Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

thoughts on the secularization of civilization

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Chronos, Nov 17, 2012.

  1. Glock36shooter


    May 30, 2010
    And people in Israel love killing muslims. What's your point. They've been fighting forever. People have the right to believe as they see fit in this nation as this nation at it's core is Atheist (without belief). Your refusal to support it simply proves how Anti-American you are.

    Our Founders believed in religious freedom for all and that America as a nation should have no religious affiliation. America is Atheist big boy... suck it.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  2. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    Yes, it does.
    There's those delusions again.
    Shall we review the wording of the amendment together?

    No, it doesn't, any more than Jewish "worship" involves killing Canaanites or Christian "worship" involves burning witches.
    Some do, the vast majority do not.
    Hamas is a terrorist organization, not an Islamic authority.
    And we're back to your delusions.

  3. Yes, Hamas is terrorist. But also yes, Hamas is Islamic. Furthermore, Hamas is approved by CAIR, which US dhimmis claim is a "civil rights" organization, as if our First amendment mandates Islamic terrorism:upeyes:.

    How many witches have Christians burned in the last 3 centuries? (Zero) How many Canaanites have Jews killed in the last 3 millenia? (Zero) But Muslims, acting in accordance with their 'religion', are murdering folks daily, right now.

    Question: if "the vast majority of Muslims" are against jihad and murder, how come...

    -there are so many Muslim suicide bombers?
    -those 54 Christians and Druze were just murdered by Muslims?
    -nearly 100 Shiites in Iraq were just murdered by Sunni Muslims?
    -Muslims persecute and murder Buddhists in south Thailand daily?
    -there have been 20,008 deadly Muslim attacks just since 9/11/01?

    FYI, the 20,00th Muslim terror attack involved the stabbing and dismemberment of a Jewish woman in her Iranian home by Muslims intent on expanding their mosque where her home was.

    Our Founding fathers couldn't imagine leftist traitor Americans would someday be letting jihad colonists infiltrate, occupy, and overthrow our free society in the name of the First Amendment:upeyes:.
  4. ballr4lyf


    Jan 3, 2012
    Let's break this argument down real quick.

    I do like your examples... They are good. But they all share one fatal flaw... All of them come out of the Old Testament. I.E. before Jesus.

    The main premise of Christianity is that Jesus was sent to us and sacrificed for us so that we would not have to die for our own sins (John 3:16). In fact, one of the most memorable lines from Jesus was "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" when addressing a group of men about to stone to death an accused prostitute. So, not only are we not to die for our sins, but we are also not to judge others (lest we blaspheme and proclaim ourselves "as perfect as" God).

    Does that mean that all killing is wrong? I don't believe so. I believe there is a distinction between "killing" and "murder". In other words, all murder involves killing, but not all killing involves murder. If you or I were to kill somebody in defense of ourselves or another person, why would anybody consider that wrong? I'm pretty sure that you (and I'm DAMN sure that I) do not find any joy in taking the life of another, but we have to do what must be done to defend ourselves or others. And the same goes for society and the use of capital punishment.

    The Bible has many practices in it that became antiquated when Jesus was given up for us. If not, Sunday Mass would still involve animal sacrifice. However, the "big picture" messages, even from the Old Testament, still apply (e.g. The Ten Commandments).
  5. I appreciate your response as it supports my position. My examples are from the OT for a reason. Packsaddle asserted that biblical morality is "eternal, unchanging, necessary, universal, and certain."

    My examples and your confirmation show that is not the case.

  6. ballr4lyf


    Jan 3, 2012

    I'd have to say that you are both right, and both wrong in different ways. All of those ways are related to semantics.
  7. packsaddle


    Jan 15, 2009
    Your examples are from the Holy Bible, a book you openly reject.

    Do you believe what Mark and Matthew wrote about the death of Jesus and His resurrection?

    Of course not.

    So why do you believe what Moses wrote about witches, adulterers, and fortune tellers?

    The bottom line is you don't believe what Moses wrote.

    Therefore, since you don't believe what Moses wrote, yet use them as examples as if they are true, then your argument is ultimately self-defeating and your credibility is diminshed.
  8. soflasmg


    Sep 3, 2004
    Read de Toqueville's view on how the USA would do when Christianity was no longer part of the culture
  9. Of course I reject the Bible, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be used to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument.

    You claim the morality of the Bible to be "eternal, unchanging, necessary, universal, and certain". You, to my knowledge, are not a proponent of slavery, nor am I aware that you advocate imposing death in the situations listed above.

    I don't have to believe in the Bible to show that the morality of the Old Testament is no longer the morality of today. Therefore it is obviously not eternal and unchanging.

  10. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    You start off in the realm of reality, but then you veer off into delusion again. Let's try and see if you can comprehend a counter-example: "The IRA is terrorist. But also yes, the IRA is Catholic." Do we therefore condemn all Catholics or Catholicism in general?
    Perhaps, they find other ways to kills them now.
    Your argument is that because some Chirstians and Jews don't follow the commands of the Bible, it's all good?
    For every Muslim who would say that these killings are part of their religion, there are 10 who say otherwise. Why do you choose to believe the small minority? In the case of honor killings, they long predate Islam, so how can they be a result of it?
    For the same reason there are still gangs and murder in America, despite most Americans being against them. Presumably, you don't approve of the Mafia, yet it still exists in the US. Does that mean it is secretly something you approve of?
    That sounds dangerously like the arguments put forth by anti-2nd amendment proponents who claims that our Founding Fathers couldn't imagine firearms with detachable 100 round magazines. Is that also a position you support?
  11. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    What is your interpretation of John 1:1? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
  12. ballr4lyf


    Jan 3, 2012
    Why does it smell like you're trying to lay some bait here? I did not come here to argue. Just to point out a flaw in a single argument... One used commonly against Christians.

    Either way, whatever I say to answer your question, I believe you'll find a way to twist it to fit your needs. It's obvious you're deeply entrenched in your beliefs, so whatever I say will not sway you.

    "Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy."
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
  13. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    I'm not trying to lay a trap, I'm asking a simple question. John 1:1 is frequently cited by theologians and apologists as a statement that Jesus has always existed and is co-equal with God, not a created being. If we follow this argument, there is no time "before Jesus" and further, if we argue a trinitarian god, Jesus is just as responsible for the laws and events of the Old Testament as He is for those of the New.
  14. 1) Catholics, a subset of all Christians, follow the Bible, which, unlike the Islamic Koran, does NOT endorse terrorism. So your analogy is bogus.

    2) Some obscure African, partial-Christian sect does not represent all Christians. So your analogy is bogus.

    3) But that's not what I said, is it? (Be honest) So your argument is bogus.

    4) Not true. Today's total of deadly Muslim attacks just since 9/11/01 has gone up to 20,016 (note the increase since yesterday).

    5) If honor killings are unIslamic and predate islam, how come 91% of the world's honor killings are done by Muslims?

    6) While American criminals are NOT behaving at all like Christ, Islamic terrorists are "good" Muslims, acting just like their mass-beheading, caravan-robbing, pedophile 'prophet' did. So your argument is bogus.

    7) See Luke 22:36
  15. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    Where does the Qu'ran endorse terrorism?
    When were you granted the authority to determine who is really Christian or who is really Muslim for that matter? How do these Christian actions, in the UK not in Africa, fail to follow Biblical teachings?
    It's exactly what you said. The Bible commands that Canaanites be killed, you claim Christians and Jews don't kill Canaanites, therefore the Christians and Jews aren't following the Bible. Is this another example of your self-appointed authority to determine who's a "real" religious adherent?
    How many Muslims are there on the planet?
    I don't know that they are, but even if that is the case, it doesn't change the reality that the practice pre-dates Islam, nor does it answer the question you were asked.
    Again you claim the authority to determine who is a "real" religious adherent, while also completely changing the topic. Your question had nothing to do with being a "good" one thing or the other, it had to do with why terrorists and criminal continue to exist if they are opposed by the majority of society. Why don't you address that point, just for variety if nothing else.
    Why? That has nothing to do with the US Constitution or the supposed lack of foresight of the Founding Fathers. Couldn't you just explain why you think it appropriate to parrot anti-2A advocates arguments in this instance?
  16. 1) Dogs bark, ducks quack, and leftists (such as Animal Mother) lie.

    Likening Christianity and Islam is false.

    Christians engaging in unjustified violence are betraying the explicit teachings and examples of Jesus Christ. OTOH, violent, unjust Muslims can rightly claim to be following the commands of Allah in the Koran and imitating Mohammed's evil role model.

    Just some of the verses cited to support unjust Islamic violence include: Koran...
    ...but, as a lying, anti-Western, leftist dhimmi, you knew all of this, didn't you?

    2) God gave most of us at least a modicum of common sense, but only some of us utilize it, as your posts demonstrate.
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2012
  17. In Sorgues, France, a Muslim mother named her baby boy, "Jihad". Cute, huh? Really 'peaceful', huh?

    Now he's 3 and she sent him to nursery school wearing a top with, "I am a bomb", written on the front, and, "Born on the 11th September", written on the back.

    But dhimmis keep trying to assure us that "only a tiny minority of Muslims" support jihad, slavery, beheading, bombing, etc:upeyes:
  18. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    Now I'm confused. We've established you lie, not in the least in the way you label others. Are you trying to intimate that you're actually a liberal agent provocateur?
    Except that it isn't in many cases.
    Who gets to decide when violence is justified? Is this another instance where you've decided you should be the arbiter?
    Then why can't you produce relevant examples?
    Let's examine a few at random:
    Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

    Is it your position that defensive war is unjustified violence?

    And if you are killed in the cause of Allah or die - then forgiveness from Allah and mercy are better than whatever they accumulate [in this world]. And whether you die or are killed, unto Allah you will be gathered.

    Being with God after dying in his service is terrorism?
    And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,

    As above, how is this terrorism?
    They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

    An indictment of apostasy, but not an endorsement of terrorism. How is this different than the commands of Deuteronomy 13?

    What about the context, that seems vitally important in regards to the bible. What does the next verse say?

    Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

    That doesn't seem to be an endorsement of terrorism either. Maybe you've just picked the wrong verses?
    [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. "That [is yours], so taste it." And indeed for the disbelievers is the punishment of the Fire. O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight]. And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah , and his refuge is Hell - and wretched is the destination. And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.

    Still not seeing any terrorism, but remind me what is the Christian belief about what happens to non-believers?
    I know you either haven't actually read the Qu'ran and the Bible, or you're intentionally misrepresenting what they say. What is intentional misrepresentation also called?
    Then you admit you don't actually have any idea how to identify a "real" Muslim or "real" Christian? An unexpected bit of honesty.

    You also still haven't explained why you're employing anti-2A tactics against the First Amendment.
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
  19. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Mar 22, 2004
    In New Jersey, a father named his son Adolf Hitler. Should we conclude that all New Jerseyites are Nazis?
  20. Was this father named Mohammed by any chance?

    Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf", is still a best-seller in Muslim Bangladesh and numerous other Islamic lands.