questions, that I ask again and again. Instead of answering them, you obfuscate and deflect. Why would I bother reading such nonsense?

Why not act in a honourable manner, and actually answer the questions I have had to ask over and over again?

 

[dixon01767]

Two minor points on those bits:

1. at no point does "The Bible" issue any admonition against females having sexual relations with females (which means that since it is NOT "forbidden" it is "allowed"); and
2. Jesus' words can equally be interpreted to mean "Yes, you can kill that person, but I'm not going to because my conscience is not clear enough for me to act as judge and jury AND I tell you to examine your own consciences to see if they are pure enough for you to act as the judge and jury.".

OR it means “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Who is he to tell the Jews what their laws should be. "My kingdom is not of this world" and all of that. Like I said Christianity doesnt concern itself with such temporal matters like government or laws to be applied.
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Which is one of the problems that arise when people who simply have no concept of the historical context decide on what the words "actually mean".

Certainly not a problem with todays islamic terrorists who have 1300 years of Islams 1387 years of history of context of Islamic Caliphates applying Islamic doctrine as law and the faithful willing to wage jihad against the unbelievers to establish, expand and defend the empire. Sunnis call the first 4 caliphates as "Rightly guided" and to be emmulated. First action of the first caliphate was to wage the wars of apostasy against their fellow Muslims who stopped paying tribute to Mecca when Muhammad died. Within 80 years of his death they were waging violent Jihad in Spain to the West and Afghanistan to the East to expand the empire.

 

[dixon01767]

Yep, and if the way that the "Christian leaders" interpret "The Bible" means that you send out your soldiers and missionaries to "convert the heathen by death" then that is "What God Wants You To Do" - isn't it?

I see you put quotation marks around "convert the heathen by death". Is that something you just made up but use quotation marks so others will think its from someone else? Christian missionaries preach and provide food, clothing and education to the poor. You know, in contrast to the violent Jihad method, literally, convert or die.

PS - One of the major differences between "The Qu'ran" and "The Bible" is that "The Qu'ran" is very specific that it is only "the (persistent) idolaters" who are to be killed AND that that means those who do not worship the same God as the Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship. Jews and Christians may be "less than fully correct" but they are NOT "idolaters".

Nonsense, they are commanded to fight against the "unbelievers" of any religion, which includes death if they dont surrender. Muhammad had many Jews executed.

 

[dixon01767]

I see you put quotation marks around "convert the heathen by death". Is that something you just made up but use quotation marks so others will think its from someone else?

I'll interpret your silence as a resounding answer of YES

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I see you put quotation marks around "convert the heathen by death". Is that something you just made up but use quotation marks so others will think its from someone else? Christian missionaries preach and provide food, clothing and education to the poor. You know, in contrast to the violent Jihad method, literally, convert or die.

My apologies for using the incredibly complex and intellectually obscure "If A, then B." formulation which you appear never to have encountered before.

Nonsense, they are commanded to fight against the "unbelievers" of any religion, which includes death if they dont surrender. Muhammad had many Jews executed.

Citing specific passages (as well as providing links to the source for those passages) is generally considered to be much more intellectually effective in convincing other people that what you say in rebuttal should be accepted that merely saying "nonsense".

Why don't you try it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'll interpret your silence as a resounding answer of YES

So I guess that you are now interpreting my statement as a resounding answer of NO.

PS - Isn't it strange that you interpreted my "silence" AFTER I had responded?