Eid al-Adha

Originally posted by @secondson
Islam is a phony religion created by a phony prophet claiming to build on the teachings of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. A completely fraudulent religion with no basis in biblical truth.

This thread, I suppose, it the right place for you to assert this.

Originally posted by @suzianne
And Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn.

And thus was Abraham's failure complete.

Firstborn, but not the son of promise, nor was he in the messianic line.

Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

There's not one that hasn't failed.

Originally posted by @fmf
This thread, I suppose, it the right place for you to assert this.

Just calling it they way it is because it is what it is.

Originally posted by @secondson
Just calling it they way it is because it is what it is.

No worries. What else would you say? You're not a Muslim.

Originally posted by @secondson
Firstborn, but not the son of promise, nor was he in the messianic line.

Genesis 22:2
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

There's not one that hasn't failed.

Islam cares not for any "son of promise" or ancestors of a rabbi from Nazareth. All that matters to its adherents is that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and should have received favor as such, instead of being abandoned and left to die.

It is Abraham's failure to trust in God for a son from Sarah that has resulted in all the bloodshed between Arabs and Jews and, by association, between Arabs and Christians.

For being the Chosen People of God, the Jews have been guilty of an astonishing amount of screwing up, distrusting God and failing to obey him. Even the Exile taught them nothing.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Islam cares not for any "son of promise" or ancestors of a rabbi from Nazareth. All that matters to its adherents is that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and should have received favor as such, instead of being abandoned and left to die.

It is Abraham's failure to trust in God for a son from Sarah that has resulted in all the bloodshed between Arabs a ...[text shortened]... nt of screwing up, distrusting God and failing to obey him. Even the Exile taught them nothing.

In other words, Ismael should have declared a jihad on Abraham and wiped them out.

Thanks for that Suzy.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Islam cares not for any "son of promise" or ancestors of a rabbi from Nazareth. All that matters to its adherents is that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and should have received favor as such, instead of being abandoned and left to die.

It is Abraham's failure to trust in God for a son from Sarah that has resulted in all the bloodshed between Arabs a ...[text shortened]... nt of screwing up, distrusting God and failing to obey him. Even the Exile taught them nothing.

I remember Paul.

Originally posted by @secondson
Interestingly enough though is that it is the Jews who are the descendants of Isaac the son of Abraham, and those that are middle easterners and Muslim are descended from Ishmael who was not the son of Sara and Abraham to which the promise was made by God that they would have a son. Ishmael was the illegitimate son of Hagar who was essentially a slave.
...[text shortened]... s of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. A completely fraudulent religion with no basis in biblical truth.

You must be a woman as well. Clearly you do not know when to shut up.

Originally posted by @whodey
In other words, Ismael should have declared a jihad on Abraham and wiped them out.

Thanks for that Suzy.

"In other words"? Whose words? Those are purely your words, not mine. I said nothing like that, and you know that.

Originally posted by @rajk999
You must be a woman as well. Clearly you do not know when to shut up.

Fortunately, Paul said other, more meaningful things, besides the sexist ranting that you revere him for.

Paul is not the Jesus you're looking for. Jesus would not have said those things. Jesus upbraided others, like the Pharisee who invited him into his house, for disrespecting women.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Fortunately, Paul said other, more meaningful things, besides the sexist ranting that you revere him for.

Is it OK for Christians to dismiss parts of the NT in this way if they question how "meaningful" those parts are?

Originally posted by @fmf
Is it OK for Christians to dismiss parts of the NT in this way if they question how "meaningful" those parts are?

Who's "dismissing" them?

You're just making stuff up.

Nearly every time you assume that "Christians do this" or "Christians do that", you're wrong. My advice to you would be to stop doing that.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Who's "dismissing" them?

You're just making stuff up.

Nearly every time you assume that "Christians do this" or "Christians do that", you're wrong. My advice to you would be to stop doing that.

Then what about dismissing most of the OT? Like Men are worth 50 shekels but women only 30?

If your son disses mom and pop, kill him?

The question I have is, viewing all that, why do not Christians just cut out the OT completely and ONLY go by NT?

Why have the OT if all you do is say, we don't think like that any more?

If that is the case, what about now, 2000 years later, we don't think much like the NEW T any more either? Century 21 has posted problems never thought of back in NT days and the moral compass has swayed all around the circle now.

Gay rights, women rights, reproductive rights, where is any of that kind of thing talked about in either OT or NT?

If we strictly followed either OT or NT we would have gays hanged, women raped forced to bear the child of rape, women as chattel. Like I said, we are advancing as a civilization, two steps up, one step down for sure, but slowly we are getting slightly more civilized in spite of OT or NT. We ourselves are figuring out the new moral compass without the need for either OT or NT.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Then what about dismissing most of the OT? Like Men are worth 50 shekels but women only 30?

If your son disses mom and pop, kill him?

The question I have is, viewing all that, why do not Christians just cut out the OT completely and ONLY go by NT?

Why have the OT if all you do is say, we don't think like that any more?

If that is the case, wh ...[text shortened]... or NT. We ourselves are figuring out the new moral compass without the need for either OT or NT.

There's some truth to your post.
A lot of cherry picking goes on with Bible verses, accepting the good parts and ignoring the bad parts. And there's many bad parts.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Who's "dismissing" them?

You're just making stuff up.

Nearly every time you assume that "Christians do this" or "Christians do that", you're wrong. My advice to you would be to stop doing that.

I get the impression you dismiss Paul's misogyny. Saying that it was merely typical of its times and that it doesn't apply nowadays is dismissing his instruction, is it not?