ArnoldLayne wrote: Atsila, the sources that I have read seem all to confirm that Al takeyya is a principle where a Muslim may lie to prevent harm to oneself or fellow muslim.
I erased the part of your reply that draws attention away from the subject, which is that muslims are permitted to lie. It is up to each individual to interpret a situation where lying is needed. A muslim may tell you that you are a fine person and that he likes you very much and thinks of you as a friend. While in his heart he feels the opposite. This also has profound political ramifications. Permission to lie from their god and prophet, makes their god and prophet liars.
A Christian does not lie. There are those who call themselves Christians and lie with regularity. Their God forbids it, it is against HIS command. There is a difference between Christian God and allah.
It is great if you see the difference, and great if you do not. I'm sure you understand how that is meant.
Here are some examples of islam double-speak:
Statements of tolerance:
* And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit. 29:46
Adversarial statements:
* Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 9:29
* O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends/protecters; they are friends/protecters of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend/protecter, then surely he is one of them; surely God does not guide the unjust people. 5:51
* And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! 2:65
* And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to God) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. 3:85
It is up to me to determine what is true or false, and I determine neither is trustworthy.
Pardon for shortening your reply, it helps me to concentrate.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: Beat me to the punch Arn..
I was about to post some Biblical contradictions but you've made the point;)
Are you an expert on 'biblical'? If you post contradictions you must be able to explain what makes them so, and you must be able to exegete meanings, events, times, reasons, without a single allusion of eisegesis. Otherwise, someone my suggest you speak off the top of your head. I know there is nothing off the top of mine.
I was about to post some Biblical contradictions but you've made the point;)Are you an expert on 'biblical'? If you post contradictions you must be able to explain what makes them so, and you must be able to exegete meanings, events, times, reasons, without a single allusion of eisegesis. Otherwise, someone my suggest you speak off the top of your head. I know there is nothing off the top of mine.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
All it proves to me is that both books are full of contradictions and require interpretation to be loving in their message. Of course many Christians lie and then go church and repent thinking that in some way that squares things with their God..
The Christian God is psychotic and tests his children..A loving God would never do such a thing..
In 1859 William Henry Burr wrote a book full of double speak and contradicitons from the Bible.
Shall I start posting from it?
The Christian God is psychotic and tests his children..A loving God would never do such a thing..
In 1859 William Henry Burr wrote a book full of double speak and contradicitons from the Bible.
Shall I start posting from it?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: All it proves to me is that both books are full of contradictions and require interpretation to be loving in their message. Of course many Christians lie and then go church and repent thinking that in some way that squares things with their God..
The Christian God is psychotic and tests his children..A loving God would never do such a thing..
In 1859 William Henry Burr wrote a book full of double speak and contradicitons from the Bible.
Shall I start posting from it?
You may post what pleases you. However, if you do not understand the material, you will not understand the answers given.
You can post a calculus problem, or one in quantum physics, but if you cannot solve it yourself, you're just mouthing.
"Verily I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in paradise." Put a comma in the proper place and tell me why you put it there.
Good luck to you. If you don't want to play, that's also ok.
The Christian God is psychotic and tests his children..A loving God would never do such a thing..
In 1859 William Henry Burr wrote a book full of double speak and contradicitons from the Bible.
Shall I start posting from it?
You may post what pleases you. However, if you do not understand the material, you will not understand the answers given.
You can post a calculus problem, or one in quantum physics, but if you cannot solve it yourself, you're just mouthing.
"Verily I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in paradise." Put a comma in the proper place and tell me why you put it there.
Good luck to you. If you don't want to play, that's also ok.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila... hrmm.. you say not to talk on a subject that youre not an expert on.. and yet you seem to be making alot of claims.. i was jsut wondering how much of an expert you were??
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
ArnoldLayne wrote: What about Christian double-speak ?
Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)
What we are talking of here is the difference in attitude of the writers and prophets of the Bible and of the Koran, not in God Himself, whether that be a Christian God or Allah. Arent they the same God ? Wouldnt he have the same commands.
Presumably if Abraham is an Islamic prophet as well as a Christian one, which god did he worship ? The one and the same, just by another name
Won't you google 'is allah the same as Jehovah God'? I find it more appropriate if people employ their resources to study a subject.
Islam claims Abraham as its father, but that is pure tradition.
I'm sorry I cannot comment on the scripture you quote. Not until you study why God said these things, will you have a chance to understand.
Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)
What we are talking of here is the difference in attitude of the writers and prophets of the Bible and of the Koran, not in God Himself, whether that be a Christian God or Allah. Arent they the same God ? Wouldnt he have the same commands.
Presumably if Abraham is an Islamic prophet as well as a Christian one, which god did he worship ? The one and the same, just by another name
Won't you google 'is allah the same as Jehovah God'? I find it more appropriate if people employ their resources to study a subject.
Islam claims Abraham as its father, but that is pure tradition.
I'm sorry I cannot comment on the scripture you quote. Not until you study why God said these things, will you have a chance to understand.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
islam claims abrah as its father? .. lol.. I honestly don't know where you have been doing your research.. but .. youve been misinformed...
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
ArnoldLayne wrote: There is a member here, Ted, who has studied the Bible sufficiently to give you the conversation you deserve. I am just picking at the bones and learning as I go along.
However i think its a little disengenuous to critisize people who simply want to pass an opinion. That is why we are all here. Zinkyusa is far from talking out the top of his head. He is engaging you, just as I am
Off the top of your head is an expression I use often. I meant nothing derogatory to ZinkyUSA. Thank you for pointing it out. I, too, learn as I go and understand the sensitivities extant. :-5
However i think its a little disengenuous to critisize people who simply want to pass an opinion. That is why we are all here. Zinkyusa is far from talking out the top of his head. He is engaging you, just as I am
Off the top of your head is an expression I use often. I meant nothing derogatory to ZinkyUSA. Thank you for pointing it out. I, too, learn as I go and understand the sensitivities extant. :-5
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
AnswerMe wrote: Atsila... hrmm.. you say not to talk on a subject that youre not an expert on.. and yet you seem to be making alot of claims.. i was jsut wondering how much of an expert you were??
Expert on what? I can tie my shoes with reasonable success. :wah:
Expert on what? I can tie my shoes with reasonable success. :wah:
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: You may post what pleases you. However, if you do not understand the material, you will not understand the answers given.
You can post a calculus problem, or one in quantum physics, but if you cannot solve it yourself, you're just mouthing.
"Verily I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in paradise." Put a comma in the proper place and tell me why you put it there.
Good luck to you. If you don't want to play, that's also ok.
How do you know this is even an accurate quote? Put a comma in? English was'nt even around when Jesus supposedly said this.
"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" it's just a sleight of hand to make the Bible agree with itself. Just a little punctuation trick. The Greeks didn't use punctuation and this was translated from Greek.
I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't speak Greek either.
You can post a calculus problem, or one in quantum physics, but if you cannot solve it yourself, you're just mouthing.
"Verily I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in paradise." Put a comma in the proper place and tell me why you put it there.
Good luck to you. If you don't want to play, that's also ok.
How do you know this is even an accurate quote? Put a comma in? English was'nt even around when Jesus supposedly said this.
"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" it's just a sleight of hand to make the Bible agree with itself. Just a little punctuation trick. The Greeks didn't use punctuation and this was translated from Greek.
I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't speak Greek either.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: How do you know this is even an accurate quote? Put a comma in? English was'nt even around when Jesus supposedly said this.
"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" it's just a sleight of hand to make the Bible agree with itself. Just a little punctuation trick. The Greeks didn't use punctuation and this was translated from Greek.
I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't speak Greek either.
That is correct. The comma was added by people who teach the error that people go to heaven when they die, etc.
In other words, they say...........I say unto you, today thou shalt be with me in paradise...........There is a vast difference between the comma before and after 'today'. Especially since Jesus did NOT go to paradise until quite a few days later.
It also has nothing to do with English, which has been around much longer than you think. As for Jesus speaking Greek? How do you know?
"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" it's just a sleight of hand to make the Bible agree with itself. Just a little punctuation trick. The Greeks didn't use punctuation and this was translated from Greek.
I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't speak Greek either.
That is correct. The comma was added by people who teach the error that people go to heaven when they die, etc.
In other words, they say...........I say unto you, today thou shalt be with me in paradise...........There is a vast difference between the comma before and after 'today'. Especially since Jesus did NOT go to paradise until quite a few days later.
It also has nothing to do with English, which has been around much longer than you think. As for Jesus speaking Greek? How do you know?
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
(I'm always amused when people get into discussions about punctuation in stories which were centuries old when they were finally written and have been retranslated many times in the centuries since.)
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: That is correct. The comma was added by people who teach the error that people go to heaven when they die, etc.
In other words, they say...........I say unto you, today thou shalt be with me in paradise...........There is a vast difference between the comma before and after 'today'. Especially since Jesus did NOT go to paradise until quite a few days later.
It also has nothing to do with English, which has been around much longer than you think. As for Jesus speaking Greek? How do you know?
I don't know what he spoke nor claim to, I feel fairly confident that he most likely spoke Aramaic..I guess he could have been bilingual as well..
So how long has English been around?
In other words, they say...........I say unto you, today thou shalt be with me in paradise...........There is a vast difference between the comma before and after 'today'. Especially since Jesus did NOT go to paradise until quite a few days later.
It also has nothing to do with English, which has been around much longer than you think. As for Jesus speaking Greek? How do you know?
I don't know what he spoke nor claim to, I feel fairly confident that he most likely spoke Aramaic..I guess he could have been bilingual as well..
So how long has English been around?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: I'm sorry I cannot comment on the scripture you quote. Not until you study why God said these things, will you have a chance to understand.
This is telling. So you're a Christian who doesn't want to discuss the bible yet you feel perfectly fine calling yourself an expert on the Qur'an and discussing it without "studying why God said these things". Pretty dim logic.
Allow me extend this thread to "Does the Bible Sanction Violence?" just to make it more interesting.
From an open letter to Dr. Laura:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
This is telling. So you're a Christian who doesn't want to discuss the bible yet you feel perfectly fine calling yourself an expert on the Qur'an and discussing it without "studying why God said these things". Pretty dim logic.
Allow me extend this thread to "Does the Bible Sanction Violence?" just to make it more interesting.
From an open letter to Dr. Laura:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: I don't know what he spoke nor claim to, I feel fairly confident that he most likely spoke Aramaic..I guess he could have been bilingual as well..
So how long has English been around?
You'd think that the Christ and God on earth would speak and know every language?
Here, have fun!
http://www.ingilish.com/orofeng.htm
So how long has English been around?
You'd think that the Christ and God on earth would speak and know every language?
Here, have fun!
http://www.ingilish.com/orofeng.htm
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/language/languages.htm
The Bible was written in the languages of ancient Palestine: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Old Testament has been transmitted to us primarily in these languages. Written mainly in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) before the text became quite stable. Some chapters and verses seem to have been written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4-7:28 and perhaps a few other verses) or at least they have been transmitted to us in Aramaic. The manuscripts do not distinguish them from the rest of the text.
I'll not comment on the "God on earth" debate, which is, btw, debatable.
The Bible was written in the languages of ancient Palestine: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The Old Testament has been transmitted to us primarily in these languages. Written mainly in Hebrew, it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) before the text became quite stable. Some chapters and verses seem to have been written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4-7:28 and perhaps a few other verses) or at least they have been transmitted to us in Aramaic. The manuscripts do not distinguish them from the rest of the text.
I'll not comment on the "God on earth" debate, which is, btw, debatable.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: How do you know this is even an accurate quote? Put a comma in? English was'nt even around when Jesus supposedly said this.
And how do you know it isn't ?
zinkyusa wrote:
"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" it's just a sleight of hand to make the Bible agree with itself. Just a little punctuation trick. The Greeks didn't use punctuation and this was translated from Greek.
Well having bat avatar and under the sign of the Zodiac, we hardly take you as Bible friendly can we now ? The orginal language of Scripture was Hebrew and Aramaic. Whether or not "English" was around I suggest you have not idea about that....I would yes since the tower of Bable.
And how do you know it isn't ?
zinkyusa wrote:
"Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise" it's just a sleight of hand to make the Bible agree with itself. Just a little punctuation trick. The Greeks didn't use punctuation and this was translated from Greek.
Well having bat avatar and under the sign of the Zodiac, we hardly take you as Bible friendly can we now ? The orginal language of Scripture was Hebrew and Aramaic. Whether or not "English" was around I suggest you have not idea about that....I would yes since the tower of Bable.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
(Koan, I've always enjoyed that letter to Dr. Laura! Thanks for bringing it here. It'll be interesting to see if you get comments.)
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Nevim wrote: And how do you know it isn't ?
Well having bat avatar and under the sign of the Zodiac, we hardly take you as Bible friendly can we now ? The orginal language of Scripture was Hebrew and Aramaic. Whether or not "English" was around I suggest you have not idea about that....I would yes since the tower of Bable.
i think you must be speaking in tongues
Well having bat avatar and under the sign of the Zodiac, we hardly take you as Bible friendly can we now ? The orginal language of Scripture was Hebrew and Aramaic. Whether or not "English" was around I suggest you have not idea about that....I would yes since the tower of Bable.
i think you must be speaking in tongues
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: You'd think that the Christ and God on earth would speak and know every language?
Here, have fun!
http://www.ingilish.com/orofeng.htm
AD 600 huh? That's a bit after Jesus departed. I fail to see you point here.
Here, have fun!
http://www.ingilish.com/orofeng.htm
AD 600 huh? That's a bit after Jesus departed. I fail to see you point here.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: i think you must be speaking in tongues
Confused, not hardly, what part don't ya understand ? You set yourself against God and then wonder why your confused?
Confused, not hardly, what part don't ya understand ? You set yourself against God and then wonder why your confused?
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
koan wrote: This is telling. So you're a Christian who doesn't want to discuss the bible yet you feel perfectly fine calling yourself an expert on the Qur'an and discussing it without "studying why God said these things". Pretty dim logic.
I fail to see where he calls himself an expert on either the Koran or the Bible. So already you've not be honest.
koan wrote:
Allow me extend this thread to "Does the Bible Sanction Violence?" just to make it more interesting.
From an open letter to Dr. Laura:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
Ah yes the ubiquitous letter to Dr. Laura ---whomever she is. But I've seen this anomian reply before, from someone who thinks they know Scripture and God's purposes
koan wrote:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
First off, you would not be allow to burn a Bull on the altar because for one thing there is no Temple nor are you a Levite and only levites were allow to do this.
koan wrote:
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
By the same token, since you are against the Torah I guess you could sell your daughter as a whore
NAS Leviticus 19:29 'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness.
koan wrote:
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
And living in the land of Israel back in the day when there were no santary napkins et. al., excatly what should God have told them ?
koan wrote:
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Isn't that excatly what this nation makes out of illegal aliens ? Slaves? I fail to see any illegal Canadians here do you?
koan wrote:
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Since the Sabbath is made for man the guys killing himself all by himself !
koan wrote:
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
I fail to see where Levitcus 11:10 makes this distinction. However an allergic reaction from Shell fish ( bottom feeding scum eaters) will kill you faster then AIDS will.
koan wrote:
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I fail to see where glasses are a blemish, you read the Scripture wrong!
koan wrote:
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
Being 'Set-apart" from other pagan nations is difficult isn't, nor do I see the death penalty for that one do you ?
koan wrote:
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Lets see now at least 20 or so guys touch that football after they went to the rest room, spit on it ect and it's been in the dirt--excatly why wouldn't you wash your hands--that's just common sense
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field,
Then he ain't much of a farmer, but a simpton
koan wrote:
as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
Probably gets sick alot and smelly to boot poly is not a "breatheable" fabric, one gets real overheated, sweats and gets stinky and sick, polyester is a plastic, I don't know about you but I won't wear plastic next to my body
koan wrote:
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Why bother sooner or later he'll curse somebody get in a fight and get killed.
koan wrote:
(Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Well sleep with your brothers wife and surely his brother will do somthing excatly like that. Do you think it's ok to sleep with your brother-in-law, sister-in-law ?
koan wrote:
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Hey lets not stop here! So since you are an anomian--against the Law, I guess your society would have no laws what so ever !
I fail to see where he calls himself an expert on either the Koran or the Bible. So already you've not be honest.
koan wrote:
Allow me extend this thread to "Does the Bible Sanction Violence?" just to make it more interesting.
From an open letter to Dr. Laura:
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
Ah yes the ubiquitous letter to Dr. Laura ---whomever she is. But I've seen this anomian reply before, from someone who thinks they know Scripture and God's purposes
koan wrote:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
First off, you would not be allow to burn a Bull on the altar because for one thing there is no Temple nor are you a Levite and only levites were allow to do this.
koan wrote:
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
By the same token, since you are against the Torah I guess you could sell your daughter as a whore
NAS Leviticus 19:29 'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness.
koan wrote:
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
And living in the land of Israel back in the day when there were no santary napkins et. al., excatly what should God have told them ?
koan wrote:
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Isn't that excatly what this nation makes out of illegal aliens ? Slaves? I fail to see any illegal Canadians here do you?
koan wrote:
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Since the Sabbath is made for man the guys killing himself all by himself !
koan wrote:
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
I fail to see where Levitcus 11:10 makes this distinction. However an allergic reaction from Shell fish ( bottom feeding scum eaters) will kill you faster then AIDS will.
koan wrote:
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I fail to see where glasses are a blemish, you read the Scripture wrong!
koan wrote:
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
Being 'Set-apart" from other pagan nations is difficult isn't, nor do I see the death penalty for that one do you ?
koan wrote:
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Lets see now at least 20 or so guys touch that football after they went to the rest room, spit on it ect and it's been in the dirt--excatly why wouldn't you wash your hands--that's just common sense
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field,
Then he ain't much of a farmer, but a simpton
koan wrote:
as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
Probably gets sick alot and smelly to boot poly is not a "breatheable" fabric, one gets real overheated, sweats and gets stinky and sick, polyester is a plastic, I don't know about you but I won't wear plastic next to my body
koan wrote:
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.
Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Why bother sooner or later he'll curse somebody get in a fight and get killed.
koan wrote:
(Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Well sleep with your brothers wife and surely his brother will do somthing excatly like that. Do you think it's ok to sleep with your brother-in-law, sister-in-law ?
koan wrote:
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Hey lets not stop here! So since you are an anomian--against the Law, I guess your society would have no laws what so ever !
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Nevim wrote: I fail to see where he calls himself an expert on either the Koran or the Bible. So already you've not be honest.
Atsila asks another member if they've studied Islam much...implying that Atsila has, then goes on to say:
"My prejudices are confirmed by the daily news, and reinforced by study, and vice versa"
so, yes, Atsila presents "itself" (gender unknown) as an expert...one who has studied a matter.
Just a little hint, those who accuse me of lying usually end up eating their words. One of my favourite movie quotes is from Hook "Me? Lie? No, no, no. The truth is far too much fun!"
As to the rest of that post, you seem to forget that I didn't write it. Keep that in mind. Beyond that, thanks for an honest attempt at addressing the questions raised. I'm unsure of your success.
Atsila asks another member if they've studied Islam much...implying that Atsila has, then goes on to say:
"My prejudices are confirmed by the daily news, and reinforced by study, and vice versa"
so, yes, Atsila presents "itself" (gender unknown) as an expert...one who has studied a matter.
Just a little hint, those who accuse me of lying usually end up eating their words. One of my favourite movie quotes is from Hook "Me? Lie? No, no, no. The truth is far too much fun!"
As to the rest of that post, you seem to forget that I didn't write it. Keep that in mind. Beyond that, thanks for an honest attempt at addressing the questions raised. I'm unsure of your success.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
koan wrote: Atsila asks another member if they've studied Islam much...implying that Atsila has, then goes on to say:
"My prejudices are confirmed by the daily news, and reinforced by study, and vice versa"
Oh baloney, you read that into what Atsila wrote.
koan wrote:
so, yes, Atsila presents "itself" (gender unknown) as an expert...one who has studied a matter.
The gender is niether here or there..and by your statements it must be you that consider's himself/herself an expert on the Koran . But then again since I have muslim friends you post it I'll check it.
koan wrote:
Just a little hint, those who accuse me of lying usually end up eating their words. One of my favourite movie quotes is from Hook "Me? Lie? No, no, no. The truth is far too much fun!"
Ditto, assuming and lying are two different animals--I did not accuse you of anything....
[QUOTE=koan]
As to the rest of that post, you seem to forget that I didn't write it. Keep that in mind. Beyond that, thanks for an honest attempt at addressing the questions raised. I'm unsure of your success.
Actually I could care less whether or not I have your approval of what is success.
"My prejudices are confirmed by the daily news, and reinforced by study, and vice versa"
Oh baloney, you read that into what Atsila wrote.
koan wrote:
so, yes, Atsila presents "itself" (gender unknown) as an expert...one who has studied a matter.
The gender is niether here or there..and by your statements it must be you that consider's himself/herself an expert on the Koran . But then again since I have muslim friends you post it I'll check it.
koan wrote:
Just a little hint, those who accuse me of lying usually end up eating their words. One of my favourite movie quotes is from Hook "Me? Lie? No, no, no. The truth is far too much fun!"
Ditto, assuming and lying are two different animals--I did not accuse you of anything....
[QUOTE=koan]
As to the rest of that post, you seem to forget that I didn't write it. Keep that in mind. Beyond that, thanks for an honest attempt at addressing the questions raised. I'm unsure of your success.
Actually I could care less whether or not I have your approval of what is success.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: AD 600 huh? That's a bit after Jesus departed. I fail to see you point here.
I showed you how long English has been around. That is all. I suggested that Jesus spoke/speaks all languages. OK?
I showed you how long English has been around. That is all. I suggested that Jesus spoke/speaks all languages. OK?
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: I showed you how long English has been around. That is all. I suggested that Jesus spoke/speaks all languages. OK?
Well actually your link d/n really relate to mobdern English just it's Saxon roots in Germany. The English language also contains a lot of French roots (post Norman conquest). In any case it still post dates the time of Jesus by a minimum of 600 years or so.
I think your point may be that you believe Jesus spoke all languages past and future? Yes?
Well actually your link d/n really relate to mobdern English just it's Saxon roots in Germany. The English language also contains a lot of French roots (post Norman conquest). In any case it still post dates the time of Jesus by a minimum of 600 years or so.
I think your point may be that you believe Jesus spoke all languages past and future? Yes?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Nevim wrote: Oh baloney, you read that into what Atsila wrote.
The gender is niether here or there..and by your statements it must be you that consider's himself/herself an expert on the Koran . But then again since I have muslim friends you post it I'll check it.
[QUOTE=koan]
Just a little hint, those who accuse me of lying usually end up eating their words. One of my favourite movie quotes is from Hook "Me? Lie? No, no, no. The truth is far too much fun!"
Ditto, assuming and lying are two different animals--I did not accuse you of anything....
Actually I could care less whether or not I have your approval of what is success.
You're a better man than I am, Nevim! I never reply to such posts, nor do I consider the suggestion that the person writing to Dr. Laura has an inkling of understanding of the subject matter presented in that letter. The very nature of it is steeped in bias, lacking in actual knowledge, and is devised to appeal to baser passion, to create angry responses.
God bless!
The gender is niether here or there..and by your statements it must be you that consider's himself/herself an expert on the Koran . But then again since I have muslim friends you post it I'll check it.
[QUOTE=koan]
Just a little hint, those who accuse me of lying usually end up eating their words. One of my favourite movie quotes is from Hook "Me? Lie? No, no, no. The truth is far too much fun!"
Ditto, assuming and lying are two different animals--I did not accuse you of anything....
Actually I could care less whether or not I have your approval of what is success.
You're a better man than I am, Nevim! I never reply to such posts, nor do I consider the suggestion that the person writing to Dr. Laura has an inkling of understanding of the subject matter presented in that letter. The very nature of it is steeped in bias, lacking in actual knowledge, and is devised to appeal to baser passion, to create angry responses.
God bless!
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: [QUOTE=Nevim]Oh baloney, you read that into what Atsila wrote.
The gender is niether here or there..and by your statements it must be you that consider's himself/herself an expert on the Koran . But then again since I have muslim friends you post it I'll check it.
You're a better man than I am, Nevim! I never reply to such posts, nor do I consider the suggestion that the person writing to Dr. Laura has an inkling of understanding of the subject matter presented in that letter. The very nature of it is steeped in bias, lacking in actual knowledge, and is devised to appeal to baser passion, to create angry responses.
God bless!
Sounds like you are talking about yourself now..
The gender is niether here or there..and by your statements it must be you that consider's himself/herself an expert on the Koran . But then again since I have muslim friends you post it I'll check it.
You're a better man than I am, Nevim! I never reply to such posts, nor do I consider the suggestion that the person writing to Dr. Laura has an inkling of understanding of the subject matter presented in that letter. The very nature of it is steeped in bias, lacking in actual knowledge, and is devised to appeal to baser passion, to create angry responses.
God bless!
Sounds like you are talking about yourself now..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: Well actually your link d/n really relate to mobdern English just it's Saxon roots in Germany. The English language also contains a lot of French roots (post Norman conquest). In any case it still post dates the time of Jesus by a minimum of 600 years or so.
I think your point may be that you believe Jesus spoke all languages past and future? Yes?
My point is/was that English has been around for a longer time than most people suspect. No more, no less.
Jesus, being omniscient, would have to know everything.
I think your point may be that you believe Jesus spoke all languages past and future? Yes?
My point is/was that English has been around for a longer time than most people suspect. No more, no less.
Jesus, being omniscient, would have to know everything.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: [QUOTE=Atsila]
Sounds like you are talking about yourself now..
Whatever is the point of this post ?
Sounds like you are talking about yourself now..
Whatever is the point of this post ?
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Nevim wrote: [QUOTE=zinkyusa]
Whatever is the point of this post ?
It's an attempt to put me in the place assigned to me by the speaker. Don't pay it any mind, Nevim.
Whatever is the point of this post ?
It's an attempt to put me in the place assigned to me by the speaker. Don't pay it any mind, Nevim.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
I have a Muslim Egyptian friend who lives in Saudi. He says that they do not condone violence, and that the good Muslims are embarrassed by Bin Laden. And then I also have a Coptic Christian Egyptian friend in Cairo who says that Muslims think it is all okay to rape and murder non Muslims. And that if it is during a wartime, that Muslims may also take Christian or Jewish women into slavery and do what they want with them, including rape and torture. And that since we Christians are non believers, that our flesh is there for a Muslim to do what they want with our bodies. As if we are non humans.
I think that in any faith, even the Muslim faith, there are nuts and people who follow the wrong leaders (Bin LAden for example). And it seems that religion is used as a mask or cover up for the real problems they are all fighting for, which are resources and power.
I think that in any faith, even the Muslim faith, there are nuts and people who follow the wrong leaders (Bin LAden for example). And it seems that religion is used as a mask or cover up for the real problems they are all fighting for, which are resources and power.
Your Kitty Forum
My Website
My Website
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Saffron wrote: I have a Muslim Egyptian friend who lives in Saudi. He says that they do not condone violence, and that the good Muslims are embarrassed by Bin Laden. And then I also have a Coptic Christian Egyptian friend in Cairo who says that Muslims think it is all okay to rape and murder non Muslims. And that if it is during a wartime, that Muslims may also take Christian or Jewish women into slavery and do what they want with them, including rape and torture. And that since we Christians are non believers, that our flesh is there for a Muslim to do what they want with our bodies. As if we are non humans.
I think that in any faith, even the Muslim faith, there are nuts and people who follow the wrong leaders (Bin LAden for example). And it seems that religion is used as a mask or cover up for the real problems they are all fighting for, which are resources and power.
Muslims, ALL muslims, are subject to the teachings of the koran, all of the teachings. Ask you friend if he/she is exempt from any mandates contained in the koran.
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Etc.
To disobey is death for the muslim.
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
--------
And so much more.
I find that muslims will deny these verses by stating they are incorrectly translated. Pickthall and Dawood are acceptable translators, but only until they are not. They are not acceptable when they go against the particular muslims poster. It's a highly convenient system.
I hope you enjoy your muslim friend. My personal physician is and I love him as my own child.
I think that in any faith, even the Muslim faith, there are nuts and people who follow the wrong leaders (Bin LAden for example). And it seems that religion is used as a mask or cover up for the real problems they are all fighting for, which are resources and power.
Muslims, ALL muslims, are subject to the teachings of the koran, all of the teachings. Ask you friend if he/she is exempt from any mandates contained in the koran.
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Etc.
To disobey is death for the muslim.
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
--------
And so much more.
I find that muslims will deny these verses by stating they are incorrectly translated. Pickthall and Dawood are acceptable translators, but only until they are not. They are not acceptable when they go against the particular muslims poster. It's a highly convenient system.
I hope you enjoy your muslim friend. My personal physician is and I love him as my own child.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: Muslims, ALL muslims, are subject to the teachings of the koran, all of the teachings. Ask you friend if he/she is exempt from any mandates contained in the koran.
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Etc.
To disobey is death for the muslim.
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
--------
And so much more.
I find that muslims will deny these verses by stating they are incorrectly translated. Pickthall and Dawood are acceptable translators, but only until they are not. They are not acceptable when they go against the particular muslims poster. It's a highly convenient system.
I hope you enjoy your muslim friend. My personal physician is and I love him as my own child.
Yep just like the Bible very convenient.
One can post quotes out of context all day long from the Bible as well.
Since you are not a Muslim why don't you stop posting from the Qur'an you don't know what you are talking about.
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Etc.
To disobey is death for the muslim.
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
--------
And so much more.
I find that muslims will deny these verses by stating they are incorrectly translated. Pickthall and Dawood are acceptable translators, but only until they are not. They are not acceptable when they go against the particular muslims poster. It's a highly convenient system.
I hope you enjoy your muslim friend. My personal physician is and I love him as my own child.
Yep just like the Bible very convenient.
One can post quotes out of context all day long from the Bible as well.
Since you are not a Muslim why don't you stop posting from the Qur'an you don't know what you are talking about.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: Muslims, ALL muslims, are subject to the teachings of the koran, all of the teachings. Ask you friend if he/she is exempt from any mandates contained in the koran.
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Etc.
To disobey is death for the muslim.
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
--------
And so much more.
I find that muslims will deny these verses by stating they are incorrectly translated. Pickthall and Dawood are acceptable translators, but only until they are not. They are not acceptable when they go against the particular muslims poster. It's a highly convenient system.
I hope you enjoy your muslim friend. My personal physician is and I love him as my own child.
This post has confused me.:-2
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Koran.html
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191
Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39
Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.
Etc.
To disobey is death for the muslim.
Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3
When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5
--------
And so much more.
I find that muslims will deny these verses by stating they are incorrectly translated. Pickthall and Dawood are acceptable translators, but only until they are not. They are not acceptable when they go against the particular muslims poster. It's a highly convenient system.
I hope you enjoy your muslim friend. My personal physician is and I love him as my own child.
This post has confused me.:-2
Your Kitty Forum
My Website
My Website
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Saffron wrote: This post has confused me.:-2
He has gone to some Muslim bashing site on the Internet and copied a bunch of out of context quotes from the Qur'an that are not very nice..
There are also many loving passages in the book as well. You may want to get an English translation and read it for yourself. That is what I am doing.
He has gone to some Muslim bashing site on the Internet and copied a bunch of out of context quotes from the Qur'an that are not very nice..
There are also many loving passages in the book as well. You may want to get an English translation and read it for yourself. That is what I am doing.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: Jesus, being omniscient, would have to know everything.That pretty much screws the Jesus theory then. I was never much convinced even before this suggestion that he had to be omniscient came along.
I'll go and read the thread, perhaps I should join in.
I'll go and read the thread, perhaps I should join in.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: I was wondering about this as I have started reading the Koran and soem of it's history. Certainly in the early parts of the Koran the message seems to be tolerance of other faiths, it even states that forced conversion is a sin. In later parts of the Koran there are statements that seem to encourage violence against non-believers. I have also read the Koran implies abrrogation meaning that the parts that came later chronologically override the early parts. It seems that more violent parts are later chronologially indicating that these parts override the tolerant parts.Zinky - what are you using to date "earlier" compared to "later"? Serious question.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
spot wrote: Zinky - what are you using to date "earlier" compared to "later"? Serious question.
LOL, OK spot I won't bite you.
Well I have just finished reading a sura called "The Cow". It was listed first in my translation of the Qur'an but was actually supposedly received about in the middle of the suras chronologically. In the intoduction it stated that the order of the surahs in the book does not reflect the chronological order of the Quranic verses. There are a lot of notes included in my copy which tell you what the actual chronological order was they were received in.
Here is a link that list them in their chronological order but they are listed by their Arabic name so you need to know that..
http://www.qran.org/q-chrono.htm
LOL, OK spot I won't bite you.
Well I have just finished reading a sura called "The Cow". It was listed first in my translation of the Qur'an but was actually supposedly received about in the middle of the suras chronologically. In the intoduction it stated that the order of the surahs in the book does not reflect the chronological order of the Quranic verses. There are a lot of notes included in my copy which tell you what the actual chronological order was they were received in.
Here is a link that list them in their chronological order but they are listed by their Arabic name so you need to know that..
http://www.qran.org/q-chrono.htm
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28. In the Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, "Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell."
However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."That reminded me very much of Cardinal Newman's passage on lying, in his Apologia - he might be considered to bear an equivalent authority:Supposing something has been confided to me in the strictest secrecy which could not be revealed without great disadvantage to another, what am I to do? If I am a lawyer, I am protected by my profession. I have a right to treat with extreme indignation any question which trenches on the inviolability of my position; but, supposing I was driven up into a corner, I think I should have a right to say an untruth, or that, under such circumstances, a lie would be material, but it is almost an impossible case, for the law would defend me. In like manner, as a priest, I should think it lawful to speak as if I knew nothing of what passed in confession. And I think in these cases, I do in fact possess that guarantee, that I am not going by private judgment, which just now I demanded; for society would bear me out, whether as a lawyer or as a priest, in holding that I had a duty to my client or penitent, such, that an untruth in the matter was not a lie. A common type of this permissible denial, be it material lie or evasion, is at the moment supplied to me:—an artist asked a Prime Minister, who was sitting to him, "What news, my Lord, from France? " He answered, "I do not know; I have not read the Papers."
A more difficult question is, when to accept confidence has not been a duty. Supposing a man wishes to keep the secret that he is the author of a book, and he is plainly asked on the subject. Here I should ask the previous question, whether any one has a right to publish what he dare not avow. It requires to have traced the bearings and results of such a principle, before being sure of it; but certainly, for myself, I am no friend of strictly anonymous writing. Next, supposing another has confided to you the secret of his authorship:—there are persons who would have no scruple at all in giving a denial to impertinent questions asked them on the subject. I have heard a great man in his day at Oxford, warmly contend, as if he could not enter into any other view of the matter, that, if he had been trusted by a friend with the secret of his being author of a certain book, and he were asked by a third person, if his friend was not (as he really was) the author of it, he ought without any scruple and distinctly, to answer that he did not know. He had an existing duty towards the author; he had none towards his inquirer. The author had a claim on him; an impertinent questioner had none at all. But here again I desiderate some leave, recognized by society, as in the case of the formulas "Not at home," and "Not guilty," in order to give me the right of saying what is a material untruth. And moreover, I should here also ask the previous question, Have I any right to accept such a confidence? have I any right to make such a promise? and, if it be an unlawful promise, is it binding when it cannot be kept without a lie? I am not attempting to solve these difficult questions, but they have to be carefully examined.
However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."That reminded me very much of Cardinal Newman's passage on lying, in his Apologia - he might be considered to bear an equivalent authority:Supposing something has been confided to me in the strictest secrecy which could not be revealed without great disadvantage to another, what am I to do? If I am a lawyer, I am protected by my profession. I have a right to treat with extreme indignation any question which trenches on the inviolability of my position; but, supposing I was driven up into a corner, I think I should have a right to say an untruth, or that, under such circumstances, a lie would be material, but it is almost an impossible case, for the law would defend me. In like manner, as a priest, I should think it lawful to speak as if I knew nothing of what passed in confession. And I think in these cases, I do in fact possess that guarantee, that I am not going by private judgment, which just now I demanded; for society would bear me out, whether as a lawyer or as a priest, in holding that I had a duty to my client or penitent, such, that an untruth in the matter was not a lie. A common type of this permissible denial, be it material lie or evasion, is at the moment supplied to me:—an artist asked a Prime Minister, who was sitting to him, "What news, my Lord, from France? " He answered, "I do not know; I have not read the Papers."
A more difficult question is, when to accept confidence has not been a duty. Supposing a man wishes to keep the secret that he is the author of a book, and he is plainly asked on the subject. Here I should ask the previous question, whether any one has a right to publish what he dare not avow. It requires to have traced the bearings and results of such a principle, before being sure of it; but certainly, for myself, I am no friend of strictly anonymous writing. Next, supposing another has confided to you the secret of his authorship:—there are persons who would have no scruple at all in giving a denial to impertinent questions asked them on the subject. I have heard a great man in his day at Oxford, warmly contend, as if he could not enter into any other view of the matter, that, if he had been trusted by a friend with the secret of his being author of a certain book, and he were asked by a third person, if his friend was not (as he really was) the author of it, he ought without any scruple and distinctly, to answer that he did not know. He had an existing duty towards the author; he had none towards his inquirer. The author had a claim on him; an impertinent questioner had none at all. But here again I desiderate some leave, recognized by society, as in the case of the formulas "Not at home," and "Not guilty," in order to give me the right of saying what is a material untruth. And moreover, I should here also ask the previous question, Have I any right to accept such a confidence? have I any right to make such a promise? and, if it be an unlawful promise, is it binding when it cannot be kept without a lie? I am not attempting to solve these difficult questions, but they have to be carefully examined.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
zinkyusa wrote: I was wondering about this as I have started reading the Koran and soem of it's history. Certainly in the early parts of the Koran the message seems to be tolerance of other faiths, it even states that forced conversion is a sin. In later parts of the Koran there are statements that seem to encourage violence against non-believers. I have also read the Koran implies abrrogation meaning that the parts that came later chronologically override the early parts. It seems that more violent parts are later chronologially indicating that these parts override the tolerant parts.
I always like to believe that all the religions may be able to find a way to coexist in peace but if Muslims tke the Koran literally and believe in abrrogation I am not so sure that is possible for them.
I didn't provide any quotes but I'll get them if any of premises are viewed to be incorrect..:-6
The koran might not but Mohamed did.
I always like to believe that all the religions may be able to find a way to coexist in peace but if Muslims tke the Koran literally and believe in abrrogation I am not so sure that is possible for them.
I didn't provide any quotes but I'll get them if any of premises are viewed to be incorrect..:-6
The koran might not but Mohamed did.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
twizzel wrote: The koran might not but Mohamed did.Come on, twizzel, where's he quoted as saying it that isn't in the Koran? You need to tell us so that we can go and read what you're on about and come back and discuss it here.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Saffron wrote: This post has confused me.:-2
In what way? The verses from the koran are explicit and may be easily verified in a good English translation.
In what way? The verses from the koran are explicit and may be easily verified in a good English translation.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
spot wrote: That pretty much screws the Jesus theory then. I was never much convinced even before this suggestion that he had to be omniscient came along.
I'll go and read the thread, perhaps I should join in.
Omniscient means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight or, possessing universal or complete knowledge.
Perhaps you should read my statement again.
Jesus, being omniscient, would have to know everything.
If HE does not know all languages, HE is not omniscient. That must be a difficult concept to raise such extraordinary interest.
I'll go and read the thread, perhaps I should join in.
Omniscient means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight or, possessing universal or complete knowledge.
Perhaps you should read my statement again.
Jesus, being omniscient, would have to know everything.
If HE does not know all languages, HE is not omniscient. That must be a difficult concept to raise such extraordinary interest.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
spot wrote: That reminded me very much of Cardinal Newman's passage on lying, in his Apologia - he might be considered to bear an equivalent authority:Supposing something has been confided to me in the strictest secrecy which could not be revealed without great disadvantage to another, what am I to do? If I am a lawyer, I am protected by my profession. I have a right to treat with extreme indignation any question which trenches on the inviolability of my position; but, supposing I was driven up into a corner, I think I should have a right to say an untruth, or that, under such circumstances, a lie would be material, but it is almost an impossible case, for the law would defend me. In like manner, as a priest, I should think it lawful to speak as if I knew nothing of what passed in confession. And I think in these cases, I do in fact possess that guarantee, that I am not going by private judgment, which just now I demanded; for society would bear me out, whether as a lawyer or as a priest, in holding that I had a duty to my client or penitent, such, that an untruth in the matter was not a lie. A common type of this permissible denial, be it material lie or evasion, is at the moment supplied to me:—an artist asked a Prime Minister, who was sitting to him, "What news, my Lord, from France? " He answered, "I do not know; I have not read the Papers."
A more difficult question is, when to accept confidence has not been a duty. Supposing a man wishes to keep the secret that he is the author of a book, and he is plainly asked on the subject. Here I should ask the previous question, whether any one has a right to publish what he dare not avow. It requires to have traced the bearings and results of such a principle, before being sure of it; but certainly, for myself, I am no friend of strictly anonymous writing. Next, supposing another has confided to you the secret of his authorship:—there are persons who would have no scruple at all in giving a denial to impertinent questions asked them on the subject. I have heard a great man in his day at Oxford, warmly contend, as if he could not enter into any other view of the matter, that, if he had been trusted by a friend with the secret of his being author of a certain book, and he were asked by a third person, if his friend was not (as he really was) the author of it, he ought without any scruple and distinctly, to answer that he did not know. He had an existing duty towards the author; he had none towards his inquirer. The author had a claim on him; an impertinent questioner had none at all. But here again I desiderate some leave, recognized by society, as in the case of the formulas "Not at home," and "Not guilty," in order to give me the right of saying what is a material untruth. And moreover, I should here also ask the previous question, Have I any right to accept such a confidence? have I any right to make such a promise? and, if it be an unlawful promise, is it binding when it cannot be kept without a lie? I am not attempting to solve these difficult questions, but they have to be carefully examined.
I gather Newman to be subject to the rules of his affiliation, which were established by the very same. Newman, being catholic, is not subject to biblical commandments, but those of sacred tradition which is entirely non-scriptural. I believe they are very happy with their system and have promoted it for a number of centuries. His dilemma is moral, intellectual, and most certainly spiritual.
OK?
Christians, on the other hand, have no scriptural authority to lie........under any circumstances. Muslims have the authority from their prophet, who speaks for their god, making both liars.
A more difficult question is, when to accept confidence has not been a duty. Supposing a man wishes to keep the secret that he is the author of a book, and he is plainly asked on the subject. Here I should ask the previous question, whether any one has a right to publish what he dare not avow. It requires to have traced the bearings and results of such a principle, before being sure of it; but certainly, for myself, I am no friend of strictly anonymous writing. Next, supposing another has confided to you the secret of his authorship:—there are persons who would have no scruple at all in giving a denial to impertinent questions asked them on the subject. I have heard a great man in his day at Oxford, warmly contend, as if he could not enter into any other view of the matter, that, if he had been trusted by a friend with the secret of his being author of a certain book, and he were asked by a third person, if his friend was not (as he really was) the author of it, he ought without any scruple and distinctly, to answer that he did not know. He had an existing duty towards the author; he had none towards his inquirer. The author had a claim on him; an impertinent questioner had none at all. But here again I desiderate some leave, recognized by society, as in the case of the formulas "Not at home," and "Not guilty," in order to give me the right of saying what is a material untruth. And moreover, I should here also ask the previous question, Have I any right to accept such a confidence? have I any right to make such a promise? and, if it be an unlawful promise, is it binding when it cannot be kept without a lie? I am not attempting to solve these difficult questions, but they have to be carefully examined.
I gather Newman to be subject to the rules of his affiliation, which were established by the very same. Newman, being catholic, is not subject to biblical commandments, but those of sacred tradition which is entirely non-scriptural. I believe they are very happy with their system and have promoted it for a number of centuries. His dilemma is moral, intellectual, and most certainly spiritual.
OK?
Christians, on the other hand, have no scriptural authority to lie........under any circumstances. Muslims have the authority from their prophet, who speaks for their god, making both liars.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: Omniscient means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight or, possessing universal or complete knowledge.
Perhaps you should read my statement again.
If HE does not know all languages, HE is not omniscient. That must be a difficult concept to raise such extraordinary interest.Thank you for the definition. You make my point for me quite well. Is the Jesus we're discussing the Son of God spoken of in the New Testament who was crucified? Then he isn't onmiscient, he's a man - or are you one of these strange heretics who says he was merely God taking a semblance of man and pretending? No man is omniscient, it's against the nature of man to possess such an attribute. Or are we discussing Jesus the Son of God who sits at the right hand of the Father for eternity? In what way is this aspect of the Trinity related to the man who was crucified, if he now differs in his abilities? Of course the man on the cross didn't know all languages, it's not an ability any man possesses. Whether omniscience is an aspect of God himself is a different question and not one I have an answer to. I'd be very unhappy to encounter any God so self-complete.
There is only one God - that we can, perhaps, describe as an accurate statement from within both of the religions under discussion?
Islam has one understanding of this single existent God, Christianity has a different understanding of the same existent God, each is based on a different scriptural revelation. I see no reason other than faith to insist that one revelation is true and right and the other false and wrong. I see no ground to prefer one description over the other save a personal ethical evaluation. The interpretation of God established by the Koran is rather more attractive to me than that established by the Bible, but being fallible I'm aware that my assessment needn't bind others. Each adherent will, at best, take whatever he can benefit by from his association with religion. Perhaps both Koran and Bible can be said to sanction violence if you filter small enough fragments from each. Perhaps to focus so closely on a small part of either is to insult the whole.
Perhaps you should read my statement again.
If HE does not know all languages, HE is not omniscient. That must be a difficult concept to raise such extraordinary interest.Thank you for the definition. You make my point for me quite well. Is the Jesus we're discussing the Son of God spoken of in the New Testament who was crucified? Then he isn't onmiscient, he's a man - or are you one of these strange heretics who says he was merely God taking a semblance of man and pretending? No man is omniscient, it's against the nature of man to possess such an attribute. Or are we discussing Jesus the Son of God who sits at the right hand of the Father for eternity? In what way is this aspect of the Trinity related to the man who was crucified, if he now differs in his abilities? Of course the man on the cross didn't know all languages, it's not an ability any man possesses. Whether omniscience is an aspect of God himself is a different question and not one I have an answer to. I'd be very unhappy to encounter any God so self-complete.
There is only one God - that we can, perhaps, describe as an accurate statement from within both of the religions under discussion?
Islam has one understanding of this single existent God, Christianity has a different understanding of the same existent God, each is based on a different scriptural revelation. I see no reason other than faith to insist that one revelation is true and right and the other false and wrong. I see no ground to prefer one description over the other save a personal ethical evaluation. The interpretation of God established by the Koran is rather more attractive to me than that established by the Bible, but being fallible I'm aware that my assessment needn't bind others. Each adherent will, at best, take whatever he can benefit by from his association with religion. Perhaps both Koran and Bible can be said to sanction violence if you filter small enough fragments from each. Perhaps to focus so closely on a small part of either is to insult the whole.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
Atsila wrote: I gather Newman to be subject to the rules of his affiliation, which were established by the very same. Newman, being catholic, is not subject to biblical commandments, but those of sacred tradition which is entirely non-scriptural.Wow. To what subset of Christianity do you adhere, which excludes catholics from the Church?
A proportion of Muslims live a godly life within their faith. A proportion of Christians live a godly life within their faith. I would hesitate to compare or even estimate the proportions but I feel the statements are true. What just God would refuse them whatever reward he offers? A similarly unstated proportion of each live ungodly lives. How can you use their faith as a yardstick to distinguish any of these sets?
A proportion of Muslims live a godly life within their faith. A proportion of Christians live a godly life within their faith. I would hesitate to compare or even estimate the proportions but I feel the statements are true. What just God would refuse them whatever reward he offers? A similarly unstated proportion of each live ungodly lives. How can you use their faith as a yardstick to distinguish any of these sets?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Does the Koran Sanction Violence?
spot wrote: Wow. To what subset of Christianity do you adhere, which excludes catholics from the Church?
A proportion of Muslims live a godly life within their faith. A proportion of Christians live a godly life within their faith. I would hesitate to compare or even estimate the proportions but I feel the statements are true. What just God would refuse them whatever reward he offers? A similarly unstated proportion of each live ungodly lives. How can you use their faith as a yardstick to distinguish any of these sets?
Hey Spot, not to change the subject but I was wondering what your view is on abrogation as regards the Qur'an, seems to be a hot topic among Muslim scholars. Extremists like to use it to say the tolerant messages are over-ruled by the violent one becuase they came later in time. They say there are passages in the Qur'an that imply abrogation (I have not found these yet).
If they are I think the Qur'an was altered by someone I just can believe that is part of the original message. Since it took some time after Mohammeds death before the verses were written down there was ample opportunity for tampering and editing..
A proportion of Muslims live a godly life within their faith. A proportion of Christians live a godly life within their faith. I would hesitate to compare or even estimate the proportions but I feel the statements are true. What just God would refuse them whatever reward he offers? A similarly unstated proportion of each live ungodly lives. How can you use their faith as a yardstick to distinguish any of these sets?
Hey Spot, not to change the subject but I was wondering what your view is on abrogation as regards the Qur'an, seems to be a hot topic among Muslim scholars. Extremists like to use it to say the tolerant messages are over-ruled by the violent one becuase they came later in time. They say there are passages in the Qur'an that imply abrogation (I have not found these yet).
If they are I think the Qur'an was altered by someone I just can believe that is part of the original message. Since it took some time after Mohammeds death before the verses were written down there was ample opportunity for tampering and editing..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.