[saywhat?]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Aside from the whole thing being totally idiotic, I laughed at this:

Bush didn't "hijack" Christianity. Bin Laden didn't "hijack" islam. George Bush claims to be a Christian, and people believe him. Osama bin Laden IS a Muslim, that follows the Qu'ran down to the letter.

How does the fact that "Osama bin Laden IS a Muslim" follow the Qu'ran down to the letter?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by saywhat?

How does the fact that "Osama bin Laden IS a Muslim" follow the Qu'ran down to the letter?

To be fair to the original poster, Islam can be interpreted to command homicidal jihad ... just as Christianity can be interpreted to command the Crusades and the Inquisition.

It's a problem with religion in general, not of Islam in particular. There is no god-given right way to interpret any religion; only our opinions on it.

[saywhat?]

Originally Posted by Qingu

To be fair to the original poster, Islam can be interpreted to command homicidal jihad ... just as Christianity can be interpreted to command the Crusades and the Inquisition.

It's a problem with religion in general, not of Islam in particular. There is no god-given right way to interpret any religion; only our opinions on it.

Thanks. I now see where that was coming from.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by saywhat?

How does the fact that "Osama bin Laden IS a Muslim" follow the Qu'ran down to the letter?

I think what he means is "Osama Bin Laden IS a Muslim who follows the Qu'ran down to the letter."

And yes, he is.

And by the way... Christianity of the Bible does not condone the Crusades or the Inquisition. Under OT law, yes, those are very much legitimate acts, but if you hadn't noticed, the Bible gets a lot gentler in the NT. The focus goes from retribution and righteous zeal to forgiveness and reconciliation. Notice how no Christian in the Bible ever kills anyone? The closest it ever comes to that is Ananias and Sapphira, and they were struck down by God, not men... so there.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by plaid_child

I think what he means is "Osama Bin Laden IS a Muslim who follows the Qu'ran down to the letter."

And yes, he is.

And by the way... Christianity of the Bible does not condone the Crusades or the Inquisition. Under OT law, yes, those are very much legitimate acts, but if you hadn't noticed, the Bible gets a lot gentler in the NT. The focus goes from retribution and righteous zeal to forgiveness and reconciliation. Notice how no Christian in the Bible ever kills anyone? The closest it ever comes to that is Ananias and Sapphira, and they were struck down by God, not men... so there.

Millions of slave-owning or city-conquering Christians disagree; they would say you're ignoring Mat 5:17 and refusing to follow the Bible to the letter (just as millions of Muslims say the same about Osama).

I'm surprised you feel this anti-war via your religion ... I thought you were a Republican.

[+Donny]

The Inquisition was most certainly not legitimate according to OT Law, and the Promised Land in Judea is certainly no longer the Church's.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Millions of slave-owning or city-conquering Christians disagree; they would say you're ignoring Mat 5:17 and refusing to follow the Bible to the letter (just as millions of Muslims say the same about Osama).

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Hmm... I don't think so. You must be thinking of some other verse. (Perhaps it's in the Qu'ran?) Anyway, millions of slave-owning or city-conquering Christians would be wrong, and I am not responsible for their misunderstanding of the Bible. Show me one and I'll try and reason with him, but I can't change the way people misinterpret.

Also, Millions of Muslims, are wrong in saying that Islam is against violence.

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'm surprised you feel this anti-war via your religion ... I thought you were a Republican.

I'm neither anti-war nor pro-war... I deal with wars on an individual basis. As for the current conflict, I'm near the fence on it. I see that there are pros and cons, though the pros outweirgh the cons immensely. As for my support of Bush in the war, I would have to say that A: he had honest reasons for going in (e.g. WMD, which sure looked like they existed at the time, even if they didn't.) B: It is better now for the people of Iraq, and C: I honestly don't believe at all that Kerry can do any better. (Yes. No. Maybe.)

I'm also not quite a Republican. I'm more what you'd get if you crossed a Pro-life person with a staunch Liberitarian. I say the less that The Man does in my life, the better. However, I also realize that voting for a third party would be a waste of my vote and my time. (If you want a good explanation of why that's true, go ask Jerry not to cut off your hands.) Thus, I'm forced to vote on key issues, and it almost always turns out that the Republican candidate is my guy.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by +Donny

The Inquisition was most certainly not legitimate according to OT Law, and the Promised Land in Judea is certainly no longer the Church's.

Okay... I meant to say "supportable." I could make a case, however flawed, for those acts using the OT, though I don't care to do so now. My point remains that under the NT, that's just not cool.

[JerryLove]

Hmm... I don't think so. You must be thinking of some other verse. (Perhaps it's in the Qu'ran?) Anyway, millions of slave-owning or city-conquering Christians would be wrong, and I am not responsible for their misunderstanding of the Bible. Show me one and I'll try and reason with him, but I can't change the way people misinterpret.

The obvious counter being that it you that is misinterpreting.

Of course, this falls right into Qingu's comment that you lack objective morals, but merely read the Bible to conform to your personal beliefs, and his many posts on how and why the Bible does indeed condone these acts.

I would have to say that A: he had honest reasons for going in (e.g. WMD, which sure looked like they existed at the time, even if they didn't.) B: It is better now for the people of Iraq, and C: I honestly don't believe at all that Kerry can do any better. (Yes. No. Maybe.)

Bush started drawing up invasion plans as soon as he took office... long before 9/11. When 9/11 happened, there was a memo from the DOD to prep for an invasion of Iraq "wheather or not they were involved".

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by plaid_child

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Hmm... I don't think so. You must be thinking of some other verse. (Perhaps it's in the Qu'ran?)

What part of Jesus saying the old laws condoning slavery and genocide were still in effect did you not understand?

Anyway, millions of slave-owning or city-conquering Christians would be wrong, and I am not responsible for their misunderstanding of the Bible.

On what authority do you say this, your completely non-literal interpretation of the Bible?

Show me one and I'll try and reason with him, but I can't change the way people misinterpret.

Read any pro-slavery tract in the early 1800s. Read Pope Urban's exhortation to the crusaders.

They actually quote Biblical verses in their arguments, you just say "they misinterpret."

Also, Millions of Muslims, are wrong in saying that Islam is against violence.

They are as wrong as millions of Christians who say Christianity is against violence ... most modern religious folk pick and choose verses that are amenable to their personal morality and worldview. Sort of like how you ignore Mat 5:17 and the Bible's pro-slavery stance, and don't believe in creationism.

I'm neither anti-war nor pro-war... I deal with wars on an individual basis. As for the current conflict, I'm near the fence on it. I see that there are pros and cons, though the pros outweirgh the cons immensely. As for my support of Bush in the war, I would have to say that A: he had honest reasons for going in (e.g. WMD, which sure looked like they existed at the time, even if they didn't.) B: It is better now for the people of Iraq, and C: I honestly don't believe at all that Kerry can do any better. (Yes. No. Maybe.)

He had plans on the table to invade as soon as he took office. Also, in a democracy, leaders are meant to be held accountable for their mistakes. Even if the mistake was an honest one, it was still the result of incompetence. Also, it is not better for the people of Iraq now ... perhaps it will be ina decade if there is not a civil war or a new dictator.

I'm also not quite a Republican. I'm more what you'd get if you crossed a Pro-life person with a staunch Liberitarian. I say the less that The Man does in my life, the better. However, I also realize that voting for a third party would be a waste of my vote and my time. (If you want a good explanation of why that's true, go ask Jerry not to cut off your hands.) Thus, I'm forced to vote on key issues, and it almost always turns out that the Republican candidate is my guy.

So you're not a non-violent Christian.

[maadio]

Originally Posted by Qingu

What part of Jesus saying the old laws condoning slavery and genocide were still in effect did you not understand?

A: As Christians, we are dead to the law and no longer held by it. Instead we are commanded only to keep ourselves pure, to respect authority, and to love our fellow humans and God. The old, unfulfilled law demanded death for transgressions, but that debt has been paid. (Note the part in your verse where Jesus says he's come to fulfill the law... yeah. That's what that means.) Now the idea is to love and to call people to God.
B: Show me a law demanding Genocide. Keep in mind that a specific call to war is not a law; it is rather a single case, like the ones I addressed in my last post.
C: Slavery in Ancient Israel was entirely different from our modern notion. In it, a servant works for six years and then regains his freedom. It was indentured servitude. With that said, the Bible does not necessitate slavery either. It gives this indentured servitude as a means of coming out from under debt.

Originally Posted by Qingu

On what authority do you say this, your completely non-literal interpretation of the Bible?

First of all... it's not a completely nonliteral interpretation. It's a mix of both. Second, I derive my authority from the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Jesus preached love and forgiveness. Aside from that, he fulfilled the law by dying. Paul preached that the law no longer has a hold on Christians, and while they must remain faithful to their earthly ties (Such as slaves to their masters and everyone to The Man, etc... ) out of respect for authority, that does not make others' actions right. It simply makes the slave or the citizen right in loving and serving his fellow man.

Originally Posted by Qingu

Read any pro-slavery tract in the early 1800s. Read Pope Urban's exhortation to the crusaders.

I didn't mean to indicate that such people don't exist. I meant that I would talk to one and try to talk some truth into him if the opportunity arose.

Originally Posted by Qingu

They actually quote Biblical verses in their arguments, you just say "they misinterpret."

Yes they do. Slavery in the 1800s had nothing to do with OT slavery. Any verses used to support it were therefore taken out of context.

As for Pope Urban, which version are you using? I read five different versions and found a few verses. None seem to prove anything. There arwe prrof s that the Holy Land is special, proofs that devotion is required among Christians and the like. Nothing at all in any of the versions I read actually justified the Crusades from a Biblical standpoint, unless you'd like to cite something specific.

Originally Posted by Qingu

They are as wrong as millions of Christians who say Christianity is against violence ... most modern religious folk pick and choose verses that are amenable to their personal morality and worldview. Sort of like how you ignore Mat 5:17 and the Bible's pro-slavery stance, and don't believe in creationism.

Is that intended as flamebait or is it really what you understood of my position? I specifically stated in the other thread that I'm an old-earth creationist. That means that I accept the whole Bible, while prophecy is often figurative language about true events. And yes... like how Nero was the Antichrist. I do agree, however, that many people these days pick and choose which verse to listen to, and they go by a lot of different names like "Arminian" and "Futurist" and such. I do not ignore Matthew 5:17. I interpret it in light of other scripture (Like all of the Pauline Epistles.)

Originally Posted by Qingu

He had plans on the table to invade as soon as he took office. Also, in a democracy, leaders are meant to be held accountable for their mistakes. Even if the mistake was an honest one, it was still the result of incompetence. Also, it is not better for the people of Iraq now ... perhaps it will be ina decade if there is not a civil war or a new dictator.

We shall see how that plays out. Anyway, arguing that subject is pointless because nothing is entirely certain. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Originally Posted by Qingu

So you're not a non-violent Christian.

I would never say that the Bible condemns all forms of violence. I'd have to omit most of the Histories in the OT if I said that. However, the Bible condemns the majority of violence, replacing it with the forgiveness of the fulfilled law. As for me, yes... I'm a nonviolent Christian, but I don't condemn other Christians for being in the Army and such. They are called to do tasks, just as I am specifically not called to do them. What is right for them is not right for me not because of relativism but because of duty.

[JerryLove]

A: As Christians, we are dead to the law and no longer held by it. Instead we are commanded only to keep ourselves pure, to respect authority, and to love our fellow humans and God. The old, unfulfilled law demanded death for transgressions, but that debt has been paid. (Note the part in your verse where Jesus says he's come to fulfill the law... yeah. That's what that means.) Now the idea is to love and to call people to God.

So then the OT law has all passed from existance (from the perspective of a Christian), and anyone referencing OT law for anything (other than a history lesson) is full of it. Slavery was condoned, but is not OK despite that... similarly, theft was condemned, but that no longer applies.

I am amazed that the hypocracy isn't painful.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by plaid_child

A: As Christians, we are dead to the law and no longer held by it. Instead we are commanded only to keep ourselves pure, to respect authority, and to love our fellow humans and God. The old, unfulfilled law demanded death for transgressions, but that debt has been paid. (Note the part in your verse where Jesus says he's come to fulfill the law... yeah. That's what that means.) Now the idea is to love and to call people to God.

If that is what Jesus meant, why did he say "not one stroke of a letter would change until the end of the heavens and earth?"

Where do you get "fulfillment" to mean "abolish"?

B: Show me a law demanding Genocide. Keep in mind that a specific call to war is not a law; it is rather a single case, like the ones I addressed in my last post.

Any city god gives you, you're supposed to kill everyone. Regular wars mean you are supposed to kill all of the men in the city and (usually) take the virgins for rape booty. I guess this could be interpreted as a grey area.

C: Slavery in Ancient Israel was entirely different from our modern notion. In it, a servant works for six years and then regains his freedom. It was indentured servitude.

False, only applies to Jewish slaves. You could buy slaves from foreign lands and foreigners among you; these slaves were property and were passed down to your descendents.

Most American slaveowners were fully in line with Biblical slavery. The only no-no is killing or permanantly maiming your slave. Not many slaveowners did that (it wasn't cost-efficient).

With that said, the Bible does not necessitate slavery either. It gives this indentured servitude as a means of coming out from under debt.

I'm talking about the slaves you could buy, or the virgin girl slaves you get as booty from conquering cities. Of course, you could beat your "indentured servants" to unconsciousness as well....

First of all... it's not a completely nonliteral interpretation. It's a mix of both. Second, I derive my authority from the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Jesus preached love and forgiveness. Aside from that, he fulfilled the law by dying.

He also said "I have not come to bring peace but the sword," told his followers to go buy weapons, and preached quite a bit about how God was going to lay the smack-down on unbelievers in the eschaton. Also, he fulfilled the law -- he never said he abolished it.

Paul preached that the law no longer has a hold on Christians, and while they must remain faithful to their earthly ties (Such as slaves to their masters and everyone to The Man, etc... ) out of respect for authority, that does not make others' actions right. It simply makes the slave or the citizen right in loving and serving his fellow man.

Paul also said women should not speak in church or hold church positions (do you ignore this as well?)

I didn't mean to indicate that such people don't exist. I meant that I would talk to one and try to talk some truth into him if the opportunity arose.

I have read many of the debates between abolitionists and slaveowners. I can attest that if the Bible did not exist, slavery would have been abolished much, much sooner. The abolitionists Biblical arguments were ridiculous and illogical.

Yes they do. Slavery in the 1800s had nothing to do with OT slavery. Any verses used to support it were therefore taken out of context.

Which verses, the one that allows you to buy foreign slaves as property, or the one that alllows you to beat your slaves as much as you want as long as you don't maim them or kill them?

As for Pope Urban, which version are you using? I read five different versions and found a few verses. None seem to prove anything. There arwe prrof s that the Holy Land is special, proofs that devotion is required among Christians and the like. Nothing at all in any of the versions I read actually justified the Crusades from a Biblical standpoint, unless you'd like to cite something specific.

Actually, it might have been Innocent ... I shall get back to you on this one. (they both added a lot of papal/Catholic stuff like free salvation offers)

Is that intended as flamebait or is it really what you understood of my position? I specifically stated in the other thread that I'm an old-earth creationist. That means that I accept the whole Bible, while prophecy is often figurative language about true events. And yes... like how Nero was the Antichrist. I do agree, however, that many people these days pick and choose which verse to listen to, and they go by a lot of different names like "Arminian" and "Futurist" and such. I do not ignore Matthew 5:17. I interpret it in light of other scripture (Like all of the Pauline Epistles.)

Twasn't flamebait, merely me pointing out that you are hypocritical for criticizing non-literal Muslim interpretations of the Quran.

We shall see how that plays out. Anyway, arguing that subject is pointless because nothing is entirely certain. You have your opinion and I have mine.

My opinion is supported by history and facts; yours is supported by hope. We will see.

[maadio]

You know what... I'm entirely sick of arguing everything... so I'm officially removing myself from debate in general until at least after the election.

I have my opinion and that's good enough for me. I'm just sick of the constant conflict. It's not cool.

Good day all.