Find me a home (now focusing on biblical Israel & the talmud)

[Fragony]

Before saying that I am an islamphobe I will just admit it, yes I am pretty damn islamphobic and I don't think it's irrational. There interesting developments all over europe, just about everywhere the left is dead, especially in the Netherlands, finito, and all the more hysterical for it in their accusations, but. I am being serious here, what is going to happen. I don't blame muslims for the absolute idiocy of the left, but there seems to be this 'it's our turn now' among the right wing, but our muslims really don't deserve what some people are hinting at and I am worried, it isn't their fault it's all on the multicultural left imho. There is something creepy going on and I don't like it, it's below the surface but it's there. Am I really a leftie who is against leftist idiocy, sometimes I wonder, but I don't feel that much at home with the right anymore, I agree with their arguments but in many a case not why some make them. At the other side there are the people that are imho absolutely nuts, the lefties, the new aristocracy jealously guarding their priviliges. I really don't feel at home there and those that do should should see a shrink. I think I am growing too moderate.

[Hooahguy]

if you need a home, the ATL is welcoming you... :yes:

[Vladimir]

Where the buffalo rome?

[Husar]

Welcome among us moderate nutters, you can attend our religious moderation ceremonies every friday at 12am. Have fun and enjoy your stay. :clown:

[Fixiwee]

Before saying that I am an islamphobe I will just admit it, yes I am pretty damn islamphobic and I don't think it's irrational. There interesting developments all over europe, just about everywhere the left is dead, especially in the Netherlands, finito, and all the more hysterical for it in their accusations, but. I am being serious here, what is going to happen. I don't blame muslims for the absolute idiocy of the left, but there seems to be this 'it's our turn now' among the right wing, but our muslims really don't deserve what some people are hinting at and I am worried, it isn't their fault it's all on the multicultural left imho. There is something creepy going on and I don't like it, it's below the surface but it's there. Am I really a leftie who is against leftist idiocy, sometimes I wonder, but I don't feel that much at home with the right anymore, I agree with their arguments but in many a case not why some make them. At the other side there are the people that are imho absolutely nuts, the lefties, the new aristocracy jealously guarding their priviliges. I really don't feel at home there and those that do should should see a shrink. I think I am growing too moderate.
Maybe you should write a blog about it.

edit, add:
On a more serious note. Being liberal and more left I can see where this is going. The political left in this country is going out of control, the monster from the right is starting to devour every bit of respect and tolerance there is. I'm currently not able to vote on any party.

[Major Robert Dump]

Move to Oklahoma, the cost of living is cheap, we are not in a recession and the center of the state is a nice mix of liberal conservatives and conservative liberals. I will help pay your way and you can come over as a "guest worker," and my wife could set you up with one of her hawt bioengineer korean cousins.

[Hax]

Before saying that I am an islamphobe I will just admit it, yes I am pretty damn islamphobic and I don't think it's irrational

It probably is. I've done some research on the so-called Islamisation of the Netherlands, and there hardly is anything to fear. I've been able to make a prediction that in 2030...16 percent of the population of the Netherlands would be Islamic. Holy :daisy: that means that non-Muslims will make up 84 percent of the population (yes, I have basic math skills!). Hardly anything threatening, right?

[Pannonian]

It probably is. I've done some research on the so-called Islamisation of the Netherlands, and there hardly is anything to fear. I've been able to make a prediction that in 2030...16 percent of the population of the Netherlands would be Islamic. Holy :daisy: that means that non-Muslims will make up 74 percent of the population (yes, I have basic math skills!). Hardly anything threatening, right?
Does that mean the remaining 10% will be neither Muslim nor non-Muslim?

[Hooahguy]

It probably is. I've done some research on the so-called Islamisation of the Netherlands, and there hardly is anything to fear. I've been able to make a prediction that in 2030...16 percent of the population of the Netherlands would be Islamic. Holy :daisy: that means that non-Muslims will make up 74 percent of the population (yes, I have basic math skills!). Hardly anything threatening, right?
the issue isnt how many there will be. the issue is how much influence they will have. and by the stuff i hear, they have a huge amount as of now.... :sweatdrop:

[Major Robert Dump]

It probably is. I've done some research on the so-called Islamisation of the Netherlands, and there hardly is anything to fear. I've been able to make a prediction that in 2030...16 percent of the population of the Netherlands would be Islamic. Holy :daisy: that means that non-Muslims will make up 74 percent of the population (yes, I have basic math skills!). Hardly anything threatening, right?


I don't know about your numbers there, and isnt it 16% already?

I think one of Frags problems isn't so much with the number of muslims, his problem is with the pandering the left does to a minority of miscreants who think they are entitled to immigrate to a country, refuse to assimilate and make their own rules while the rest of the public stands back and gasps at the double standard....then the right comes along and does a total 180 and takes sanctions too far, which punishes people who don't deserve it and enrages and fuels the miscreants as a result.

[Hax]

I don't know about your numbers there, and isnt it 16% already?

A stunning 5.8 in 2007.


the issue isnt how many there will be. the issue is how much influence they will have. and by the stuff i hear, they have a huge amount as of now....

To be honest, I think the Muslim federation in the Netherlands has way less influence than Israel.


Does that mean the remaining 10% will be neither Muslim nor non-Muslim?

Oh :daisy: -- Writing in a hurry isn't good. Also, I take back the "I have basic math skills" comment.

[Vuk]

Funny you should express that concern Frag, because I fortold something similar a year or two ago, and everyone (including you) told me that I was nuts and paranoid. The attitude of the left hasn't really changed since then, their effect has just build up.

[Samurai Waki]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

some people give into their fears way to easily.

[Vuk]

That is a classic liberal response everytime someone has a concern or disagrees with you. Always tell people they are afraid, so they will be afraid (ironic, huh?) of being branded with the stigma and just ignore it.
Pointing out a double standard and a social inbalance is not being afraid. It is simply being concerned with justice. Such an inbalance in favor of Christians would never be tolerated.

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes the Islamic threat is overwhelming... these tiny percentages of our populations will rise up and destroy everyone else because us non muslims are incapable of defending ourselves..

Or alternatively not... im not worried...

[Strike For The South]

Texas. Our brown people are less scary and they make better food.

[Vuk]

Yes the Islamic threat is overwhelming... these tiny percentages of our populations will rise up and destroy everyone else because us non muslims are incapable of defending ourselves..

Or alternatively not... im not worried...

I don't think anyone is afraid of that...or afraid at all Grizzly. I think there is just a little indignation over a social injustice. It is just not fair to the rest of society when one group has been so priviledged (and at the expense of other groups). Not to mention that radical elements of islam have been given a free ticket to operate in many places live Sweden, which is causing MUCH more than a little trouble (look back on the Sweden thread to see what I mean).

[Hooahguy]

To be honest, I think the Muslim federation in the Netherlands has way less influence than Israel.
TBH, i dont think so.
i find it funny that you now are saying that Palestinians carry a lot of influence in israel when just a few months ago you said how they had NO influence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It probably is. I've done some research on the so-called Islamisation of the Netherlands, and there hardly is anything to fear. I've been able to make a prediction that in 2030...16 percent of the population of the Netherlands would be Islamic. Holy :daisy: that means that non-Muslims will make up 84 percent of the population (yes, I have basic math skills!). Hardly anything threatening, right?

Are you factoring in the fact that most countries in Europe aren't meeting replacement rates for their own populations? If you factor in the increase in their population with the decrease in ours, I think you may find a different conclusion. That isn't to say that the European Muslim population won't peak - it will. The problem is that it will peak much later than ours.

[Hax]

Of course, I'm not unbiased in my views of the "threat" of Islam to western society. However, I think 16 percent is pretty much accurate, though it could be anywhere between 10% and 22%, I think. Taking all things into account, perhaps 16/17%, though.


i find it funny that you now are saying that Palestinians carry a lot of influence in israel when just a few months ago you said how they had NO influence.

I find it funny that you are now saying that I mentioned Palestine in this thread.

Also; Palestinian =/= Muslim

[Subotan]

The vast vast vast majority of Muslims in Europe are liberal. Why? Because that's why they're here, because Europe is a tolerant place, for tolerant people.

And elements of the right is using are exactly the same tactics that the Nazis used to make people fear the Jews, against Muslims.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The vast vast vast majority of Muslims in Europe are liberal. Why? Because that's why they're here, because Europe is a tolerant place, for tolerant people.

Data. Let's have it. The firsthand testimony of Ayaan Hirsi Ali indicates that while there are moderates, the non-moderates aren't exactly in the "vast vasy vast" minority. In the minority, yes. But not in the "vast vast vast" minority.


And elements of the right is using are exactly the same tactics that the Nazis used to make people fear the Jews, against Muslims.

No, sorry. If you want an example of Nazi-esque propaganda in the modern age, watch Zeitgeist. Sure, elements of the extreme-right are making completely unreasonable criticisms, but if you take off the goggles you will find that most of those on the right who believe this to be a problem are reasonable enough about it.

[Fixiwee]

No, sorry. If you want an example of Nazi propaganda in the modern age, watch Zeitgeist. Sure, elements of the extreme-right are making completely unreasonable criticisms, but if you take off the goggles you will find that most of those on the right who believe this to be a problem are reasonable enough about it.
Let's take a view from the other side, shall we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL65dcC_UNM
(the link is german)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The mainstream concerned right is not using Nazi techniques. Full stop. Extreme-right parties are. Full stop.

[seireikhaan]

:coffeenews:

[Hooahguy]

I find it funny that you are now saying that I mentioned Palestine in this thread.

Also; Palestinian =/= Muslim

ah. now i see. you said Muslim Federation. not muslims.
but is it not a fact that most palestinians are muslims?

also, you brought it up. you were the first to say "Israel"
but lets get the :daisy: off this side-topic before we get this thread closed.

[Spino]

I dunno Frag, how about Switzerland? Australia? New Zealand?

Given how wacky and skewed to the left European politics have become what did you expect would happen? It seems science doesn't stop at the great apes; every action having an equal an opposite reaction and all that.

[Fixiwee]

The mainstream concerned right is not using Nazi techniques. Full stop. Extreme-right parties are. Full stop.
No worries, I understand you quite well.

[KukriKhan]

Find me a home

Dude: Canada. Western Canada. It's America Lite - just enough socialism to be familiar to you (and not such a culture shock as the US would be), with the same "can-do", optimistic attitude as their southern neighbors. You'd fit right in, and they'd love your accent.

They are still arguing multiculturalism vs assimilationalism - they have been for decades - but (unknown to them) assimilationalism is winning; mostly because the only group that all groups there hate more than anything else, and which distain unites them, is America. They will all assimilate, rather than 'become' American. Anything other than that. :laugh4:

Plus, they're in much less danger of water shortage, so you can still enjoy your "rain-shower" there, and maybe even install sidewall waterjets, for a full-body experience.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Plus, they're in much less danger of water shortage, so you can still enjoy your "rain-shower" there, and maybe even install sidewall waterjets, for a full-body experience.

Kukri:

You are starting to scare me. Next it will be talking about little tingling needles of water and...

Post CLOSED. SF

[HoreTore]

Who cares about immigration anyway?

Seriously. It's the economy, stupid ~;)

[Strike For The South]

Who cares about immigration anyway?

Seriously. It's the economy, stupid ~;)

If the Dutch are anything like the Mexicans he won't take kindly to that.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think something alot of people don't realise is half the reason muslims could become a large group perhaps even the largest some point in the distant future is in part because the dilution of christians to atheism, consider also that alot of these muslims that do come to europe are fairly liberal and your realise that there is nothing at all to worry about...

[Major Robert Dump]

If the Dutch are anything like the Mexicans he won't take kindly to that.


I'd rather deal with degenerate Catholics than degenerate Muslims any day of the week. And as you say, the food is better :idea2:

[HoreTore]

I'd rather deal with degenerate Catholics than degenerate Muslims any day of the week. And as you say, the food is better :idea2:

The food is better? A life without a proper kebab is meaningless.

[Sarmatian]

Brazil is a good option in this case. Actually, Brazil is a good option in any case. :laugh4:

Enjoy yourself on the beach and watch beautiful, scantily clad girls play beach volley. I mean, it's got to be a dream come true for any sports fan...

[Fragony]

Yes the Islamic threat is overwhelming... these tiny percentages of our populations will rise up and destroy everyone else because us non muslims are incapable of defending ourselves..

Or alternatively not... im not worried...

The threat of cultural relativism and blind multiculturalism is overwhelming. Dutch muslims are pretty relaxed, they hardly cause any trouble, not like in other European country's at least. Contrary to belief they hardly ask for anything safe a few provocers that shouldn't be treated as a conversation partner but should just be kicked out after laughing them in the face first. I really couldn't care less about muslims not integrating that is asking too much from them because we have no idea into what they should be integrating, we are way too confused about that ourselves. We are back at 1848, or close.

[Strike For The South]

I'd rather deal with degenerate Catholics than degenerate Muslims any day of the week. And as you say, the food is better :idea2:

I agreed. If the Kebab is your benchmark of cuisine I feel sorry for you HoreTore. Wow, meat and peppers? Two thousand years and that's the best they could do? I'd be pretty pissed off at the world to.

Well except the UK

[Yoyoma1910]

New Orleans... the Amsterdam of America.


City Comparison. (http://www.citycomparator.com/compare/14_amsterdam_vs_204_new_orleans.html)

[Fixiwee]

I think something alot of people don't realise is half the reason muslims could become a large group perhaps even the largest some point in the distant future is in part because the dilution of christians to atheism.
Uhm sorry what?
European atheists don't even make 10%
They are to blame for making more space for muslims so one day they will be a majority?
There is no connection between growing immigration of muslim population and a secular society.

[Yoyoma1910]

eh... never mind.

[Fragony]

New Orleans... the Amsterdam of America.


City Comparison. (http://www.citycomparator.com/compare/14_amsterdam_vs_204_new_orleans.html)

Have a love hate relationship with Amsterdam, it is the coolest city on earth and people who disagree are wrong, obviously, it's still fun but it's losing it's soul. If you are there go at queensday, great fun biggest outdoor party on the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_VZIGn6jc

[Ironside]

I don't think anyone is afraid of that...or afraid at all Grizzly. I think there is just a little indignation over a social injustice. It is just not fair to the rest of society when one group has been so priviledged (and at the expense of other groups). Not to mention that radical elements of islam have been given a free ticket to operate in many places live Sweden, which is causing MUCH more than a little trouble (look back on the Sweden thread to see what I mean).

That liveleak video was one of the most biased things I've seen. Fair enough, most of it is true, but then Rosengård has been noted as a immigrant failure for about 20 years or something.

That Israel is viewed badly by one of the largest groups living there (namely Palestinians) and Israel has also been a target by the left for ages are not exactly surpricing (but still sad in how the actions are made).
The alliance between the atheist "I take any excuse to put up a riot"-left (they are somewhat common in Sweden) and teh muslims are also a nice sign on how strong and dangerous those "kill all infidels"-muslims are...

The politics of the Swedish Democrats are basically "if we kick out encurage emigration of all (bad) immigrants then everything will be better". One of the few things written not by vague words are that doing this will enable lowering the taxes and increase social welfare.

Most leading members were former members of more obvious racist parties aswell. They are basically riding the anti immigration right-wing populist parties wave going on in Europe atm and are quite small compared to thier counterparts and are attacking the wrong points on the actual integration issues, like that the many of the integration programs are crap (often entrepenours where the costumer (the state or communes) aren't checking them out properly).

Edit simply to add, it's basically showing the worst ghetto in the US and then claiming that this is how the entire US will look like in a few years if the democrats/republicans.

[HoreTore]

Uhm sorry what?
European atheists don't even make 10%
They are to blame for making more space for muslims so one day they will be a majority?
There is no connection between growing immigration of muslim population and a secular society.

Don't even make 10%? What are you on? Or are you confusing "christians" with "people registered with a church"? Like the situation is here, 80% of us are registered in the state church(due to laziness, membership scams, etc), however, every survey made in the last two decades or more have shown the percentage of people who call themselves christians to be somewhere around 20-30%. The same number I've seen in a lot of other european countries, like England.

[HoreTore]

That liveleak video was one of the most biased things I've seen. Fair enough, most of it is true, but then Rosengård has been noted as a immigrant failure for about 20 years or something.

That Israel is viewed badly by one of the largest groups living there (namely Palestinians) and Israel has also been a target by the left for ages are not exactly surpricing (but still sad in how the actions are made).
The alliance between the atheist "I take any excuse to put up a riot"-left (they are somewhat common in Sweden) and teh muslims are also a nice sign on how strong and dangerous those "kill all infidels"-muslims are...

The politics of the Swedish Democrats are basically "if we kick out encurage emigration of all (bad) immigrants then everything will be better". One of the few things written not by vague words are that doing this will enable lowering the taxes and increase social welfare.

Most leading members were former members of more obvious racist parties aswell. They are basically riding the anti immigration right-wing populist parties wave going on in Europe atm and are quite small compared to thier counterparts and are attacking the wrong points on the actual integration issues, like that the many of the integration programs are crap (often entrepenours where the costumer (the state or communes) aren't checking them out properly).

The really funny bit is that the large majority of immigrants coming to Sweden comes from Iraq. Our :daisy: up. Shows how caring the right-wingers are; kill people for fun, then run away from the consequences. Yes, responsibility is what the right is all about....

[Fixiwee]

Don't even make 10%? What are you on? Or are you confusing "christians" with "people registered with a church"? Like the situation is here, 80% of us are registered in the state church(due to laziness, membership scams, etc), however, every survey made in the last two decades or more have shown the percentage of people who call themselves christians to be somewhere around 20-30%. The same number I've seen in a lot of other european countries, like England.
Okay I might be wrong.

But post a link as a prove please.
Because as far as I recall many people are Agnostic and not pure Atheists and there is a clear difference. I find it hard to belive that more then 10% are real Atheists in any of the european countries.

[HoreTore]

Okay I might be wrong.

But post a link as a prove please.
Because as far as I recall many people are Agnostic and not pure Atheists and there is a clear difference. I find it hard to belive that more then 10% are real Atheists in any of the european countries.

Whatever. The point was not religious, more specifically, not christian. There is a clear difference between agnosticism and atheism, but there's a clear difference between being agnostic or atheist and being religious too.

And I don't have any linkys, sorry, I read my news the proper way; from a newspaper. None of this newfangled "interwebs" nonsense for me!

[Fixiwee]

Whatever. The point was not religious, more specifically, not christian. There is a clear difference between agnosticism and atheism, but there's a clear difference between being agnostic or atheist and being religious too.
Okay. But the argument was that this state of religiousness is enabling the growth of muslim minorities.
And I don't see a connection here.


And I don't have any linkys, sorry, I read my news the proper way; from a newspaper. None of this newfangled "interwebs" nonsense for me!
Well then I simply wont belive you, my good sir. :square:

[HoreTore]

Okay. But the argument was that this state of religiousness is enabling the growth of muslim minorities.

I wouldn't worry about that. Forget all the whining, there are still no more than 80.000 muslims in this country(pop:4,8 mill). I think it'll be quite some time before they're running the show....

The real problem, is that when people hear "immigrant", they immediately think "muslim". Even worse when it's "non-western immigrant". Of course forgetting the fact that christian eastern europe(including Russia), communist china and other eastern asian states, hindu india, christian south america and largely christian africa are all included in the term "non-western"...

[LittleGrizzly]

Sorry what I meant was the drift from christianity to atheism (or agnostic) means that in comparison to the major religious group (christianity) muslim grows quickly... quicker than the influx of muslim immigrants and birth of muslim children

And this drift from christianity is likely to continue... meaning predictions of muslims being the major group aren't all that meaningful when you consider that the christian group combined with atheists and agnostics shall still be larger..

Unless your afriad of atheists and agnosts as well as muslims..

Personally i don't see the threat, sure a portion of them have some unfavourable views but they are a minority among thier own in our countrys as well as thier own being a minority this makes them pretty unthreatening...

Also the whole british sharia law thing is overblown, they only use iot if both parties agree and then it still has to fall within british law perfectly reasonable... and im fairly sure its something we have done for other faiths also..

[Meneldil]

Dude: Canada. Western Canada. It's America Lite - just enough socialism to be familiar to you (and not such a culture shock as the US would be), with the same "can-do", optimistic attitude as their southern neighbors. You'd fit right in, and they'd love your accent.

They are still arguing multiculturalism vs assimilationalism - they have been for decades - but (unknown to them) assimilationalism is winning; mostly because the only group that all groups there hate more than anything else, and which distain unites them, is America. They will all assimilate, rather than 'become' American. Anything other than that. :laugh4:

Plus, they're in much less danger of water shortage, so you can still enjoy your "rain-shower" there, and maybe even install sidewall waterjets, for a full-body experience.

That's clearly not what I've been told about Vancouver, and I'm quite surprise that the idea of assimilationalism would even be mentioned in Canada.
If it's anything like Toronto and Ontario, then it's 100% multiculturalism with everyone doing is stuff in his own community. I'll be visiting Vancouver soon, can't wait to see how it is by myself :)

As for the topic itself, well, I don't know. The anti-islam rhetoric seems quite similar to the previous anti-left rhetoric used to bash anarchism, socialism and communism. I'm not seeing the two "threats" as similar, and even though I'm pretty progressive and left-winged, I can definitely see how Islam is an issue in western Europe. I for one don't think there's any place definitely better than Netherlands, and I don't advise you to go to Ontario: the simple sight of churches everywhere, and muslim people dressed like they would be in Saudi Arabia drives me completely nut.

[Yoyoma1910]

Have a love hate relationship with Amsterdam, it is the coolest city on earth and people who disagree are wrong, obviously, it's still fun but it's losing it's soul. If you are there go at queensday, great fun biggest outdoor party on the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r_VZIGn6jc


Well, there are some major differences between the two.

1) Pot is illegal
2) Prostitution is illegal.
3) It's a fairly inexpensive city.
4) Wooo... crime. eh.
5) We wouldn't have a "Queens Day," we would likely spend somewhere between 1 week to a month on it.

here's the wiki:

New Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans,_Louisiana)


Anyway, it's set up more like a European city than most metropolitan regions in the U.S.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Shows how caring the right-wingers are; kill people for fun, then run away from the consequences. Yes, responsibility is what the right is all about....

Advice for all: Please stop the generalised bashing. There are shades of opinion across the political spectrum - it is tantamount to trolling if one characterises an entire school of political thought so carelessly.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[InsaneApache]

You could come and live up here in Yorkshire. We have the best currys on the planet. Granted there is a Mosque or six but, hey, the lassi is great as well. :book:

[Strike For The South]

Did I mention Texas?

[InsaneApache]

Texas, meh, new kid on the block. Texas is the Yorkshire of the USA. :balloon2:

[Strike For The South]

Texas, meh, new kid on the block. Texas is the Yorkshire of the USA. :balloon2:

Are we talking about the terrier or the pudding?

[Yoyoma1910]

Are we talking about the terrier or the pudding?

I think it's a type of hotdog.

[InsaneApache]

All three.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Also the whole british sharia law thing is overblown, they only use iot if both parties agree and then it still has to fall within british law perfectly reasonable... and im fairly sure its something we have done for other faiths also..

The point is that it isn't reasonable, it isn't overblown. Not only has Sharia actually been introduced, but about the problems with it...let's just say so much for caring about women's rights from [certain viewpoints in the political spectrum that are on the other side of my own]...

[Meneldil]

Sharia law in a secular country should be no means be allowed. It's a shame for UK, period.

You would have guessed they would have learnt their lesson after offering shelter to all the muslim terrorist plaguing europe ten years ago, but it looks like no :no:

[Yoyoma1910]

All three.

Which one tastes the best?

[InsaneApache]

The point is that it isn't reasonable, it isn't overblown. Not only has Sharia actually been introduced, but about the problems with it...let's just say so much for caring about women's rights from [certain viewpoints in the political spectrum that are on the other side of my own]...

Louis nailed it for the hypocritical left last year. Race/Religion trumps gender everytime.

We should all be ashamed at this.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not only has Sharia actually been introduced, but about the problems with it...let's just say so much for caring about women's rights from

They still have to wrok within British Law, British law doesn't allow discrimination...

[lars573]

That's clearly not what I've been told about Vancouver, and I'm quite surprise that the idea of assimilationalism would even be mentioned in Canada.
If it's anything like Toronto and Ontario, then it's 100% multiculturalism with everyone doing is stuff in his own community. I'll be visiting Vancouver soon, can't wait to see how it is by myself :)
He doesn't mean reeeeeeeeealy northern California. He means Alberta or Manitoba, maybe Saskatchewan. Although with how much of a polluted cesspit Alberta is turning into, all the money in the world wouldn't get me to live there. Plus Ralph Klien is a douch.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sharia law in a secular country should be no means be allowed. It's a shame for UK, period.

You would have guessed they would have learnt their lesson after offering shelter to all the muslim terrorist plaguing europe ten years ago, but it looks like no :no:


Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

Now that's an alien religion's power grab.

:bounce:

[Yoyoma1910]

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

Now that's an alien religion's power grab.

:bounce:

Yes, uh... I'll have the cake please.


And if you didn't bring enough, I suppose I'll have to go with the chicken.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

No, you did not address it. Two things were not:

A) The Jewish faith is not quite the same. For example, find me this in the Jewish faith: "GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female." [4:11]
B) Discrimination against women, as pointed out above, leaves the result that women can be forced into this court instead of a secular court, in some or even many cases with disastrous consequences on their finances, family, or personal lives.



I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.


A) We have terrorists? :inquisitive:
B) Many Catholics, including myself and a priest who writes for the National Post, are against the move for various reasons.

[Incongruous]

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).

Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.

Now that's an alien religion's power grab.

:bounce:

Although I can see the worry about female Muslims being coerced into these tribunals by their male family memebers, and thus cheated out of their parents inheritnence. I do not see that as the driving force behind this dissaproval of the courts, rather I reckon it to be tribalism, the waving of women's right (in general) is nothing more than a stick for certain sectors of society to dash about, in the hope of stiring anti-muslim sentiment.

This of coarse does not dissavow the genuine fear that some women are going to get a bad turn of it in these courts. What should happen, though I doubt it will, is a very open and very public discourse on the Muslim faith and its role, if there is one, in Britain. Muslims must be able to acceot this scrutiny in order to assuage the widespread dislike and fear of thier community. But likewise those who appose them must be able to stop frothing at the mouth for a while and certain news outlets must stop printing sensationalist pap.

If this was allowed to happen, then we may be able to judge these courts with a more informed view?

Oh and BTW, I am so pleased that the one tru and universal Church has reclaimed England, once again may we all take communion togther whilst listening to the mass in Latin and giving a large tithe of national wealth yearly to the Holy See.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can't see the overturning of the Act of Settlement to be a good thing - it will only cause problems, and I say this as a Catholic. There are also members of the clergy who appear to be opposed to this. The only way the Act of Settlement can be overturned is if the monarch ceases to be the head of, or involved in, the Church of England.

If that happens, His Royal Highness The Duke of Bavaria, by the Grace of God, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, etc.

[Tribesman]

"GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female." [4:11]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Still peddling the same old :daisy: eh Mars , such a hard one to explain isn't it .
Unless of course you put it in context like how its talking about bequests to children , bequests they will recieve on reaching adulthood , at the time when they are able to get married , you know when the female recieves money and the male has to pay money . So the equivalent in Jewish law according to "God" would be the bit about doling out the dosh according to the needs of the recipients.:idea2:
Still I suppose both are better than the old traditional "christian" primogenture crap where all that matters to scoop the jackpot is that you are the eldest male...like Britain still has with the monarchy



Discrimination against women
Would that be like the "modesty guard" who beat the hell out of Jewish women in Israel for violating their religious law?

[InsaneApache]

WB Tribes. :surrender2: :laugh4:

[Fragony]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Hello sailor

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Unless of course you put it in context like how its talking about bequests to children , bequests they will recieve on reaching adulthood , at the time when they are able to get married , you know when the female recieves money and the male has to pay money .

I've honestly read this three times trying to get any sense out of it, so I'll just go with what I presume you're trying to say.


If No Will Is Left*

[4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female*.

It is quite clear Tribes. You can locate the whole verse for yourself if you wish.


So the equivalent in Jewish law according to "God" would be the bit about doling out the dosh according to the needs of the recipients.

Which doesn't specifically discriminate against women. :idea2:


Still I suppose both are better than the old traditional "christian" primogenture crap where all that matters to scoop the jackpot is that you are the eldest male...like Britain still has with the monarchy

Which, of course, still happens to the average Christian family...:dizzy2:


Would that be like the "modesty guard" who beat the hell out of Jewish women in Israel for violating their religious law?

Yes, the modesty guard which has been prosecuted in Israel unlike, say, in Jordan where honour killings are completely legal.

EDIT: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Tribesman]

It is quite clear Tribes. You can locate the whole verse for yourself if you wish.

What part of "context" is it that you don't understand?
It ain't hard ......read 4 not just part of 4

Which doesn't specifically discriminate against women
:dizzy2: Would you like a breakdown of which of the 613 laws discriminate against women ?

Which, of course, still happens to the average Christian family
Well bugger me sideways I coud have sworn you mentioned the laws of succesion and the "christian" church .

See what I mean mods, same old :daisy: again and again with the same old :daisy: that spew out the same crap again and again about Muslims just as they used to about the Jews.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

See what I mean mods, same old :daisy: again and again with the same old :daisy: that spew out the same crap again and again about Muslims just as they used to about the Jews.


Right, this is idiotic. I shouldn't have bothered at all, but hey, you keep with the insults. I've read the entire part four, I know what it is about. Thanks.

[Gregoshi]

:wall: Just stay at home Fragony. Your country may have problems, but at least they are your problems.

[Meneldil]

Firstly, the United Kingdom is not a secular country. The head of state is also the head of the Church of England, and bishops sit in the legislature (House of Lords).


Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.



Second, we addressed EMFM's point last year in a long thread. The Sharia tribunals deal with parties that both agree to the arbitration and there have been exactly similar tribunals for the Jewish faith for many years.

I'm interested to know why there hasn't been a equivalent wave of outrage and pessimism at the recent brazen attempt by the Roman Catholics to subvert the fabric of state, by insidiously persuading the Prime Minister to overturn the Act of Settlement and thus allow papists to marry into the monarchy without affecting their right of succession. And they have terrorists, not to mention they breed faster and there's increasing numbers of 'em.


I don't really care about what religion we're talking about. People can practice their damn religion in private. Letting them use some outdated fairy tale book to make their own law should be a big no.

Oh, and cut the Royal family members' heads, or send them into exile. Monarchy ought to disappear with religion. Primogenitur is, as Tribesman pointed out, nothing but crap.

[Hooahguy]

Would you like a breakdown of which of the 613 laws discriminate against women ?

please.

[Incongruous]

please.

I'm not sure if this is what Tribesman is talking about, but it deals with the issue of legal descrimination in Israel all the same.

Quite interesting.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/511

[Banquo's Ghost]

Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Now, despite not being secular countries, most western european states kind of stated that civil law > religious law.
If you personnally think that it's okay to accept Sharia law in a democratic, progressive, liberal country, well then, let's agree to disagree ;)

Thanks for pointing out my error though, I too often tend to think that secularism is widely spread.

Many western countries may well have "kind of stated" that position, but the fact remains that many also have religious provisions. Shari'a is merely a system and theory of law derived from philosophies of the Islamic religion. The fact that it is subverted in some countries into an abomination does not, of itself, prove the system wrong. Legal systems throughout the world are so subverted.

I can make a fairly strong case, for example, that the death penalty in the United States, is not only barbaric in its implementation, but tends to discriminate significantly and unfairly against coloured people. Does that render the entire legal system and philosophy of the United States similarly cruel and worthy of disdain? Or by extension, the system and philosophy of the United Kingdom, from which the former structure derives?

Tribunals using Shari'a structure are available to appellants if both parties agree. These tribunals do not over-ride the statutory rights of the participants. I agree that there are concerns about ensuring women (for example) participate in a full and equal manner - but one could voice these same concerns about the conduct of rape cases, where the odds in the UK are heavily stacked in the defendant's favour. Imperfections do not invalidate the whole proceeding, and I maintain we wouldn't be having these conversations if it wasn't for "teh Muslims R eval" prejudices. There is no indication that such inclusions to an already religion-infested system signal the End of Civilisation.

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

[Fragony]

We all know that the position of islamic women is extremely vulnerable, calling it mutual agreement is way of, the state should protect them against the archaic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Personally, I don't think there should be any religious influence in modern jurisprudence, or indeed any public life, but until the UK embraces secularism, it seems only fair that citizens of religions other than Anglican can play too.

Plus the Church of England has a habit of involving itself in the business of other established churches. I'm still raging at the 1712 Patronage Act, it undid all the good work of 1690. :furious3:

[Hooahguy]

I'm not sure if this is what Tribesman is talking about, but it deals with the issue of legal descrimination in Israel all the same.

Quite interesting.

http://http://newhumanist.org.uk/511
no, i think that was exactly what he was talking about.
my challenge to tribsey is for him to tell me which of the 613 mitzvot discriminate against women, and i will prove him wrong.
here- ive even given a link where you can read all of them. (http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/The_613_Commandments.asp)

btw your link doesnt work.

[Incongruous]

btw your link doesnt work.

Does it work now?

[Hooahguy]

Does it work now?
nope.

[Incongruous]

Odd, it works for me.

[LittleGrizzly]

The link takes you to a page asking did you mean 'bla bla bla' click that and it takes you there...

Link seems to have Http:// wrote in twice... is that why it isn't working ?

[Hooahguy]

still, no cigar.

[LittleGrizzly]

This should work...

http://newhumanist.org.uk/511

[Hooahguy]

there we go.

[Louis VI the Fat]

A) We have terrorists? :inquisitive:Catholics? Now there's a religion of terror if ever there was one.

You replied the above to Banquo. He is from Ireland. One's thoughts don't need to leave that very isle to find endless acts of Catholic bigotry and terrorism.



:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Unless of course you put it in context like how its talking about bequests to children , bequests they will recieve on reaching adulthood , at the time when they are able to get married , you know when the female recieves money and the male has to pay money . So the equivalent in Jewish law according to "God" would be the bit about doling out the dosh according to the needs of the recipients.:idea2:
Still I suppose both are better than the old traditional "christian" primogenture crap where all that matters to scoop the jackpot is that you are the eldest male...like Britain still has with the monarchy

Would that be like the "modesty guard" who beat the hell out of Jewish women in Israel for violating their religious law?Good to see you Tribes, and a lovely post.



Right, if we are to follow this line of thinking, France and Turkey are the only two european secular countries. Well, 'states' rather than countries. But they are indeed. Alas, we live on an island of reason surrounded by an ocean of superstition. Superstitions with endless legal priviliges at that.

[Hooahguy]

tribsey, im still waiting for the laws within the 613 laws that descriminate against women.

[Hooahguy]

im still waiting tribes...

[Banquo's Ghost]

There is no need to keep posting such reminders. Tribesman will answer or not as he wishes.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Tribesman]

im still waiting tribes...
Where to start ?
The role and status of women in society , perhaps thats too hard .
Lets go for something simple .
If a man doesn't like the dinner his wife cooked can he get rid of her ?
If he just fancies screwing someone else can he throw her out ?
If a man beats seven shades of #### out of his wife can she get rid of him ?

Now of course such issues wouldn't matter in a country where personal issues even under a religious code still have to comply with the civil laws which take precendence even if both parties consent to the religious laws....like the UK which someone mentioned earlier .
But can you think of a country where religious laws about personal issues take precendence over any civil laws even when both parties don't consent to those religious interpretations ? (it starts with the letter I ends with the letter L and has 7 letters if you get stuck)

[Strike For The South]

Where to start ?
The role and status of women in society , perhaps thats too hard .
Lets go for something simple .
If a man doesn't like the dinner his wife cooked can he get rid of her ?
If he just fancies screwing someone else can he throw her out ?
If a man beats seven shades of #### out of his wife can she get rid of him ?

Now of course such issues wouldn't matter in a country where personal issues even under a religious code still have to comply with the civil laws which take precendence even if both parties consent to the religious laws....like the UK which someone mentioned earlier .
But can you think of a country where religious laws about personal issues take precendence over any civil laws even when both parties don't consent to those religious interpretations ? (it starts with the letter I ends with the letter L and has 7 letters if you get stuck)


Israel is six letters sweetheart. Entire argument null and void.

[Vladimir]

Israel is six letters sweetheart. Entire argument null and void.

Tribesman in three words: Biden of the Backroom.

[Hooahguy]

Where to start ?
The role and status of women in society , perhaps thats too hard .
Lets go for something simple .
first of all, the role of women in society is completely dependent on the sect of judiasm. in modern orthodoxy as well as conservative and reform judaism, women play a huge role. in fact, my synagogue (modern orthodox), our president is a woman.
ultra-orthodoxy believes that women should be modest in all forms. of course, most non jewish people should regard this as descriminatory, but in ultra-orthodox eyes, it is in the name of modesty.


If a man doesn't like the dinner his wife cooked can he get rid of her

If he just fancies screwing someone else can he throw her out ?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: nice lie. he needs to present a god reason to the jewish court.


If a man beats seven shades of #### out of his wife can she get rid of him
yes, she can demand a divorce.

tribesman, your complete ignorance of judaism leads me to conclude you should refrain from posting such accusations. what astounds me is that you cited that the 613 commandments as descriminating agaisnt women, even though there is no evidence.

[Ironside]

yes, she can demand a divorce.

tribesman, your complete ignorance of judaism leads me to conclude you should refrain from posting such accusations. what astounds me is that you cited that the 613 commandments as descriminating agaisnt women, even though there is no evidence.

Could you show me the passage? Deut. 24:1 perhaps?

Laws of Divorce

126 To issue a divorce by means of a "get" document Deut. 24:1

Deuteronomy 24
(New American Standard Bible)
Law of Divorce
1"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some (A)indecency in her, and (B)he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,

She might be able to divorse somehow, but it certainly isn't easy to find the passage for that.

Do you know what yibum is?

One personal OT favorite:

Exodus 21

7"(D)If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free (E)as the male slaves do.

[Fragony]

Nice these old texts huh, being allowed to interpret them and all that.

[Hooahguy]

you are forgetting that if you look in the laws of Nashim (book of the Mishnah) it plainly says that the woman can apply to the courts to force the hubby to giver her one. i will try to find it when i get home from NY.

and yes i know what yibum is. it has nothing to do with womens rights, rather to commemorate the name of the deceased father. i fail to see how it deals with womens rights.

EDIT: Ironside, i looked into that Exodus 21 pasage. turns out you are missing a critical part of the Pasuk(sentence).
it reads as follows in the jewish version of the bible. dunno what you non-jews are translating it as.
reads as follows (Ex 21:7-8):
"if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not be freed as male servants are. her master should designate her as his bride, and if she is not pleasing to her, he must let her be redeemed."

EDIT II: doing some looking in the commentaries, i found this:
by Rashi, on the "his daughter" part: only a minor girl may be sold.
by the Yad: he may only sell his daughter if he is absolutely destitute and has no other means of support.

[Tribesman]

nice lie. he needs to present a god reason to the jewish court.

So explain this ....Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required.
or this .....
The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her.


yes, she can demand a divorce.

No physical violence is not grounds for a rabbi to demand a petition from the husband on behalf of the woman unless the woman and man have agreed to that specificly in their contract of marriage


first of all, the role of women in society is completely dependent on the sect of judiasm.
As far as personal disputes and relationships are concerned what is the only real sect in the Jewish State when it comes to legal issues ?


it is in the name of modesty
Thats what they say in Saudi Arabia isn't it .


tribesman, your complete ignorance of judaism leads me to conclude you should refrain from posting such accusations. what astounds me is that you cited that the 613 commandments as descriminating agaisnt women, even though there is no evidence.
Errrr... excuse me Hooah but where are these passages that set out the discrimintory laws against women (that are for modesty honestly)? How are those applied in everyday life under the only real Jewish sect because all the other sects just ain't Jewish:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Pannonian]

There is no need to keep posting such reminders. Tribesman will answer or not as he wishes.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:
The Backroom has regained its liveliness since Tribes' return. Probably to the moderators' distress, but damn it makes for entertaining reading.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Backroom simply wasn't complete without Tribesy. :2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Agreed. Our "bogtrotter"* does make for interesting reading.

* ~;) Just having fun Tribes, welcome back.

[Ironside]

Nice these old texts huh, being allowed to interpret them and all that.

Yes, that was how this whole issue showed up, as somehow Jews can ignore obsolete part of the Bible or other holy texts, while the muslims cannot according to some.



and yes i know what yibum is. it has nothing to do with womens rights, rather to commemorate the name of the deceased father. i fail to see how it deals with womens rights.

Yibum seems to mean more stuff then, I was thinking of marrying the childless brother's widow. The wife seems to have quite little to say in the matter (except insulting the brother if he's not doing his duty and marries and bangs her to honour his brother). Deut 25: 5-10 I like the 11 and 12 aswell.


EDIT: Ironside, i looked into that Exodus 21 pasage. turns out you are missing a critical part of the Pasuk(sentence).
it reads as follows in the jewish version of the bible. dunno what you non-jews are translating it as.
reads as follows (Ex 21:7-8):
"if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not be freed as male servants are. her master should designate her as his bride, and if she is not pleasing to her, he must let her be redeemed."

Interesting about the translations. Appearently "countrymen" (Lev 39-46) cannot be proper slaves but are to be released after 6 years, unless you happen to be female. Proper slaves are from the "temporary residents" or other people. So slave might be too hard, but servant is too weak.

Exodus 22:16-17, won't quote it since your version seems to difffer (care to name it? I switched to the new international version that doesn't use slave in that context). Can you spot the second meaning in 22:17?

I also wonder if there's a male equivalent to numbers 5:11-31 (that sounds possible to rig anyway)?



EDIT II: doing some looking in the commentaries, i found this:
by Rashi, on the "his daughter" part: only a minor girl may be sold.
by the Yad: he may only sell his daughter if he is absolutely destitute and has no other means of support.

So it's ok as it's only selling children to be wives? And not at all discrimatory to women?

And the million dollar question is, does it still apply or is that part considered obsolete nowadays? :book:

I belive Tribesy is refering to Tractate Kethuboth in Talmud.

[Hooahguy]

Errrr... excuse me Hooah but where are these passages that set out the discrimintory laws against women (that are for modesty honestly)? How are those applied in everyday life under the only real Jewish sect because all the other sects just ain't Jewish:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

so before i set out and crush your other claims, lets start out by asking a question:
earlier you said that the 613 mitzvot descriminated against women. before we go on, id like you to tell me which laws within the 613 mitzvot, which i posted a list earlier in the thread, did that. then we will go on with our debate.

[Tribesman]

70s early 300s late 500s early 600s

[Hooahguy]

are you sure you posted that in the right thread? :inquisitive:

[Tribesman]

are you sure you posted that in the right thread?
Certain:yes:
Would you like to read them again ? or perhaps you should consult a Rabbi on the meanings first

[Hax]

Well, Tribesman, I've checked the 613 Mitzvot but I could find little concerning the treatment of women, only that a man should not wear female garments and the other way around.

However, I do find them very fascistic and xenophobic to be honest. To name just a few:


#
# Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
# Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
# Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
# Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.

[Tribesman]

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.
Thats not fair , you have to put the passages in context:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Hooahguy]

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.
true, i must admit.
but you are forgetting one thing: judasim does not advocate killing all non-believers. only certain nations that were in disgust of G-d and tried to destroy us, like Amalek.

[KarlXII]

true, i must admit.
but you are forgetting one thing: judasim does not advocate killing all non-believers. only certain nations that were in disgust of G-d and tried to destroy us, like Amalek.

What was Jericho then, where every man woman and child were slaughtered? Ai, where the city was raised to the ground?

[Fragony]

I find this very similar to what Fragony and Hooahguy (among other people) have posted about Islam demanding the death of people.

There is a difference, old testament is full of immoral texts, but (most of) it are old accounts if things that have already taken place, 'god wanted us to do it' 'god was with us' etc. You will find much worse in the Makkabees (sp?). Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared. It's the difference between telling someone what you have done and telling someone what he should do.

[Hax]

Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared.





Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=Deut.%20&verse=20:17&src=HE)
Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=Deut.%20&verse=20:16&src=HE)
Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19 (http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=Deut.%20&verse=25:19&src=HE)

Seems pretty timeless to me, eh.

[Fragony]

[/LIST]
Seems pretty timeless to me, eh.

Yes, but where are the canaanites and all the other by now, it is not our reality. Happened, and it happened a lot. No significance for any of us. But there just happens to be a certain group of people who just can't come to terms with certain things that happened so very very long ago.

[Hax]

Yes, but where are the canaanites and all the other by now, it is not our reality. Happened, and it happened a lot. No significance for any of us. But there just happens to be a certain group of people who just can't come to terms with certain things that happened so very very long ago.

Like the Zionists?

[Fragony]

Like the Zionists?

Of course. Their reality as well, you are dutch you know polderen.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There is a difference, old testament is full of immoral texts, but (most of) it are old accounts if things that have already taken place, 'god wanted us to do it' 'god was with us' etc. You will find much worse in the Makkabees (sp?). Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared. It's the difference between telling someone what you have done and telling someone what he should do.

:yes:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke beautifully on the subject, I think it is on YouTube somewhere.

[Ironside]

There is a difference, old testament is full of immoral texts, but (most of) it are old accounts if things that have already taken place, 'god wanted us to do it' 'god was with us' etc. You will find much worse in the Makkabees (sp?). Yet in the Quran it is written down as an timeless obligation, cannot be compared. It's the difference between telling someone what you have done and telling someone what he should do.

I'm sure hooahguy or any of the other practising Jews residing here are fully up to the task of marrying thier older brother's wife should the brother die, banging the wife and naming thier first-born son after the older brother. Or selling thier under aged daughter off to permanent servitude with the intent of selling her as a wife.

Those are ageless RULES, commands by GOD.

It's all about interpretation and appearently Christianity and Judaism get a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but Islam is trapped to it's millenia old ways. Or so some people claim.

[Hooahguy]

What was Jericho then, where every man woman and child were slaughtered? Ai, where the city was raised to the ground?
the people of jerico and Ai were part of the 7 nations within Cannan that G-D wanted us to destroy. numerous reasons why, such as one reason i heard somewhere, all the nations were offered the chance to become the chosen ones, but these 7 nations were ones who refused AND cursed G-d at the same time, thus he anted them destroyed. not sure where i heard that though.

[Hooahguy]

I'm sure hooahguy or any of the other practising Jews residing here are fully up to the task of marrying thier older brother's wife should the brother die, banging the wife and naming thier first-born son after the older brother. Or selling thier under aged daughter off to permanent servitude with the intent of selling her as a wife.
um, no. we have long since thrown away the practice of yibum and selling children/ourselves for slavery.

[Hax]

Those are ageless RULES, commands by GOD.

Hey, you're not allowed to say that name! STONE HIM!


the people of jerico and Ai were part of the 7 nations within Cannan that G-D wanted us to destroy. numerous reasons why, such as one reason i heard somewhere, all the nations were offered the chance to become the chosen ones, but these 7 nations were ones who refused AND cursed G-d at the same time, thus he anted them destroyed

Surely the sign of a just and merciful God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sure hooahguy or any of the other practising Jews residing here are fully up to the task of marrying thier older brother's wife should the brother die, banging the wife and naming thier first-born son after the older brother. Or selling thier under aged daughter off to permanent servitude with the intent of selling her as a wife.

Those are ageless RULES, commands by GOD.

It's all about interpretation and appearently Christianity and Judaism get a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but Islam is trapped to it's millenia old ways. Or so some people claim.

Christianity is not bound by Mosaic Law, or any other pre-Christian Law aside from the Ten Commandments. The New Covenant itself is very vague about Laws in general, the only parts that deal with Christian laws are the Epistles, and you can get around them quite easily.

I'm really not sure about the justification for selecting from Mosaic Law in Judaism though.

I'm curious, why do Jews no longer offer sacrifice?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It's all about interpretation and appearently Christianity and Judaism get a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but Islam is trapped to it's millenia old ways. Or so some people claim.

I cannot speak for Judaism, though I am sure hooahguy can make an admirable case in its defence. However, Christianity does get a relatively large amount of leeway on the subject. Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla made an excellent post on the subject. Islam, on the other hand, seems to get relatively little - I am still trying to find the excellent talk made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the subject. She mentions it in passing at 4:04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08EYqwyns-k), though not in depth.

[Fragony]

but Islam is trapped to it's millenia centuries old ways. Or so some people claim.

You think it isn't? Let's just take it at face value and compare society's, backward is too agressive a word for the islamic world as a whole but archaic it certainly is.

[Hax]

I cannot speak for Judaism, though I am sure hooahguy can make an admirable case in its defence. However, Christianity does get a relatively large amount of leeway on the subject. Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla made an excellent post on the subject. Islam, on the other hand, seems to get relatively little - I am still trying to find the excellent talk made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the subject. She mentions it in passing at 4:04, though not in depth.

Don't be ridiculous, please. How would you know this? Do you know any Muslims in the west? I spoke with my father (who is Islamic, yes) about praying, and he said that it is more a form of meditation than real prayer, and he acknowledged that there are always irrelevant things. Also know that some Arabic words are difficult to translate into the Germanic and Roman languages, and as thus some parts from the Qu'ran could be mistranslated. The best way to read it is to learn Arabic and then read the Qu'ran in Arabic.

Islam is different from Judaism and Christianity due to the fact that its origins are very clear. After Muhammed's death virtually everything he had said was recorded and written down in the series of stories we know as the Qu'ran. Judaism's history is very unclear as we cannot state when exactly the Old Testament was really made. Dates range between 3,000BC and 40BC. The new testament was finally recorded in Nicaea in 325AD (if I'm not mistaken). As such, Islam is the only monotheistic religion whose origins are fairly well known.

But seriously, Fragony, EMFM..have you ever been to an Islamic country?


Islam, on the other hand, seems to get relatively little

None of the Muslims I know have tried to kill me.

[Fragony]

Yes, been to Turkey and Marocco, guess what I have dated maroccan girls, and I have muslim friends nah they never believe that.

Islam is different from Judaism and Christianity due to the fact that its origins are very clear. After Muhammed's death virtually everything he had said was recorded and written down in the series of stories we know as the Hadith

fixed

[Ironside]

um, no. we have long since thrown away the practice of yibum and selling children/ourselves for slavery.

Sorry, bad case of sarcasm not going through the internet. That you don't do it anymore is the whole point.
Why did (all?) Jews stop following that part of the Bible btw?


You think it isn't? Let's just take it at face value and compare society's, backward is too agressive a word for the islamic world as a whole but archaic it certainly is.

I'm mainly suspicious about the implying about Islam never being able to change, that the societies built on an islamic fundation are archaic in some ways I can agree on (interestingly it's often a relativly new movement that created the most archaic ways though).

Was thinking of millenium old, but missed the singular grammar.



Islam is different from Judaism and Christianity due to the fact that its origins are very clear. After Muhammed's death virtually everything he had said was recorded and written down in the series of stories we know as the Hadith


Still not something that goes against my thesis that there are considerble space for reforms inside Islam.

[Tribesman]

Still not something that goes against my thesis that there are considerble space for reforms inside Islam.

well the thing is that fundamentalism , which is the problem in all of the big three , is a reaction against the reforms which have taken place .

[Rhyfelwyr]

well the thing is that fundamentalism , which is the problem in all of the big three , is a reaction against the reforms which have taken place .

Hardly true for Christianity - fundamentalism was a result of the Reformation. Not necessarily man-walked-with-dinosaurs fundamentalism, but the Reformed theologians at Geneva termed themselves as 'Biblicists'.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'll get back to your righteous outrage in a moment Hax.

[Hax]

I'll get back to your righteous outrage in a moment Hax.

Righteous outrage?! I'll take that as a compliment, my dear friend.

No sarcasm.

[Tribesman]

Hardly true for Christianity - fundamentalism was a result of the Reformation.
Very true for Christianity , after all what were they upset with in the way the church had developed and changed over the centuries

[Rhyfelwyr]

Very true for Christianity , after all what were they upset with in the way the church had developed and changed over the centuries

Not really, some of the bad practices which emerged might have tipped the balance, but few of the reformers viewed themselves as trying to return to an earlier, purer church. This is in contrast to many Muslims who look back to the Caliphate.

[Tribesman]

Not really, some of the bad practices which emerged might have tipped the balance, but few of the reformers viewed themselves as trying to return to an earlier, purer church.
Yes really , luther was well pissed with some of the changes and developments , he even changed some the words in the bible to show everyone how pissed off he was . He wanted a return to a "purer" church .

This is in contrast to many Muslims who look back to the Caliphate.
Many Muslims ? I thought this was about the fundies . say for example the saudi fruitcakes who harp on about a return to the good old Caliphate yet follow a sect that opposed the good old Caliphate

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes really , luther was well pissed with some of the changes and developments , he even changed some the words in the bible to show everyone how pissed off he was . He wanted a return to a "purer" church .

Yes he wanted to sort out some of the corruptions which had emerged such as indulgences and some funny doctrines, but he was quite disillusioned with the whole Papal-style church system by the end of his life, not just its incarnation during his time. And Luther only represents the first phase of the Reformation, Calvin could harldy be said to be looking backward to a mythic past church, his doctrines were all new, even if he was influenced somewhat by Augustine.


Many Muslims ? I thought this was about the fundies . say for example the saudi fruitcakes who harp on about a return to the good old Caliphate yet follow a sect that opposed the good old Caliphate

There's nothing wrong with looking back to Islam's golden age. If Christians and Muslims could get on in Andalusia a millenia ago, you would think they could do it nowadays. There's nothing wrong with Christians or Muslims looking back to such times, at least not from a secular point of view.

[Hooahguy]

I'm curious, why do Jews no longer offer sacrifice?
because we no longer had the Temple in Jerusalem. the concept of altars besides th eones in the Mishkan and the Beit Hamikdash was, and still is, looked down upon. if there is no holy temple for G-ds spirit to reside in, we clearly are not worthy of offering sacrifices. but our substitue is daily prayer, which we do 3 times a day, to replace the 3 daily sacrifices: at morning, afternoon, evening.


Why did (all?) Jews stop following that part of the Bible btw?
well, for one thing, society changed. what was then normal practice became a taboo. same goes for many of the practices. also, when the Jewish courts (called the Sanhedrin) no longer became the head of the judiciary system (especially around the times of the Romans), there was no way to do this, plus the hethens prevented us, trying to stamp out judasim.


Surely the sign of a just and merciful God.
if he wasnt a merciful god, he would have smote my people countless times, like after the sin of the golden calf, for example. if you want i can give many, many times in which G-d was about to smite all the Jews, but then decided not to.

just curious Hax, why did you bring up the 7 nations thing?

[Fragony]

Not really, some of the bad practices which emerged might have tipped the balance, but few of the reformers viewed themselves as trying to return to an earlier, purer church.

That's not true that was more or less the point, reformers were inspired by the thinkers of the renaissance who believed that the closer you were to the life of Jezus and his apostels the better, to yes return to a purer form of christianity.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's not true that was more or less the point, reformers were inspired by the thinkers of the renaissance who believed that the closer you were to the life of Jezus and his apostels the better, to yes return to a purer form of christianity.

A purer form of christianity yes, but not a purer past form of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, why would they not establish their own Papacy?

[Fragony]

my bad misunderstood you

[Hooahguy]

i learned a very interesting piece on the 7 nations issue.
the rambam answers that G-d needed a monotheistic society in Israel. he offered to the 7 nations that if they would believe in him they could stay, but if not, they had to be expelled.

[KarlXII]

the people of jerico and Ai were part of the 7 nations within Cannan that G-D wanted us to destroy. numerous reasons why, such as one reason i heard somewhere, all the nations were offered the chance to become the chosen ones, but these 7 nations were ones who refused AND cursed G-d at the same time, thus he anted them destroyed. not sure where i heard that though.

I heard one reason in one place from that one guy who knows this one thing about that.

You haven't provided a reason for the "defence" against Jericho and Ai.

[Hooahguy]

well Jerico and Ai were part of those 7 nations.
and when did i say it was defense?

[KarlXII]

[QUOTE=hooahguy;2217399]certain nations that were in disgust of G-d and tried to destroy us,QUOTE]

Guilt by association, eh?

[Hooahguy]

guess so.

[KarlXII]

guess so.

So Jericho and Ai, two cities whose people did not attack the Israelites nor bear any offense to them, were still deserving of destruction in a war of religious conquest?

[Hooahguy]

So Jericho and Ai, two cities whose people did not attack the Israelites nor bear any offense to them, were still deserving of destruction in a war of religious conquest?
that is debatable.

[KarlXII]

that is debatable.

Go ahead, I have my Bible right here.

[Hooahguy]

thats the thing.
the talmud is rarely to be taken at face value. imagine it like a burger. to take the bible as it is without the commentary of the rabbis is like eating the bun and not the meat part.
ready to start pouring over countless pages of difficult Aramaic texts?

[KarlXII]

thats the thing.
the talmud is rarely to be taken at face value. imagine it like a burger. to take the bible as it is without the commentary of the rabbis is like eating the bun and not the meat part.

I am awaiting the casus belli, I am awaiting the great offensive tooken by Jericho and Ai to destroy the Israelites, and not the other way around.

Please don't avoid the question.

[Hooahguy]

i will quote myself.

i learned a very interesting piece on the 7 nations issue.
the rambam answers that G-d needed a monotheistic society in Israel. he offered to the 7 nations that if they would believe in him they could stay, but if not, they had to be expelled.

bear in mind that "the great offensive" doesnt need to be a military attack. could be societal or something.
also, what are you trying to prove?

[KarlXII]

i will quote myself.

Your quote simply shows that the Israelites were religious zealots that wished no more than to spread their religion across Canaan, no matter how many men, women and children they killed to get their.


bear in mind that "the great offensive" doesnt need to be a military attack. could be societal or something.

Ok. Can you prove that Jericho and Ai made any attack on the Israelites, military, economic, societal, that gave the Israelites the right to destroy them and massacre the populations?

[Hooahguy]

before i go furthur, what exactly are you trying to prove? that judasim is a violent, evil religion?

[KarlXII]

before i go furthur, what exactly are you trying to prove? that judasim is a violent, evil religion?

No, that the Israelites were not these poor souls that had to defend against the evil women of Jericho, and that the Canaanite conquest was simply a crusade that killed mercilessly. (I do like hearing about how Islam was a religion spread by the sword, UH OH I DOG GONE DID IT.)

Still awaiting the evidence.

[Hooahguy]

ah. i never said that the israelites were defending. one could argue about the crusade part, though we werent spreading judasim. in fact to this day there arent many (if any at all) jewish missionaries, since it is so hard to convert in the first place (at least to orthodox judasim).

and about before, i do not have the exact citing right now, im sure since you have the bible with you you could look it up.
when Lavan chases after Yaakov and they make a pact with the stones and the deal with the idols and that whole mess, the rabbis translate that as an attempt to destroy jacobs heritage. you can tell my the pact with the rocks. jacob had one rock, which signified one people with one culture and one identity. Lavan had multiple rocks, which meant that his descendants would be many nations and cultures. Lavan wanted their descendants to intermarry, thus destroying the identity of Jacob and judasim. according to some, the 7 nations, including Ai and jerico, were the decedents of Lavan, and had to go.
there we go.

[Tribesman]

So we have death to the unbelievers in the name of god and don't have sex with the locals because your blood won't be pure .
oh and people trying to destroy you by not attacking you so they had to be ethnicly cleansed
You shoulda let it rest Hooah:yes:

[Hooahguy]

theres more than one way to attack others. doesnt have to be militarily.

[KarlXII]

theres more than one way to attack others. doesnt have to be militarily.

And yet, your answer proves Jericho and Ai did nothing to provoke an Israeli attack, and the whole conquest was simply war in the name of God.

[Hooahguy]

what? maybe you didnt read my answer carefully.
also, its not israeli- its Israelite.

[KarlXII]

when Lavan chases after Yaakov and they make a pact with the stones and the deal with the idols and that whole mess, the rabbis translate that as an attempt to destroy jacobs heritage. you can tell my the pact with the rocks.

Following.


jacob had one rock, which signified one people with one culture and one identity. Lavan had multiple rocks, which meant that his descendants would be many nations and cultures.

Still following.


Lavan wanted their descendants to intermarry, thus destroying the identity of Jacob and judasim.

God forbid! Time to kill some women and children! Intermarriage is somehow this great offensive of which you speak? By God! I say we kill all Gentiles that wish to destroy Judaism through intermarriage!


according to some, the 7 nations, including Ai and jerico, were the decedents of Lavan, and had to go.

I see, guilt by association.

Pretty weak casus belli if you ask me.

[Hooahguy]

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

[Tribesman]

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

Death to the unbelievers:2thumbsup:

[Incongruous]

well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

[Hooahguy]

G-d only does things himself that he absolutely has to do. like the death of the firstborn. why did he send the Angle of Death (or, as some will argue, G-d himself)? because the Israelites couldnt do it themselves. but with the 7 nations, they could fulfill his will.

[KarlXII]

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

God does not, but mortals do. I'm questioning the "Great Defense" against those evil people that the Israelites had probably never even met and decided to slaughter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

[Incongruous]

His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

According to Christ, the covenenat was with with all men, thus his talks with publicans and sinners, men whom were considered outcasts of Israel, no?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

because we no longer had the Temple in Jerusalem. the concept of altars besides th eones in the Mishkan and the Beit Hamikdash was, and still is, looked down upon. if there is no holy temple for G-ds spirit to reside in, we clearly are not worthy of offering sacrifices. but our substitue is daily prayer, which we do 3 times a day, to replace the 3 daily sacrifices: at morning, afternoon, evening.

That makes perfect sense, though I have a question of clarification:

Is it the loss of the Temple or the Ark? Surely in the time of the Judges (up to Saul) the Ark was fairly mobile and sacrifices were offered in multiple places?


A purer form of christianity yes, but not a purer past form of the Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise, why would they not establish their own Papacy?

To ask that question is to fundamentally misunderstand the Medieval Papacy. The Pope is the Senior Bishop in the West, and his Primacy dates back to before Nicaea, where it was confirmed. It is therefore as old as the Creeds, the declaration of the Holy Trinity, the formalisation of the Church hierarchy and virtually every major tenet of Christian belief.

It is therefore older than Biblical Canon, which was not fixed until around 400 AD.

While I'm on the topic:

Hax, although Nicaea was important it didn't have much to do with Scripture, that was a generation later under Jerome and Augustine in N. Africa. Having said that, the Greek texts of the NT are all dated to the 1st Century; the Old Latin Bible, which started the process of canonisation, to the 2nd Century AD.

Overall though, the idea of the Bible as a "book", rather than a collection of writings, is a post-printing concept (possibly borrowed from Isalm), prior to this individual books and collections were more often copied by scribes, as were pseudo-Gospels and other Apothrycal texts.


Yes he wanted to sort out some of the corruptions which had emerged such as indulgences and some funny doctrines, but he was quite disillusioned with the whole Papal-style church system by the end of his life, not just its incarnation during his time. And Luther only represents the first phase of the Reformation, Calvin could harldy be said to be looking backward to a mythic past church, his doctrines were all new, even if he was influenced somewhat by Augustine.

There's nothing wrong with looking back to Islam's golden age. If Christians and Muslims could get on in Andalusia a millenia ago, you would think they could do it nowadays. There's nothing wrong with Christians or Muslims looking back to such times, at least not from a secular point of view.

I hate to tell you this but Episcopal Lutheranism is Catholicism circa 1000 AD, so is Anglicanism. In fact the differances between national Protestant Churches ape the pre-Gregorian National Churches. This is even true of the Scots Episcopalians, who have no Archbishop but are not ruled by York.

The "Reformation" makes the news because unlike previous Reform Movements it resulted in schism and excomunication. This seems to have cause Luthor, Huss and Wyclif nervous breakdowns.

The most interesting thing about Calvin is that he seems to have sought Apostacy from the putset, not reform from within.


well intermarriage in judasim is a sin, so.....

to add, the 7 nations were evil, immoral people, and deserved this.

G-d doesnt need a casus belli like us mortals do. he does things for his own reasons. i find it perfectly ok to question human acts, but less ok to question G-d's acts. who are we mortals to question him? he acts in ways we cannot fathom and for reasons we cannot fully explain all the time.

The question is whether everything done in his name, is really his will.

"Oh sure, we had to kill the women and Children because "I am" said so.


I'm a Catholic, and yet this talk of Godly war rests uneasy with me (go figure), why would God need the Israelites to destroy an aspect of his own creation? Why not send an angel of death?

Any Christian wish to enlighten me about Christ's ultimate say so on "Godly" war? Surely he would condemn it as fallacy.

"Those who live by the Sword Die by the Sword". Context being a bit fuzzy for interpretation the two swords might not both be temporal. Godly War is right out I would say.

That doesn't mean that War is out all over though, you just have to accept the consequences of your actions. Jesus was quite big on responsibility.


His creation had rejected him, all of it. God could have left us to it, let humanity live out its existence without Him. But instead he chose a nation, and a lowly one at that, and lifted them out of slavery to the promised land. And all those nations which were well established, rooted in the world and wealthy - God tossed them aside to give his chosen people their inheritance. It's like the Christian story with a nation. Lifting up the lowly, breaking down the strong. The Canaanites, Moabites etc were God's creation, but this is a fallen world, they don't deserve God's protection.

Not a reasoned arguement, really, is it?

See what I said to Hooah above.

[Hooahguy]

ignore

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

well jesus isnt my savior, is it?

Careful there. You've leave yourself open to the charge of Deicide if you start that debate.

In any case, the same questions apply.

God sent Jonah to a non-Jewish people to convert them because he was merciful, yet you have suggested that he set Israel among their own Kinsmen like Rabid Dogs.

We might not question God's motives, but we can queation whether a given action was truely his will; especially if it makes God seem inconsistant.

[Hooahguy]

That makes perfect sense, though I have a question of clarification:

Is it the loss of the Temple or the Ark? Surely in the time of the Judges (up to Saul) the Ark was fairly mobile and sacrifices were offered in multiple places?
its the temple. the ark was just followed the temple around and went to war with the Israelites.
before Solomon, when the Mishkan (the portable version of the temple) was around, it was in multiple places. but because of this people thought it was ok to build altars in their backyards, but it wasnt ok to do that, and they were eventually punished.


God does not, but mortals do. I'm questioning the "Great Defense" against those evil people that the Israelites had probably never even met and decided to slaughter.
well firs tof all, the israelites would have met the 7 nations, b/c they were int he areas the israelites were promised to get. plus the 7 nations were evil immoral people.

[Hooahguy]

Careful there. You've leave yourself open to the charge of Deicide if you start that debate.

In any case, the same questions apply.

God sent Jonah to a non-Jewish people to convert them because he was merciful, yet you have suggested that he set Israel among their own Kinsmen like Rabid Dogs.

We might not question God's motives, but we can queation whether a given action was truely his will; especially if it makes God seem inconsistant.
Deicide? how is it Deicide? im just saying that jesus isnt my god, like the rest of you say that my god isnt your god.
also, g-d is unpredictable. he does what he sees fit.

now that we are getting into more complex things, i may have to leave this argument, because i am afraid i will say something wrong and cause a Chillul Hashem (desecration of G-d), hence why i am opposed to this thread discussing the talmud. something as complex as the Talmud should not be discussed by people who have no idea what its really about, including me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Deicide? how is it Deicide? im just saying that jesus isnt my god, like the rest of you say that my god isnt your god.

Well, actually I say my God is your God. So from your perspective I'm a heretic, just like the self-styled prophet and messiah I follow.

I feel it's unhelpful to point these things out, it will only get in the way of the discussion, and it might result in someone making the classic claim against Jews for the classic reasons.

As an aside, I think that particular arguement is simultaniously one of the most clever and non-sensical in theology.

[KarlXII]

well jesus isnt my savior, is it?

First off, Jesus is not "it".

Second off, Judaism is not my religion, is your argument now invalid automatically?

[Hooahguy]

alright, ill erase my thought, and ill be appreciative if yall erase it from your posts as well. no need to obstruct the conversation.
and i meant "he" not it. sorry bout that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think it should be left as a monument to us not loosing our heads.

I have another question:

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

[KarlXII]

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)

I never realized you weren't allowed to :dizzy2:. I always refer to God as God, Him, etc.

[Hooahguy]

Why the "G-D". I know you're not supposed to say His name, but God is not his name, any more than Allah or Elohim (or however it is transcribed.)
"you shall not take G-d's name in vain."
G-d has many, many names, so i just prefer to be safe and not use it when referring to him. but when referring to gods in general, i have no problem.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To ask that question is to fundamentally misunderstand the Medieval Papacy. The Pope is the Senior Bishop in the West, and his Primacy dates back to before Nicaea, where it was confirmed. It is therefore as old as the Creeds, the declaration of the Holy Trinity, the formalisation of the Church hierarchy and virtually every major tenet of Christian belief.

It is therefore older than Biblical Canon, which was not fixed until around 400 AD.

So...

Doesn't matter if it goes back to 90AD, or 500AD. What would matter is if Jesus himself had said anything on the matter, and what he does say is very much open to interpretation. Some people even say that the 'rock' Jesus tells Peter to build his church upon simply means a 'small rock' and so the Pope shouldn't have primacy over any other Bishop.


I hate to tell you this but Episcopal Lutheranism is Catholicism circa 1000 AD, so is Anglicanism. In fact the differances between national Protestant Churches ape the pre-Gregorian National Churches. This is even true of the Scots Episcopalians, who have no Archbishop but are not ruled by York.

The "Reformation" makes the news because unlike previous Reform Movements it resulted in schism and excomunication. This seems to have cause Luthor, Huss and Wyclif nervous breakdowns.

The most interesting thing about Calvin is that he seems to have sought Apostacy from the putset, not reform from within.

Hey I'm glad Catholicism wasn't always so bad, it also got a lot better after the Protestant Reformation. Luther's schism came at a real low point for the Catholic Church, it was in a state back then. Also I don't disagree that there were reformers before the 'Reformation', as with all these historical 'watersheds', you can see the seeds being sown well in advance.

Calvin did not seek to cause trouble or be an apostate for the fun of it. Martin Bucer put a lot of work into reconciling Calvin with Luther, but Luther was quite disrespectful at times (he literally carved verses supporting his views on the eucharist into the discussions table). If Calvin couldn't unite with Luther, he was never going to get anywhere with the Catholic Church.


Not a reasoned arguement, really, is it?

See what I said to Hooah above.

Don't know what you mean, I'm just saying what the Bible says. Man says to God, "sorry I don't need you", so God foresees a world where man gets what he asks for and lives in separation from God. Does this make God the author of sin? Certainly, the Bible says evil can be traced back to God:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isiah 45:7)

But this isn't doesn't mean God commited the sin Himself. His foreknowledge made it inevitable, but the actual sin was commited by a person. This is the reality Adam asked for. Thankfully, by providence, by interevening directly in our fallen world, God transforms people to His will and gives us salvation. Praise the Lord!

[Fixiwee]

I wish Bill Hicks could read this thread.

[Tribesman]

well firs tof all, the israelites would have met the 7 nations, b/c they were int he areas the israelites were promised to get. plus the 7 nations were evil immoral people.

How do you know that god promised the land to the people?
How do you know that the other people were evil and immoral?
Is the answer , someone wrote it a long time ago so its true ?
Could it just be the rewritting of history by the victors of a conflict ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"you shall not take G-d's name in vain."
G-d has many, many names, so i just prefer to be safe and not use it when referring to him. but when referring to gods in general, i have no problem.

I thought he had no name, when Moses asks his response is merely "I am".

God, The LORD, the Almighty etc. are all merely titles, surely?

Still I suppose there's nothing wrong with playing it safe.

[Hooahguy]

How do you know that god promised the land to the people?
How do you know that the other people were evil and immoral?
Is the answer , someone wrote it a long time ago so its true ?
Could it just be the rewritting of history by the victors of a conflict ?
careful there, tribsey, dont do decide. the torah tells us all that, so its true. its also why its called faith.


I thought he had no name, when Moses asks his response is merely "I am".

God, The LORD, the Almighty etc. are all merely titles, surely?

Still I suppose there's nothing wrong with playing it safe.
he does have a name- i suppose "i am" is one of them. :tongue3:

[Tribesman]

the torah tells us all that, so its true.
prove that it is true:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Hooahguy]

prove that Jesus existed. prove that mohammed existed.
its called FAITH for a reason.

[Incongruous]

prove that Jesus existed. prove that mohammed existed.

Umm... what respectable historian does not accept that Jesus and Mohammed existed?

[Hooahguy]

and what respectable historian does not accept that the bible existed?
im not saying they didnt exist. im saying that its hard to "prove" such things.

[drone]

prove that Jesus existed. prove that mohammed existed.
its called FAITH for a reason.

Fairly certain that both are real historical figures. God, on the other hand, is not. Faith says he exists, and faith alone. Jesus and Mohammed, while they existed, may or may not have had special powers/insight/etc., faith also determines this, and faith alone. What Tribesman is asking is valid. What justifications did the ancient Israelites have for their actions?

[Hooahguy]

what justifications? G-d told them to. that should be enough.

[drone]

what justifications? G-d told them to. that should be enough.

Do you realize what a can of worms that statement opens?

God is not provable, he exists in faith. If I believe God tells me to kill my neighbors, I get a free pass?

[Hooahguy]

in G-ds eyes, yes. there is always a reason for a commandment. G-d does nothing needlessly. the 7 nations were evil, just like the nations destroyed in the flood. why did he kill everyone but Noah and his family? everyone but him was evil.
same case here.

[drone]

So what you are saying is that every religious war or atrocity out there is justified?

[Hooahguy]

for my G-d, yes. in my eyes, they are not atrocities. but in your eyes, they may be.

personally, i think this argument is pointless. its like running into a brick wall over and over.

[drone]

So you don't have any problems with 9/11, the Alhambra Decree, the Crusades, and the Inter Caetera then. Interesting view point.

[Hooahguy]

MY god. not yours or anyone elses. he did not order those things.
shame on you for saying that i have no problem with 9/11 and the like. thats libel.

[drone]

MY god. not yours or anyone elses. he did not order those things.
shame on you for saying that i have no problem with 9/11 and the like. thats libel.

Your god is also the god of the Christians and Muslims.

[Tribesman]

MY god. not yours or anyone elses.
So when people do nasty stuff and say its your gods will its OK , but if other people do nasty stuff and say its their gods will they are just doing nasty stuff .

what justifications? G-d told them to.
prove it .

the 7 nations were evil
prove it

he did not order those things.
prove it


You shoulda let it rest Hooah:yes:





thats libel.
Actually no it isn't , going on what you have written the statement cannot be called unjustifiable so it isn't libel .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your god is also the god of the Christians and Muslims.

Who says? He's the Christian God yes, but quite different from Allah.

[drone]

Who says? He's the Christian God yes, but quite different from Allah.

In interpretation, yes. But all three faiths trace back to Abraham.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In interpretation, yes. But all three faiths trace back to Abraham.

So if you come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, you could say it is acceptable for yourself to act in God's name, but not someone doing it in the name of Allah.

[drone]

So if you come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, you could say it is acceptable for yourself to act in God's name, but not someone doing it in the name of Allah.

And vice versa. And here we hit the crux of the whole argument. God did not personally appear before all the Israelites and tell them that the 7 nations were evil and must be destroyed. These things go through a unreliable, unverifiable, and biased, human filter. Be they priest, pharisee, pope, OBL, divine-right king, prophet, OT8, etc. Just because some ancient book says "God told them to do it", doesn't make it so, this is a very common and convenient way of justifying evil deeds for personal gain.

Hooahguy's whole argument is that some human, claiming to have insight into God's wishes, tells people it's ok to burn/rape/pillage in his name, it's all good. Thus justifying holy war, pogroms, militant Islamic terror, the works.

And he also doesn't like to share. ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

And vice versa. And here we hit the crux of the whole argument. God did not personally appear before all the Israelites and tell them that the 7 nations were evil and must be destroyed. These things go through a unreliable, unverifiable, and biased, human filter. Be they priest, pharisee, pope, OBL, divine-right king, prophet, OT8, etc. Just because some ancient book says "God told them to do it", doesn't make it so, this is a very common and convenient way of justifying evil deeds for personal gain.

Hooahguy's whole argument is that some human, claiming to have insight into God's wishes, tells people it's ok to burn/rape/pillage in his name, it's all good. Thus justifying holy war, pogroms, militant Islamic terror, the works.

And he also doesn't like to share. ~;)

Hooah isn't justifying Muslim extremists, since he doesn't even believe Allah exists. Obviously it will appear like a double-standard from a secular point of view, but remember he believes there's only one God who can justify people's actions.

Also, Hooah isn't basing everything on some human, since I'm sure he will feel he has some relationship with God. Not that I'm suggesting a voice should tell him to smite the Canaanites, but he trusts in the God of the Old Testament.

[drone]

Hooah isn't justifying Muslim extremists, since he doesn't even believe Allah exists. Obviously it will appear like a double-standard from a secular point of view, but remember he believes there's only one God who can justify people's actions.
Allah and the J/C God are one in the same. All 3 religions worship the same God, they just do it in different ways due to, surprise surprise, different human interpretations.


Also, Hooah isn't basing everything on some human, since I'm sure he will feel he has some relationship with God. Not that I'm suggesting a voice should tell him to smite the Canaanites, but he trusts in the God of the Old Testament.
I'm not questioning his faith in God, I'm questioning his blind acceptance of the words (spoken or written) of humans that various bad things are cleared through the Almighty.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Allah and the J/C God are one in the same. All 3 religions worship the same God, they just do it in different ways due to, surprise surprise, different human interpretations.

There are a lot of big, big differences. Allah is not a triune God, Islam is not so much about forgiveness as about weighing up your good deeds against the bad come the end of your life. With Christianity, part of the Godhead came to earth in human form (something Muslims believe Allah can't do) because everyone is a sinner and can only get to heaven with if Christ pays for their sins, not by being good enough on their own merits. Not only are the doctrines different, the whole concept of God is different.


I'm not questioning his faith in God, I'm questioning his blind acceptance of the words (spoken or written) of humans that various bad things are cleared through the Almighty.

But what if part of his faith in God is related to the fact that God did genuinely give visions etc to the prophets? So he doesn't worship God because a prophet says so, but instead he knows that God really said that stuff to the prophets because of his relationship with God? It's part of his trust in Him.

[drone]

There are a lot of big, big differences. Allah is not a triune God, Islam is not so much about forgiveness as about weighing up your good deeds against the bad come the end of your life. With Christianity, part of the Godhead came to earth in human form (something Muslims believe Allah can't do) because everyone is a sinner and can only get to heaven with if Christ pays for their sins, not by being good enough on their own merits. Not only are the doctrines different, the whole concept of God is different.
Like I said, interpretations. All three are monotheistic religions, there is only one god. Islam recognizes Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Solomon, Moses and many other Hebrew figures as chosen by God. The roots are the same, the methodology is different. This is what happens when people enter the equation.


But what if part of his faith in God is related to the fact that God did genuinely give visions etc to the prophets? So he doesn't worship God because a prophet says so, but instead he knows that God really said that stuff to the prophets because of his relationship with God? It's part of his trust in Him.
If that's what he thinks, fine. But that line of thinking, the absolute trust that human texts are infallible, leads to suicide bombers and crusades. You sow, you reap.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Like I said, interpretations. All three are monotheistic religions, there is only one god. Islam recognizes Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Solomon, Moses and many other Hebrew figures as chosen by God. The roots are the same, the methodology is different. This is what happens when people enter the equation.

To say they are the same is just your own interpretation isn't it? :tongue2:


If that's what he thinks, fine. But that line of thinking, the absolute trust that human texts are infallible, leads to suicide bombers and crusades. You sow, you reap.

No, because Allah isn't real. :wink:

Of course, I say that because we are discussing people's lines of thought, I'm not saying they are actually correct.

Also, who says the trust in the human texts doesn't come from the relationship with God? Atheists always presume we worship God because of the texts, but for most religious folk the texts and God Himself at least complement each other.

[drone]

To say they are the same is just your own interpretation isn't it? :tongue2:
The Jews living in medieval Muslim lands kept their religion due to this interpretation, so I wouldn't say it's just mine. ~;)


Also, who says the trust in the human texts doesn't come from the relationship with God? Atheists always presume we worship God because of the texts, but for most religious folk the texts and God Himself at least complement each other.
The reasons for peoples' spirituality are their own. :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Jews living in medieval Muslim lands kept their religion due to this interpretation, so I wouldn't say it's just mine. ~;)

The reasons for peoples' spirituality are their own. :bow:

Well I didn't mean it was limited to you individually, but it is one of several interpretations.

This is the Backroom, I couldn't have the discussion ending in a consensus! :smash:

[drone]

This is the Backroom, I couldn't have the discussion ending in a consensus! :smash:

Thread needs moar Navaros. :yes:

[Big_John]

Move to Oklahoma, the cost of living is cheap, we are not in a recession and the center of the state is a nice mix of liberal conservatives and conservative liberals. I will help pay your way and you can come over as a "guest worker," and my wife could set you up with one of her hawt bioengineer korean cousins.
i speak as an oklahoman. if you ever consider moving to that state, frag, just hang yourself an be done with it.

[Ironside]

Well I didn't mean it was limited to you individually, but it is one of several interpretations.

This is the Backroom, I couldn't have the discussion ending in a consensus! :smash:

Can be worth notincing that in the early fourteenth century, Islam was still considered heretical and not an own religion, at least in some places. Dante is certainly doing it. The Sixth Circle of hell is with minarets and Muhammed is punished for causing a schism (in Christianity).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can be worth notincing that in the early fourteenth century, Islam was still considered heretical and not an own religion, at least in some places. Dante is certainly doing it. The Sixth Circle of hell is with minarets and Muhammed is punished for causing a schism (in Christianity).

Bluntly, in Christian theology Mohammed is a heretic, in Jewish theology Jesus is the same. In Christian theology Jews are unrepentant.

None of the three are therefore unreconcilable to each other.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bluntly, in Christian theology Mohammed is a heretic, in Jewish theology Jesus is the same. In Christian theology Jews are unrepentant.

None of the three are therefore unreconcilable to each other.

Many Christians believe that the Jews are still saved, since they are God's chosen people and are covered by Christ's blood. They rejected Christ as the prophecies said, but he will still be their messiah.

Also, I can't speak for them, but do most Jews not consider Christians beliefs to be somewhat genuine, in that they are still worshipping Yahweh, but obviously without the customs of ethnic Israel?

Can't say the same for Islam though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many Christians believe that the Jews are still saved, since they are God's chosen people and are covered by Christ's blood. They rejected Christ as the prophecies said, but he will still be their messiah.

Also, I can't speak for them, but do most Jews not consider Christians beliefs to be somewhat genuine, in that they are still worshipping Yahweh, but obviously without the customs of ethnic Israel?

Can't say the same for Islam though.

I've only heard this from you, it doesn't seem to ake any sense, that the Jews should be marked out as special and judged seperately by God after the coming of Christ.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've only heard this from you, it doesn't seem to ake any sense, that the Jews should be marked out as special and judged seperately by God after the coming of Christ.

The scripture does indicate that the people of Israel will be saved in the end:

"And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me." (Jeremiah 33:8)

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" (Romans 11:26)

Since these verses speak of the end times, it is likely that the resumation of sacrifices at the temple could be symbollic of the salvation of Israel, since their sins are once again being covered (possibly in fact by the blood of Christ), just as they were thousands of years ago.

The Jews are God's chosen people after all. I think that it is not surprising that they rejected Christ, God does say they are a stiffnecked people, and the Jewish customs were important in maintaining the identity of the Jewish people when they were dispersed and persecuted like the prophets said. Thanks to that, they are now back in the promised land, just like the prophets said, and God can put His plan for their salvation into action.

I do not think Jews will be judged differently from Gentiles, but due to the earthly inheritance of the Jews, God's organised things so that they worship Him a little differently, that is all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fail t see how any of this makes the Jews in any way a special case.

1. Some Jews converted, therefore "Israel" will be saved.

2. Acts makes it quite clear, from Peter's dream, Cornelius' conversion and the subsequent council in Jerusalem that God does not play favourites. Whatever special inheritence the Son's of Israel were promised, they seem to have had it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I fail t see how any of this makes the Jews in any way a special case.

The whole OT is about how they are special to God, and there is nothing to suggest that this is no longer the case.


1. Some Jews converted, therefore "Israel" will be saved.

How would Israel be saved if only some Jews are saved? Notice how Paul says "all Israel will be saved".


2. Acts makes it quite clear, from Peter's dream, Cornelius' conversion and the subsequent council in Jerusalem that God does not play favourites. Whatever special inheritence the Son's of Israel were promised, they seem to have had it.

How? What about the prophecies in Revelation about how Israel will be gathered together from the four corners of the world and returned to their inheritance shortly prior to the Second Coming? It's happening isn't it? Also, the Council of Jerusalem still orders that some of the Jewish customs be kept, but that doesn't mean we keep them nowadays. Paul may have been influenced by Hellenic Judaism in his travels prior to the council, which emphasised the "circumcision of the heart" over the literal kind. Also, early Christians were often divided along Jew/Gentile lines, Jews kept their ethnic customs while Gentiles did not adopt them. Paul simply argues against the judaizing sects such as those seen in Galatians, which demanded that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be saved. He condemned them for trying to justify themselves by the law, but he never did the same to Christians who were ethnic Jews.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see no reason to prefer Paul over Peter when the two disagree, as they do here:

I refer to Acts 10-11, but specifically to 10.34-5, "Then Peter began to speak to them: 'I truly understand that God shows no partiallity, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all."

This follows Peter's dream, where God revokes Mosac Law and sends Peter to the Gentiles, 10.9-16; then it is followed by the Holy Spirit coming upon those to whom Peter is speaking, to the great astonishment of the Jew with Peter. Peter then baptises them, 10.44-8.

It is this event that precipitates the debate in Jerusalem, because Peter flouts Mosaic Law by not only accociating with, but eating with, non-Jews.

So, I say again:

How is it that the Jews are set apart to be saved in a different way, by a different standard.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I see no reason to prefer Paul over Peter when the two disagree, as they do here:

I refer to Acts 10-11, but specifically to 10.34-5, "Then Peter began to speak to them: 'I truly understand that God shows no partiallity, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ - he is Lord of all."

But Jews do fear Yahweh. The verse says God will not show partiality to those who fear Him, but that doesn't mean we can't fear/worship Him in different ways. In Heaven God will make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but the Pentateuch is very clear that the Jews have a special set of customs based on an everlasting covenant.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this argument, since everyone from the Puritans to Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Mosaic Covenant was not made redundant by Paul's stating that it should not be seen as necessary for salvation. The customs still have a wordly value, like the land of Israel.


This follows Peter's dream, where God revokes Mosac Law and sends Peter to the Gentiles, 10.9-16; then it is followed by the Holy Spirit coming upon those to whom Peter is speaking, to the great astonishment of the Jew with Peter. Peter then baptises them, 10.44-8.

It is this event that precipitates the debate in Jerusalem, because Peter flouts Mosaic Law by not only accociating with, but eating with, non-Jews.

So, I say again:

How is it that the Jews are set apart to be saved in a different way, by a different standard.

I think it is so that the Jews could keep their identity and be be taken back to Israel (while we can argue over their salvation, God never takes away their inheritance on earth). God is pretty clear that their inheritance in the Holy Land lasts forever:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

And He is also clear that they will be dispersed before they return to their inheritance:

"And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste."

No other people on earth has been dispersed, persecuted, and still returned to their homeland like Israel. All those fanciful commandments and laws God gave to them, to be "a statute unto your people", they have been kept so that the Jews could be gathered together before the end. Otherwise, they would have been assimilated like any other people.

Jews aren't saved in a different way, they are covered by the blood of Christ just like the rest of us. But for the sake of His plan for this world, they have their own traditions etc.

[Kralizec]

Hooahguy, I've heard/read conflicting things about jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife. Do (most) jews believe in heaven and/or hell?

[Hooahguy]

Hooahguy, I've heard/read conflicting things about jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife. Do (most) jews believe in heaven and/or hell?
yes, most do.

[Hooahguy]

Hooahguy's whole argument is that some human, claiming to have insight into God's wishes, tells people it's ok to burn/rape/pillage in his name, it's all good. Thus justifying holy war, pogroms, militant Islamic terror, the works.

And he also doesn't like to share. ~;)
actually only kill. to rape them would be impure. just sayin'

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But Jews do fear Yahweh. The verse says God will not show partiality to those who fear Him, but that doesn't mean we can't fear/worship Him in different ways. In Heaven God will make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, but the Pentateuch is very clear that the Jews have a special set of customs based on an everlasting covenant.

I'm not sure where you are coming from with this argument, since everyone from the Puritans to Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the Mosaic Covenant was not made redundant by Paul's stating that it should not be seen as necessary for salvation. The customs still have a wordly value, like the land of Israel.

From Acts, from Mathew, the Sermon on the Mount, from Mark and John. Time and again Jesus rejects the Law as a law for a hard-hearted people, not pleaseing to God.

As to the Jews fearing God, well that's debatable in a Christian context, when God sent prophets they were rejected.


I think it is so that the Jews could keep their identity and be be taken back to Israel (while we can argue over their salvation, God never takes away their inheritance on earth). God is pretty clear that their inheritance in the Holy Land lasts forever:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

And He is also clear that they will be dispersed before they return to their inheritance:

"And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste."

No other people on earth has been dispersed, persecuted, and still returned to their homeland like Israel. All those fanciful commandments and laws God gave to them, to be "a statute unto your people", they have been kept so that the Jews could be gathered together before the end. Otherwise, they would have been assimilated like any other people.

Jews aren't saved in a different way, they are covered by the blood of Christ just like the rest of us. But for the sake of His plan for this world, they have their own traditions etc.

I'm pretty sure everything you quote here is from before Babylon, or at least refers to that. In which case it has arguably already happened in 500 BC.

I'm not saying Mosaic Law should be abandoned wholesale, but consider this:

If a Jew converts to Christianity are his marriage vows regulated by Mosaic Law or Christ's Law?

[Rhyfelwyr]

From Acts, from Mathew, the Sermon on the Mount, from Mark and John. Time and again Jesus rejects the Law as a law for a hard-hearted people, not pleaseing to God.

As to the Jews fearing God, well that's debatable in a Christian context, when God sent prophets they were rejected.

Of course, Jews are no more capable of keeping the laws than the rest of us. Also, Jesus does not reject the law as such, he simply says that it is now written on our hearts. The reason for the New Covenant is not that the laws are invalid, but simply that no man would save himself by adherence to the laws as the Old Covenants were designed for. God's covenant with the Israelities is everlasting, it cannot be overruled by the New Covenant. They could even be complementary, in that Christ's blood has covered the sins of the Jews since the sacrifices began (here I go with my dramatic "lamb slain before time stuff again"!).


I'm pretty sure everything you quote here is from before Babylon, or at least refers to that. In which case it has arguably already happened in 500 BC.

But sir, that is preterism! Preterists ignore significant parts of the prophecies, although I could sympathise with the historicist position, that some of the events have already happened.


I'm not saying Mosaic Law should be abandoned wholesale, but consider this:

If a Jew converts to Christianity are his marriage vows regulated by Mosaic Law or Christ's Law?

In Matthew, Jewish Christians stick to the Mosaic law, while the Greek Christians do not. The command for Jewish Christians hearkens back to Mosaic Law:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9)

Whereas when asked for his own opinion on divorce by the pharisees, Jesus simply says that what God makes should not be broken, and that the Jews were given their commandments on divorce because of the "heardness of their hearts".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course, Jews are no more capable of keeping the laws than the rest of us. Also, Jesus does not reject the law as such, he simply says that it is now written on our hearts. The reason for the New Covenant is not that the laws are invalid, but simply that no man would save himself by adherence to the laws as the Old Covenants were designed for. God's covenant with the Israelities is everlasting, it cannot be overruled by the New Covenant. They could even be complementary, in that Christ's blood has covered the sins of the Jews since the sacrifices began (here I go with my dramatic "lamb slain before time stuff again"!).

You're still sliding around the issue.

Are the conditions for salvation different for Jews under Christ's law, yes or no?

Right now you seem to be saying yes, a position inconsistant with your normal evangelical religion, and with your rejection of Muslims.


But sir, that is preterism! Preterists ignore significant parts of the prophecies, although I could sympathise with the historicist position, that some of the events have already happened.

Prophecies are never listened to and never understood. Isaiah was believed to prophecy a temporal salvation after Babylon, but Jesus explicitely rejected that interpretation.


In Matthew, Jewish Christians stick to the Mosaic law, while the Greek Christians do not. The command for Jewish Christians hearkens back to Mosaic Law:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:9)

Whereas when asked for his own opinion on divorce by the pharisees, Jesus simply says that what God makes should not be broken, and that the Jews were given their commandments on divorce because of the "heardness of their hearts".

Which is his own opinion?

Do they represent a developement of the Message?

You have not answered my question.

Which law binds a Jewish Christian?

[AlexanderSextus]

Just stay at home Fragony. Your country may have problems, but at least they are your problems.

I concur. You live in the netherlands. Scared of Terrorism? Go smoke a joint. Worried about Islamisation? Smoke a Joint.

You are safer from terrorism in a Dutch Coffee Shop than anywhere else in the world.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You're still sliding around the issue.

Are the conditions for salvation different for Jews under Christ's law, yes or no?

Right now you seem to be saying yes, a position inconsistant with your normal evangelical religion, and with your rejection of Muslims.

The conditions for salvation are not different. The way they worship in this world is.


Prophecies are never listened to and never understood. Isaiah was believed to prophecy a temporal salvation after Babylon, but Jesus explicitely rejected that interpretation.

Well the best we can do is try to understand them as best as we can. Right now, preterism has some major gaps which is why it is not taken very seriously.


Which is his own opinion?

Do they represent a developement of the Message?

You have not answered my question.

Which law binds a Jewish Christian?

If they have become a Christian (as we use the word), then Christ's law. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the previous ones, an expansion of the law into something less tradition orientated and more complete.

However, the prophecies are clear that the Jews will not worship Christ as we do (generally speaking), but they still have their everlasting Covenant with God, and are promised their place up there with Abraham. If Jews are not saved under the Old Covenant, does this mean no character in the Old Testament is saved!? Surely not!

Of course, this does not mean that they could be saved by adherence to the laws thousands of years ago, any more than they could be today. Which is why I think that Christ's sacrifice must cover them, otherwise how do we explain the fact that so many Jews are/were saved?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The conditions for salvation are not different. The way they worship in this world is.

For everyone else, acceptence of Christ is required for salvation, according to you. If Jews are exempt then the rules are different for them.


Well the best we can do is try to understand them as best as we can. Right now, preterism has some major gaps which is why it is not taken very seriously.

That which God has decreed will come to pass. Prophecy is largely a sign of God's power, it has little or no practical application, until it is fulfilled.



If they have become a Christian (as we use the word), then Christ's law. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the previous ones, an expansion of the law into something less tradition orientated and more complete.

However, the prophecies are clear that the Jews will not worship Christ as we do (generally speaking), but they still have their everlasting Covenant with God, and are promised their place up there with Abraham. If Jews are not saved under the Old Covenant, does this mean no character in the Old Testament is saved!? Surely not!

Of course, this does not mean that they could be saved by adherence to the laws thousands of years ago, any more than they could be today. Which is why I think that Christ's sacrifice must cover them, otherwise how do we explain the fact that so many Jews are/were saved?

Well, in John, Christ says that the only one who has entered Heaven is he who has come from Heaven.

A while back you argued strenuously that Christ was the only Way and the Gate, now you sacrifice that principle to try to fit all the scripture together?

Scripture is never going to fit together, it's a part of our world, and therefore imperfect and incomplete.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry early rise tomorrow so I can't have an epic duel tonight but...


Well, in John, Christ says that the only one who has entered Heaven is he who has come from Heaven.

A while back you argued strenuously that Christ was the only Way and the Gate, now you sacrifice that principle to try to fit all the scripture together?

Scripture is never going to fit together, it's a part of our world, and therefore imperfect and incomplete.

I think when I said this someone else commented that they could still be honouring Christ, but in a different way. Though they don't say it, we do know that they are in fact worshipping the trinitarian God, surely that is significant?