Islam the Religion of Allah (SATAN)

Originally posted by googlefudge
You guess wrong, as ever.

PEOPLE are responsible for women's rights.

Some of them were atheists, some were theists of various stripes.

But the morality they espoused and the rights that were fought for and won are secular.

They were not derived from, and they are contradictory to, any religious doctrines or teachings
and they certainly were ...[text shortened]... against it were fighting for and espousing
secular morality... Even if they didn't know it.

The bible values women much much less than men - googly

(Acts 2:16-18)  On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel,
 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every
sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men
will see visions and your old men will dream dreams;  and even upon my men
slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy. . .

God doesn't seem to think so, does he, hmmmm.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but the example that you cited was not of applying the teachings of the Christ, but
of religious intolerance and forced conversion.

Surely applying something in an uncompromising way is religious intolerance.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Surely applying something in an uncompromising way is religious intolerance.

yes but you forget, or perhaps i did not make it clear enough, all the anti religionists
will have been zapped, by God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes but the example that you cited was not of applying the teachings of the Christ, but
of religious intolerance and forced conversion.

Yes indeed, as reflected throughout this and related threads and throughout the history of Christianity. Christianity became the widespread religion it did through forced conversion and the forcible repression of alternatives. Maybe not what Jesus intended, but then Jesus was a faithful practising Jew who wrote nothing and did not invent Christianity. You are making a deep error to confuse Christianity with the teachings of Jesus since they are absolutely not the same thing and never were. The strongest claim that can be made is that it is based on his teachings. Nor does Hinds, for example, restrict himself to Jesus, since he defends the entire Old and New Testaments. Jesus was long dead before Revelations was written for example and it bears very little resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount.

Originally posted by finnegan
Jesus was long dead before Revelations was written for example and it bears very little resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount.

Revelation was just what corporate Christianity needed at the time it came along.

Originally posted by finnegan
Yes indeed, as reflected throughout this and related threads and throughout the history of Christianity. Christianity became the widespread religion it did through forced conversion and the forcible repression of alternatives. Maybe not what Jesus intended, but then Jesus was a faithful practising Jew who wrote nothing and did not invent Christianity. Yo ...[text shortened]... lations was written for example and it bears very little resemblance to the Sermon on the Mount.

I have made no error nor have i confused the teachings of Christ with that of
Christianity, if anything, i have highlighted the difference. You are quite wrong in one
respect, at its inception one has only to read the book of acts to determine how many
problems and obstacles the early Christians had to overcome, one only has to read
Piny to realise how intolerant the Romans were. The fact that other books bear little
resemblance to the sermon on the mount proves what? that other books bear little
resemblance to the sermon on the mount, so what? I cannot find one Biblical example
of a forced conversion, can you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have made no error nor have i confused the teachings of Christ with that of
Christianity, if anything, i have highlighted the difference.

You consider Revelation to be part of "the teachings of Christ"?

Originally posted by FMF
You consider Revelation to be part of "the teachings of Christ"?

I consider it to be part of the inspired canon.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I consider it to be part of the inspired canon.

But not part of "the teachings of Christ"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but you forget, or perhaps i did not make it clear enough, all the anti religionists
will have been zapped, by God.

What about those religionists who are not of the Christian persuasion? Will they have been zapped by God, or will they be subjected to the teachings of Christ in an 'uncompromising' way?

Originally posted by FMF
But not part of "the teachings of Christ"?

It was given in a vision to John, who penned the details, i consider the contents to be
the teaching of the resurrected Christ, yes.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What about those religionists who are not of the Christian persuasion? Will they have been zapped by God, or will they be subjected to the teachings of Christ in an 'uncompromising' way?

All will be zapped! with the exception of those who are doing the will of God!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It was given in a vision to John, who penned the details, i consider the contents to be the teaching of the resurrected Christ, yes.

Fair enough. Revelation seems utterly bogus to me - a fact that was certainly one of the many factors contributing to my exit from the religion.

Originally posted by FMF
Fair enough. Revelation seems utterly bogus to me - a fact that was certainly one of the many factors contributing to my exit from the religion.

why so hung up about it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why so hung up about it?

Hung up? Interesting word choice. What do you mean... like some sort of emotional thing? No. Nothing like that. I was not "hung up" about it. 🙂