18 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am mostly interested in an answer to:
infact if you can refute or deny or whatever it is that you seek to achieve then comment on the texts themselves, for these form the basis of my argument.
So what principles were expounded in:
1. Animal sacrifices.
2. circumcision.
And why are those practices obsolete?
18 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadsorry, as you are aware i am a little dimwitted, and as a result i am not quite sure what you mean, therefore not wanting to assume anything can i ask you to rephrase the question in a simpler way that i may fully grasp the length and breadth and height of its import. what i think you are asking is what Christian principles were foreshadowed by the law (mosaic law) and its insistence on 1.animal sacrifices and 2.circumcision, is it not so?
I am mostly interested in an answer to:
So what principles were expounded in:
1. Animal sacrifices.
2. circumcision.
And why are those practices obsolete?
if this is the case then i will need a little time as the answers, although readily found in scripture need a lot of explanation and can become a little legalistic and somewhat involved, although hopefully this this in no way should shroud their comprehension, but i can only try my best.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, lets start with that.
sorry, as you are aware i am a little dimwitted, and as a result i am not quite sure what you mean, therefore not wanting to assume anything can i ask you to rephrase the question in a simpler way that i may fully grasp the length and breadth and height of its import. what i think you are asking is what Christian principles were foreshadowed by the law (mosaic law) and its insistence on 1.animal sacrifices and 2.circumcision, is it not so?
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou surely must not know the meaning of 'tolerance' or 'intolerance' so here is Dictionary.com's definition :
No i don't mind, infact for you it would be a pleasure, for ultimately God himself is the epitome of tolerance, as exemplified by Christ, Paul and others; consider these verses my friend.
Acts 10:34 ' Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality'.
Job 34:19, 'Who shows no partiality to p ...[text shortened]... ut dig ya'all, voodoo chile baby , lord knows them atheists know i is a voodoo chile.
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
What does the quotes from Acts and Job have to do with tolerance. Those passages are about PARTIALITY, which is not synonymous with tolerance.
Would you say that all the examples of Jews being ordered to kill entire tribes and nations (women, children and animals included) are examples of God's tolerance? Was God tolerant when he said that disobedient children and adulterous women should be killed? Or when He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone? or flooded the earth so that every land animal was destroyed ... Tolerance ? NO. God makes his rules. You obey you live. You dont obey you die. Today or in the future. That is not tolerance.
Paul here is telling Christians that if anyone preaches any other gospel but his that person is accursesd. Is this an example of Paul's tolerance ?
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
And again Paul is telling Christians to keep away from non-Christians. Is this tolerance ?
II Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Now regarding this thread, I am being accused of condemning certain muslims for killing apostates (those who leave the Islamic faith) and adulterous women. To me that is barbarism. If anyone does not likewise condemn openly and verbally as I am doing then I say those people are part of the problem since their silence lends support to Islamic extremism. I guess that includes you.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999i would in fact rather turn to the bible for my definition than a secular dictionary, but hey, that's just me.
You surely must not know the meaning of 'tolerance' or 'intolerance' so here is Dictionary.com's definition :
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
What does the quotes from Acts and Job have to do with tolerance. Those passages are about PARTI ...[text shortened]... roblem since their silence lends support to Islamic extremism. I guess that includes you.
could you perhaps comment on the texts of Christ and of Peter that i mentioned before we go any further because it seems to me you rather were quite evasive on those, as as to Islamic extremism, i used to live in Pakistan, my wife is a Pakistani national, and i have observed these people first hand, so perhaps we could talk about Islam, Islamic extremism, whatever at another time.
what i will comment on is the text you have mentioned with regard to unbelievers and others as it must be viewed not in a physical sense as having nothing to do with non believers, or being intolerant of such but as having no spiritual fellowship nor to copy their practises, this is not intolerant but practical for a number of reasons.
the following texts illustrate this,
John 17:15 'I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world', obviously Christians were to earn a living in the world, which would mean mixing with non believers, where is the intolerance in this, that's right , non existent.
1 Corinthian 10:27, 'If anyone of the unbelievers invites you and you wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of your conscience', - it would seem that the practice of eating meals with unbelievers was practiced in the first century, does it not, even Christ himself dined with his opposers, Simon the pharisee springs to mind, where is the intolerance, non existent.
As the scriptures clearly indicate god himself is the ultimate source of tolerance, and as such, is to be imitated in this regard and others.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo eating meals with unbelievers and making a living off them shows Gods tolerance.
i would in fact rather turn to the bible for my definition than a secular dictionary, but hey, that's just me.
could you perhaps comment on the texts of Christ and of Peter that i mentioned before we go any further because it seems to me you rather were quite evasive on those, as as to Islamic extremism, i used to live in Pakistan, my wife is a Pa ...[text shortened]... he ultimate source of tolerance, and as such, is to be imitated in this regard and others.
The killing and excecution of adulterers and disobedient children and wiping out entire nations, does not count as intolerance ?
The point about intolerance arose from Islamic extremist... so NO ... you having a wife from Pakistan is irrelevant.
Would you say that I am intolerant because I condemn the killing of apostates and adulterers?
18 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Bible has definitions of English words? How did they get in there? Now that beats all claims of prophesy hands down. I mean defining words that wont be used until thousands of years later, that is some feat.
i would in fact rather turn to the bible for my definition than a secular dictionary, but hey, that's just me.
The truth is we were discussing a concept in the English language, you gave examples that did not match the concept under discussion and now, as per usual, wont admit that you were wrong.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by scherzoBut does not fear generate a certain amount of respect? Is this not what Muslims are attempting to do by making death threats towards those who ridicule Mohammad or the Koran?
I think that Islam should be respected as any other religion. No religion should be feared, for that is the stuff of which genocides are made.
So tell me, how is respect generated? How is respect toward the Muslim religion being generated?
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999"Other things" like existing?
Do you mind quoting the part of the Bible where Christ or Paul preaches tolerance? ... tolerance of the kind of which I am guilty. I am intolerant of muslims killing apostates and for executing women for comitting adultery and other minor crimes ... among other things.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by Rajk999You are a disgusting hypocrite who preaches tolerance but is really the least tolerant person in this forum.
You surely must not know the meaning of 'tolerance' or 'intolerance' so here is Dictionary.com's definition :
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
What does the quotes from Acts and Job have to do with tolerance. Those passages are about PARTI ...[text shortened]... roblem since their silence lends support to Islamic extremism. I guess that includes you.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyYou take the Machiavellian standpoint. I say that's crap. Do you respect Gandhi more, or Hitler/Stalin/any one of those maniacal dictators? Do you respect Mother Teresa more, or Dubya? People who use fear to gain power are also realized as frauds and fear-abusing genii, just after their death.
But does not fear generate a certain amount of respect? Is this not what Muslims are attempting to do by making death threats towards those who ridicule Mohammad or the Koran?
So tell me, how is respect generated? How is respect toward the Muslim religion being generated?
Respect for the Muslim religion ... the ingredients are already there. The media would have you believe that Muslims are ignorant, vile, savage terrorists as a whole. (Whether you believe that or not, you have to admit the media certainly does.) This is partially out of the Biblical racism that arose with stories such as Moses; partially out of the Orientalism that struck the West following the Crusades and has stayed in the public mind ever since; and partially because of more modern phenomena such as Zionist propaganda. It is further inflamed by terrorist acts like those of al-Qaeda, Black September (actually not a religious group) and the ETA (which, unless I'm mistaken, is Muslim). Of course, previous incidences such as those above have caused acts such as these to put all Muslims and Arabs under suspicion, because the media also says (and people lap this up) that Arabs and Muslims are one and the same.
Now, to get to the point: respect for the religion (for any idea, person, etc.) can only happen once those who are not Muslim are willing to give respect and once they realized that there are also Jewish terrorist groups (the IDF, the settler movement, the Mossad, the ADL, LEHI, and the Irgun) and Christian terrorist groups (the KKK, other fascists, at one point the whole Catholic church, etc.) So once people like Rajk are willing to give respect, there will be respect, because only his lack of willingness prevents it.
Thank you.
18 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scherzoRespect, like love, cannot be bought, begged for or bargained for.
You take the Machiavellian standpoint. I say that's crap. Do you respect Gandhi more, or Hitler/Stalin/any one of those maniacal dictators? Do you respect Mother Teresa more, or Dubya? People who use fear to gain power are also realized as frauds and fear-abusing genii, just after their death.
Respect for the Muslim religion ... the ingredients are alread espect, there will be respect, because only his lack of willingness prevents it.
Thank you.
It has to be earned, and its free.
The fact is Islam has exactly the amount of respect it deserves, as do you !