I don't agree with them but....

[GhostWriter16]

so that makes it acceptable? deplorable

What are you referring to?

 

[useless]

to stoning gays and what not because it was in a theocracy

 

[Grimz101]

I don't believe the majority believe that, and I'm sure most don't. Also, that is what the Bible teaches. Revelation 20:15 (New International Version)

If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

That's pretty much what its saying. It's a hard truth, but it is the truth.

Also, the thing about slavery, it was more like working to pay off a debt: Indentured servitude. As for the gays thing that was the law in ancient Israel, it was a theocracy, and in a theocracy that's what you'd do. However, I don't support the US government doing anything like this.

No the bible is open to interpretation just like the Koran is, that's the point I'm getting at. Don't even get me started on the fact the new testament was written by people who didn't even know Jesus, and it was long after he was dead, added to how it's been editted by many.

It was not Indentured servitude, Indentured servitude was for the European that wanted to come over to the New world but couldn't afford somewhere to live and to pay for the voyage over. They were treated as property that there master could trade or kill.

Africans were treated as sub-humans and this was justified by peoples interpretation of passages in the old testament.
Don

 

[GhostWriter16]

I Can you explain something though, according to your religion, how are we not infidels if we follow the "Wrong religion." Doesn't Islam teach that all non-Muslims are going to hell (I will not be offended by the same answer, Christians teach the same thing about non-Christians.)

.

Lockesdonkey, can you please explain this to me. What does "People of the book" mean?

to stoning gays and what not because it was in a theocracy

Well, nobody can be gay by nature, so they first had to choose to be gay, and then they had to choose to act on their gay tendencies. I honestly can't 100% reconcile this one except to say, unlike human governments, Christ does own everything, and so he has the right to execute whatever of his Creation he sees fit. However, I still don't think we should do this in America.

Grimz101, yet all four had no contradictions in their accounts, how do you reconcile this except to say that God inspired it?

 

[useless]

what the christ, see this is why people dislike, because your views are abhorrent. Disgusting

 

[GhostWriter16]

what the christ, see this is why people dislike, because your views are abhorrent. Disgusting

If that's all your going to say, please do not comment.

You have the right not to comment though.

I'm sorry, but three choices:

A: Reply constructively

B: Don't reply

C: Be reported.

 

[useless]

reported for calling you out on your insane beliefs? You believe homosexuality is a choice, but it's no more a choice then heterosexuality is. You believe it's okay for people to kill gays, because as Jesus as Christ owns everything, even if the person in question isn't christian, people have the right to "destroy his property" on behalf of him.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm not racist but................

 

[Grimz101]

Well, nobody can be gay by nature, so they first had to choose to be gay, and then they had to choose to act on their gay tendencies. I honestly can't 100% reconcile this one except to say, unlike human governments, Christ does own everything, and so he has the right to execute whatever of his Creation he sees fit. However, I still don't think we should do this in America.

Grimz101, yet all four had no contradictions in their accounts, how do you reconcile this except to say that God inspired it?

Yes animals in nature choose to be gay too I presume? Your God sure is funny, letting animals he created with no real self will or intelligence beyond eating and surviving be able to commit male on male sexual acts. Yet when humans do it, according to your interpretations of the bible it's sinful.

Do you now understand that the bible can be interpretated in many different ways, the same holds true of the Koran and any religious book, and no religion is really inherently evil, or violent, but people lead others astray.

Obviously if you think the Bible is word for word the word of God, you've never researched about the First Council of Nicaea.

And the bible has as many contradictions as I do hairs. It's known many books have been added or taken away. If the Bible is so clear and coherent there'd be one united Christian movement, but it's got so many different strains and schools.

 

[GhostWriter16]

reported for calling you out on your insane beliefs? You believe homosexuality is a choice, but it's no more a choice then heterosexuality is. You believe it's okay for people to kill gays, because as Jesus as Christ owns everything, even if the person in question isn't christian, people have the right to "destroy his property" on behalf of him.

I said that Christ has the right to kill them, as well as anyone else he created, because he made us. I think that in any political state short of the one that was run directly by him that was ancient Israel, it would be absurd to execute people for homosexuality, but that was what he decided to do, that is his right, he is God after all.

Anyway, it is natural that love be between a man and a woman, that's the way it is.

Also, do not start a debate in this thread saying, "Well I don't believe he's God," you don't have to agree with me, but this is what I believe.

 

[_random_]

Lockesdonkey, can you please explain this to me. What does "People of the book" mean?

I'm not an expert on Islam by any means, but I believe it refers to those who follow the Bible in some capacity but not the Koran (e.i. Christians and Jews)

If that's all your going to say, please do not comment.

You have the right not to comment though.

I'm sorry, but three choices:

A: Reply constructively

B: Don't reply

C: Be reported.

Report monkeying is fine and dandy, but when you brag about it, people tend to hate you more, perpetuating your problems.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I love you Domination300

 

[useless]

Well i don't believe in god, but i assume if he loves us all he'd be able to look past our flows, life style choices, religion, race etc, but apparently not

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I am sorry I offended you, but I will say I know the majority of Muslims do not believe in this, but I am fairly certain there's something in the Koran that the Terrorists at least think they are following by attacking us.

Any text may be misinterpreted; the Qur'an is no exception. Al Qaeda & Co. have their own political agenda, and they twist Scripture to their own ends.

Can you explain something though, according to your religion, how are we not infidels if we follow the "Wrong religion." Doesn't Islam teach that all non-Muslims are going to hell (I will not be offended by the same answer, Christians teach the same thing about non-Christians.)

For one thing, Islam does not consider Christians (or Jews for that matter) to follow the wrong religion. At worst, traditional Islamic doctrine holds that Christians and Jews (and other monotheists) follow the right religion, from which many things (some relatively minor, some serious) have been added and subtracted over time. However, the core (faith in one God) remains the same. Christians are most definitely not infidels in the Islamic teaching.

For another thing, Islam does not teach that all non-Muslims go to Hell. It is very orthodox belief that, at minimum, People of the Book will find it as easy or almost as easy to get into Heaven as Muslims. Also fairly orthodox is the belief that everyone with so much as an atom of faith and goodness in their soul goes to Heaven eventually; Hell is only eternal for the most faithless (I'd use cynical, but that's not exactly right) and evil people in the world. Mind you, it's a very long sentence for people who had that atom but were otherwise very bad.

There's a Hadith (tradition of the Prophet) about two men whose lives were quite different. One was a non-Muslim who was nevertheless a good man, faithful in his religion, and never bore ill will to Islam. He will go to Heaven fairly quickly. The other, who goes through all the motions of being Muslim but was doing it for the benefit of his reputation, will go to Hell. What you claim to be is less important than who you really are in Islam.

Anyway, if this is true, why do they attack us so faithfully?

As above, they really don't. The Muslims engaging in terrorism against the West number perhaps a few thousand at most; Al Qaeda itself consists of about 300-500 crazies on the run somewhere in Pakistan. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many if not most of them are angry at the West, but not for religious reasons: their grievances are primarily political, with a few cultural and economic gripes tossed in for good measure. They suffered heavily under European colonialism; they see American military bases on Muslim lands and aren't really sure what to make of it; they are afraid that globalization is going to destroy their cherished history and culture; and above all, they are angry that the United States props up the dictators who oppress them. But they do not turn to terrorism. Many of them do turn to political Islam/Islamism, but even then, the violent Islamists are the lunatic fringe. Most Islamists stage protests and strikes, organize political parties, and contest elections. Their grievances are mostly directed at their own governments at home, and they use Islam as a rallying point because the governments of most Muslim countries are secular.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm not an expert on Islam by any means, but I believe it refers to those who follow the Bible in some capacity but not the Koran (e.i. Christians and Jews)


Report monkeying is fine and dandy, but when you brag about it, people tend to hate you more, perpetuating your problems.

Bragging?

Unless it was a purposeful troll, I like to warn people before I report them, telling them to "Cut it out," before actually getting them in trouble. I just consider it a nice courtesy.

Moderator Action: It is not a courtesy; it is annoying. If you feel a post should be reported, do so without discussion. Such posts detract from the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Thank you for answering my question though.

 

[Grimz101]

I love you Domination300

This perpetuates my view that Liverpool fans are confused, unwise, and sub-human!
*Edit*
Oh wait you're Everton
*Lets it slide*

 

[ParadigmShifter]

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j

<--------------


Liverpool are the evil empire

 

[JollyRoger]

Grimz101, yet all four had no contradictions in their accounts, how do you reconcile this except to say that God inspired it?

•Matthew 27:37 THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS
•Mark 15:26 THE KING OF THE JEWS
•Luke 23:38 THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS
•John 19:19 JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS

. . .

(Matt 1:1-16)
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham....
6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah....
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

(Luke 3:23-38)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph....
31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse....
38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Joseph, while Luke starts with Joseph and counts clear back to Adam (also note that Luke calls Adam "the son of God.") The parts bolded are the parts where the genealogies diverge. Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.

. . .

Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE.

. . .

-Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

- Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

- Luke says nothing about Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

- Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

. . .

Remember the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew? (5:12) Luke says it happened on a plain (6:17)

. . .

The synoptics disagree with John on the timing of the last supper and the crucifixion as they pertain to the Passover.

The synoptics say that the last supper was a Passover seder (hence on the eve of the Passover) while John says that it was the night before the seder.

This can get a little confusing because it uses the Jewish demarcation of days starting and ending at sunset but maybe I can make it easier saying it like this:

John and the synoptics agree that Jesus was arrested on a Thursday night and crucified on Friday. The difference is that the synoptics say the Passover started on Thursday night (making the last supper a seder) and ended on Friday night. John says the passover started on Friday night (after Jesus had already been crucified) and ended on Saturday night.

John also disagrees with the synoptics as to the time of day that Jesus was crucifed.

According to the synoptics, Jesus was nailed up at the third hour (9 AM), darkness came over the land around the 6th hour (noon) and Jesus kicked the bucket around the 9th hour (3 PM).

John says that Pilate ordered Jesus taken away to be crucified at noon.

The significance of John's chronology is that Pilate orders Jesus to be crucified at the same time the Paschal lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple (something which had occurred the day before according to the synoptic chronologies).

. . .

Jesus' alleged last words on the cross:

(Matt 27:46-50)
45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?[d] 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He's calling Elijah. 48 I mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him. 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

(Mark says almost the same thing but renders the Psalm quote in Aramaic rather than Hebrew)

(Luke 23:46)
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

(John 19:30)
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

These are three distinctly contradictory claims for the last words of Jesus on the cross. No one Gospel mentions the quotes from the other Gospels and all of them assert their own lines as Jesus' very last words.

. . .

Matt 27:1-10)
Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."

Now Acts (wriiten by Luke):

(Acts 1:18-19)
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

In Matthew, Judas throws the money back at the priests, then goes and hangs himself (Matt doesn't say where), then the priests take the money and buy a field.

In Acts, Judas buys a field himself and then he falls headlong and his guts explode.

. . .

Synopsis of Mark's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Salome are walking to the tomb. As they're walking they're talking and worrying about how they can get somebody to help them move the rock. They get to the tomb and see the rock has been rolled away. They go inside and see an angel sitting in the tomb. The angel shows them that Jesus' body is gone and tells them to inform Cephas and the rest of the disciples that Jesus is risen and that they should all go to Galilee where they will be able to see him. The women run away from the tomb but they don't tell anybody because they're terrified.

Mark cuts off right there (16:8) with no further visits to the tomb and no appearance narratives.

Synopsis of Matthew's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to the tomb (no mention of Salome this time). Right when they get to the tomb, there's an earthquake, an angel comes down from the sky, rolls away the rock and sits down on it. This time there are guards at the tomb and they get scared. The angel then tells the women pretty much the same thing the other angel said in Mark. he shows them that Jesus is gone and tells them to tell the disciples that Jesus wants to holler at them in Galilee. The women run away but this time they run bang into Jesus. They freak out some and Jesus tells them to chill and then tells the women to let the disciples know he would holler at them in Galilee.

At this point, there's an interjection in which the guards run to the priests and tell them what they saw, so then the priests bribe the guards to say that the disciples stole Jesus' body.

Back to the disciples. The eleven of them go to a mountain in Galilee and Jesus appears. They give Jesus mad props but some are still doubtful. Jesus tells them to go out and preach the message and baptize people and that he will always be with them.

And that's it for Matthew.

Synopsis of Luke's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, Joanna and "the rest of the women" go to the tomb. As in Mark, they find the stone already rolled away. They peep inside the tomb. What? No Jesus! As they're standing there trying to figure out what's going all of a sudden TWO angels appear out of thin air. The women freak, the angels tell them to chill and tell them that Jesus has risen. The women run to tell the disciples (but Luke's angels do not explicitly instruct them to do so this time). The disciples don't believe them but then Peter jumps up and runs to the tomb. He peeps in and sees that Jesus is gone. He goes home "marvelling."

Cut to "two of them" (one named Cleopas, the other unnamed) walking to Emmaus. They meet Jesus but they don't recognize him. They tell him all about Jesus and the women and the empty tomb. Jesus tells them how dumb they are for not knowing the prophecies (which didn't actually exist but that's another can of worms). They stop to have some grub and when they break bread, they recognize Jesus, then he vanishes.

Cleopas and the other dude run back to Jerusalem and find the rest of the disciples. The rest of the disciples tell them that Jesus had risen and appeared to "Simon" (who may or may not be the "Peter" who Luke says had seen the empty tomb but does not say had seen the risen Jesus. I mention this because Luke actually uses the name "Peter" in the former case and "Simon" in the latter, so this may indicate two different people).

Cleopas and the other dude start telling the disciples about seeing Jesus on the road to Emmaus and then Jesus suddenly appears while they're talking. (please note that they are still in Jerusalem and have not yet gone to Galilee) They freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he shows them all the rad holes in his hands and feet. Then Jesus asks them if they have anything to eat (I guess he hadn't eaten in three days). They give him some fish and he eats it. Then he preaches at them for a while before leading them to Bethany where he ascends into the sky. The disciples go happily back to Jerusalem, and that's the end for Luke.

Synopsis of John's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene (alone) goes to the tomb. The stone has already been rolled away. She runs and finds Simon Peter along with the "Beloved Disciple" (who will henceforth be referred to as "BD"). Mary Magdalene tells them that the body has been "taken." Peter and BD go running to the tomb. BD outruns Peter and gets there first and sees some strips of burial linens lying utside the tomb. Peter gets there and goes inside the tomb. Peter sees that Jesus is gone. BD then goes in and sees it too. Peter and BD go back home.

Mary Magdalene is left crying outside the tomb. She peeps inside the tomb and sees two angels. Then Jesus comes up behind her and she sees him but doesn't recognize him. She thinks he's the gardener and asks him if he moved the body and could he tell her where it was. Then Jesus says her name, "Mary," and she recognizes him. He tells her not to touch him but to go tell the disciples about him. She goes and finds the disciples and tells them (John doesn't say where they are). Later that night, Jesus appears to the disciples and shows them all his rad wounds. Then he breathes on them and says he's giving them some Holy Spirit and tells them that he's giving them the power to forgive sins.

Then we get the Doubting Thomas story. Thomas doubts. Thomas sticks fingers in rad nail holes. Thomas believes. Then Jesus says that people who believe without proof are more blessed than those annoying skeptics.

John really ends there. There's another emended chapter which I won't bring into the contradictions argument but just to be thorough, the emended chapter tells a weird story about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee and helping them catch some fish, then he keeps asking Peter if he loves him and gives him his evangelical marching order and hints that he's going to come to a rough end. Then Peter sees the BD following them and asks Jesus about him. Jesus tells Peter it's not his business if Jesus wants to BD to hang around until he returns. Then the author says there was a rumor that the BD wasn't supposed to die before Jesus came back but Jesus didn't actually say tthat he just said "what business is it of yours if I DO want him to stay?"

End of emended John.

So how many women went to the tomb? Was it Mary Magdalene by herself? Was she with the other Mary? The other Mary and Salome? The other Mary and Joanna and the "rest of the women?"

Was the stone already rolled away when they got there or did they see an angel come down and do it?

How many angels were there, one or two? Where were they? Were they in the tomb or sitting on the stone or did they appear out of thin air or did they descend from the sky?

Who was the first person to see Jesus? Was it Mary Magdalene? If so, when did she see him? Did she crash into Jesus on her way to tell the disciples or did he come up behind her after she had returned to the tomb and was peeping in at the angels?
Where and when did Jesus appear to the disciples? Was it in Jerusalem or was it Galilee?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Next person to suggest I support *spits* Liverpool gets smote.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Any text may be misinterpreted; the Qur'an is no exception. Al Qaeda & Co. have their own political agenda, and they twist Scripture to their own ends.



For one thing, Islam does not consider Christians (or Jews for that matter) to follow the wrong religion. At worst, traditional Islamic doctrine holds that Christians and Jews (and other monotheists) follow the right religion, from which many things (some relatively minor, some serious) have been added and subtracted over time. However, the core (faith in one God) remains the same. Christians are most definitely not infidels in the Islamic teaching.

For another thing, Islam does not teach that all non-Muslims go to Hell. It is very orthodox belief that, at minimum, People of the Book will find it as easy or almost as easy to get into Heaven as Muslims. Also fairly orthodox is the belief that everyone with so much as an atom of faith and goodness in their soul goes to Heaven eventually; Hell is only eternal for the most faithless (I'd use cynical, but that's not exactly right) and evil people in the world. Mind you, it's a very long sentence for people who had that atom but were otherwise very bad.

There's a Hadith (tradition of the Prophet) about two men whose lives were quite different. One was a non-Muslim who was nevertheless a good man, faithful in his religion, and never bore ill will to Islam. He will go to Heaven fairly quickly. The other, who goes through all the motions of being Muslim but was doing it for the benefit of his reputation, will go to Hell. What you claim to be is less important than who you really are in Islam.



As above, they really don't. The Muslims engaging in terrorism against the West number perhaps a few thousand at most; Al Qaeda itself consists of about 300-500 crazies on the run somewhere in Pakistan. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many if not most of them are angry at the West, but not for religious reasons: their grievances are primarily political, with a few cultural and economic gripes tossed in for good measure. They suffered heavily under European colonialism; they see American military bases on Muslim lands and aren't really sure what to make of it; they are afraid that globalization is going to destroy their cherished history and culture; and above all, they are angry that the United States props up the dictators who oppress them. But they do not turn to terrorism. Many of them do turn to political Islam/Islamism, but even then, the violent Islamists are the lunatic fringe. Most Islamists stage protests and strikes, organize political parties, and contest elections. Their grievances are mostly directed at their own governments at home, and they use Islam as a rallying point because the governments of most Muslim countries are secular.

First of all, I know its not most of them, but are you sure its just a few thousand? I guess you know more than me. Still, I knew it wasn't most of them.

So, you are claiming Islamists and Christians follow the same religion (Mind you, I don't, but I am asking for clarification)

What do you mean by "Very orthodox" and "Fairly orthodox" and which do you believe (I'm guessing Fairly orthodox based on the way you worded it but I'm not going to assume.)