By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Islam is not bad, too many of you are ignorant of history.

Booh! on 27 February 2011
Mr Khan said:
Joelcool7 said:
superchunk said:
ProdigyBam said:
 
ProdigyBam said:
 

I can say it HUNDRED times and you wont understand it, huh?

when so called christians are killing someone its not the fault of christianity because they do what is AGAINST the bible, killing someone even your enemys is one of the biggest sins in the bible

but if so called ISLAMISTS kill other people in terrorist acts they act like real muslims because the quran want them to do such things, thats the f***ing difference

 


In the Quran is written "KIll every infidel" not "kill the attacking arabs who arent muslims yet" that would be historical context, like it is in the old testament

BUT there are more than HUNDRED orders most of them NEWER verse from the medinesic time that annull older, meccanic verses and the quran was given to muhammad for all time and the orders are effective until forever according to the quran.

please dont believe a muslim, like i said it, read the quran and the hadiths for yourself if you want to know the truth

Man you drive me crazy.

Also, the OT has the exact same commands by God to kill infidels and other unbelievers. Difference is, you read the entire paragraph and know it is refereing to events that were current or about to take place, such as wars when Israelites took control of what would become Judea. These commands to kill all that were not Jews are no different, actually far more harsh than Qur'anic laws of war, than the commands where Muslims were to fight the pagans in Arabia during the time the Qur'an was written.

But, you keep spreadin' your hate.


God refered to specific people during the time. I don't recall in the old testiment God saying to kill all who don't believe. He names specific tribes and people that had angered him. The jews did carry out several brutal attacks but not all of the attacks recorded in the Old Testiment were ordered by God and those that were , were specific orders not kill all that don't believe.

Even the Old Testiment clearly said "Though shalt not murder". I don't know if the Qur'an has a similiar order in it, though I have read many passages which may have been taken out of context but support killing infidel.

Also the Old Testiment is not the cornerstone of Christianity. It is the basis of Jewish beliefs. The New Testiment follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which supercede anything found in the Old Testiment. Why? Jesus death was meant to atone for all the sins any man commits. His sacrafice was to cleanse man of their sins as a lamb used to be sacraficed to do so. Jesus was the lamb and according to the New Testiment and Christ himself all those that believe in Jesus and follow his teachings will be forgiven of their sins and they are to try to lead all non-believers into a relationship with Christ Jesus our Lord.

So clearly the teachings of Jesus do not promote killing of anyone outside of defence. The Old Testiment is history it teaches many of God's laws. However the punishments for those who break those laws are forgiven by Jesus death. So the idea of stoning prostitutes and adulterers is replaced with showing mercy and love.

Yes prostitution, adultery and such are still wrong but Jesus teaches that no one is without sin and all should be forgiven and treated lovingly.

Making the Old Testiment more of a guidline for how to live our lives rather then law. Don't use the Old Testiment to try and make Christians look as bad as Islam! Because Christianity is not based on the Old Testiment rather the new one.

I'll tell you that Commandment 5, as far as "murder" was probably meant specifically regarding killing other Jews. Most of the commandments are taken so far out of context these days as to have little to do with their original meaning. "Honor thy father and thy mother," for instance, is a commandment directed at the guy who doesn't want to pay his mom's nursing home bills (or the era's equivalent), and not the kid who doesn't want to go to bed on time, as is the modern, out-of-context interpretation

And we can see in our modern days the people that take this stuff to be seriously directed at them in their context, like the people who literally interpret the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality, which were more about keeping domestic peace than because God hates it (i.e. adult men who would have sex with each other were likely married, thus creating all kinds of interfamilial fun), and can see how contextual issues of intra-Arabian conflict could, just perhaps, be taken to justify blowing up skyscrapers in a country that didn't even exist at the time?

I can't get why, when we are talking about Christianity, we talk about the Old Testament. It's just propaedeutic for Christians, it's not mandatory since it's superseded by the New Testament. At least the catholic catechism states clearly that the OT regards the old covenant and the Jews and that it must be interpreted in its context. In the OT there are a lot of teachings that were trashed already by the early christians (and Jesus himself btw): Jews were polygamist while Christians are not, Jews couldn't make pictures of their God while Christians always could, Jews couldn't eat a lot of stuff (pretty much like Muslims) while Christians always ate everything (but on Friday) and so on and on and on.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 27 February 2011
Booh! said:
Mr Khan said:

I'll tell you that Commandment 5, as far as "murder" was probably meant specifically regarding killing other Jews. Most of the commandments are taken so far out of context these days as to have little to do with their original meaning. "Honor thy father and thy mother," for instance, is a commandment directed at the guy who doesn't want to pay his mom's nursing home bills (or the era's equivalent), and not the kid who doesn't want to go to bed on time, as is the modern, out-of-context interpretation

And we can see in our modern days the people that take this stuff to be seriously directed at them in their context, like the people who literally interpret the Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality, which were more about keeping domestic peace than because God hates it (i.e. adult men who would have sex with each other were likely married, thus creating all kinds of interfamilial fun), and can see how contextual issues of intra-Arabian conflict could, just perhaps, be taken to justify blowing up skyscrapers in a country that didn't even exist at the time?

I can't get why, when we are talking about Christianity, we talk about the Old Testament. It's just propaedeutic for Christians, it's not mandatory since it's superseded by the New Testament. At least the catholic catechism states clearly that the OT regards the old covenant and the Jews and that it must be interpreted in its context. In the OT there are a lot of teachings that were trashed already by the early christians (and Jesus himself btw): Jews were polygamist while Christians are not, Jews couldn't make pictures of their God while Christians always could, Jews couldn't eat a lot of stuff (pretty much like Muslims) while Christians always ate everything (but on Friday) and so on and on and on.

Yet the Old Testament is cited erroneously by fundamentalist Christians for various things (starting with the Creation Story as an absolute truth). The point being that fundamentalists refuse to take historical context into account and screw up things for everyone else, much like the Mullahs ordering death on this that and the other thing



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Joelcool7 on 27 February 2011
superchunk said:
Joelcool7 said:
 


Hey Super Chunk I have a question that I have been to afraid to ask my Muslim friend. He's always trying to convert me so I try to change the subject as much as possible and not discuss Islam or Christianity.

But he says that the Bible is a Holy Text in Islam and that Jesus is a prophet of Allah. However he says Jesus never died on the cross or resurected three days later. He says Jesus ascended like Muhammed.

But this gets me confused.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the son of God. It also says in the Bible that Jesus died and was resurected. Jesus himself claimed to be the son of God. So this has had me puzzled wouldn't Jesus have been a false prophet as he claimed to be Gods son? And how can the Bible be a Holy Text when it clearly says Jesus resurected three days after being killed on the cross?

The only thing I agree with his mythology is that Jesus ascended to heaven and is coming back. But he ascended after being killed on the cross.

My Muslim friend gets highly pissed off at me. One time he came into my house and my Bible was on the ground. He started yelling at me, The Bible is a Holy Book it should not be on the ground how can you treat it like that.

But if the Bible is such a Holy Book and Jesus is truly a prophet of Allah then why don't Muslim's read the Bible? And how can the Bible be a holy text since it clearly states Jesus is God's son. And how can Jesus be a prophet when he said he was God's son. And how can Jesus not die on the cross in Islam while dying on the cross in the "Holy" Bible?

It's just something I've always wanted to ask him but never had the balls too!

According to the Qur'an...

Jesus is a Prophet just any before him and Muhammad after. He was human not a god in any form. The Qur'an states that Jesus has not died, that it only appeared to others as if he was on the cross. Instead he was pulled up to God until it is time for him to return to be the Messiah. His job was to return the Jews back to God's path, using miracles to prove his message is true, and then leave in order to return later to bring the end of the worlds.

The Qur'an also teaches that it is not the first holy writing to be given to people. The Jews received their Torah from Prophet Moses, however over the centuries they have lost parts of its meanings and have always received other prophets to bring them back on track (of which Jesus was the last).

The Qur'an also says Jesus brought a purely verbal "book" called the Ingil. This book is not the New Testament. However, parts of it can be found in the NT through Jesus' teachings and parables.

According to history and the Bible itself...

Jesus never claimed to be a literal "son of god" or an actual god himself. It was common during that time for people to proclaim how good they are at something. As an example, someone who is a great blacksmith would have said they are the "son of a blacksmith". Whether they really were or not was irrelevant. Additionally, hit up one of the many search able online Bible's and you can find that all throughout the OT prophets, random people, animals, trees, etc are all at times referred to as son(s), daughter(s), children of God. It is simply a phrase to get a meaning across that this person is a great worshiper of God. This can be seen in the bible where Jesus actually shows the opposite of him being god by:

John 20:17 "Jesus told her, "Don't hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Statements like this are all through the Bible. Jesus was clearly always aware of his role and his separation from the God he worshiped.

Additionally, a little study of early Christianity also proves that the entire idea of Trinity/Jesus as a god was really just a result of Roman forced acceptance of Christianity and especially the outcome of the vote put forth during the Council of Nicaea in 325CE.... 300 years after Jesus left. At this time there was a major divide among Christians regarding Jesus' divinity and some believed as most do today that Jesus was part of God in a holy trinity, while many others, as they still do today in Egypt,Ethiopia,parts of Lebanon... that Jesus was a Prophet and not God. The Roman leaders wanted to keep it from going into a civil war and began the first of the many religious councils where entire parts of the belief system were put to a vote. The first was whether or not Jesus was divine and the Trinity group was better represented and won. So basically, you can consider most of all modern beliefs in Christianity based on popular votes.

Same goes with the specific collection of books/letters that now exist in the Bible. The specific dates for Easter and Christmas, etc. All based on Romans (who only accepted Christianity to keep off from a larger war and division) diplomatic skills to get all the pagans to accept a forced conversion to Christianity.

 

However, yes a real Muslim would regard ALL the holy books and Prophets as equals as the Qur'an specifies as such. I have multiple TaNahKs, Bibles, and Qur'ans in my house. They are all well respected and have their specific spots. My children know not to mishandle any of them and respect the beliefs of each and their followers. Because in the end....

Chapter 5 - 69
"Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah (The God) and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. "


Man you need to re-read the Bible if you have ever done so. John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Throughout the Bible Jesus makes many claims to be the direct son of God. I have read the Bible cover to cover three times and while yes I don't have it all memorized I am very sure the Trinity and Jesus claiming to be God are both cornerstones in the Bible's make up.

As for what the Roman's did. They never changed the Bible itself, the Catholic's have the Dogma and other Holy Books. But the Bible itself was not altered. Christmas and Eastern were made so that Christian's could celebrate pagan holiday's without being pagan themselves. However note that the Bible was not altered to tell you the specific days of Easter or Christmas. These days were chosen by the Romans.

But I can rest assure you that the Bible was not altered by the romans. I know this because the dead sea scrolls (Basis for the Bible) actually came to a University in my area and translators translated them again. The origional documents exist today and are constantly being translated. Also almost all translations come out nearly identical.

The Roman's may have created holiday's and shaped the way Christian's thought but the Bible itself and its teachings remained un-altered.

Also just so we are clear, we do both believe in the same God. The God of Abraham the only difference is I believe Jesus was the messiah and the third part of the Holy Trinity. While you believe he was a prophet but you to believe he is the mesiah.

Also the Holy Trinity

Isaiah 48:16 “I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

Mathew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost.

Just to point out two of the passages in the Bible which confirm the Trinity.




-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Booh! on 27 February 2011
superchunk said:

(1) Jesus never claimed to be a literal "son of god" or an actual god himself. It was common during that time for people to proclaim how good they are at something. As an example, someone who is a great blacksmith would have said they are the "son of a blacksmith". Whether they really were or not was irrelevant. Additionally, hit up one of the many search able online Bible's and you can find that all throughout the OT prophets, random people, animals, trees, etc are all at times referred to as son(s), daughter(s), children of God. It is simply a phrase to get a meaning across that this person is a great worshiper of God. This can be seen in the bible where Jesus actually shows the opposite of him being god by:

John 20:17 "Jesus told her, "Don't hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Statements like this are all through the Bible. Jesus was clearly always aware of his role and his separation from the God he worshiped.

(2) Additionally, a little study of early Christianity also proves that the entire idea of Trinity/Jesus as a god was really just a result of Roman forced acceptance of Christianity and especially the outcome of the vote put forth during the Council of Nicaea in 325CE.... 300 years after Jesus left. At this time there was a major divide among Christians regarding Jesus' divinity and some believed as most do today that Jesus was part of God in a holy trinity, while many others, as they still do today in (3) Egypt,Ethiopia,parts of Lebanon... that Jesus was a Prophet and not God. The Roman leaders wanted to keep it from going into a civil war and began the first of the many religious councils where entire parts of the belief system were put to a vote. The first was whether or not Jesus was divine and the Trinity group was better represented and won. So basically, you can consider most of all modern beliefs in Christianity based on popular votes.

Same goes with the specific collection of books/letters that now exist in the Bible. (4) The specific dates for Easter and Christmas, etc. All based on Romans (who only accepted Christianity to keep off from a larger war and division) diplomatic skills to get all the pagans to accept a forced conversion to Christianity.

 

However, yes a (5) real Muslim would regard ALL the holy books and Prophets as equals as the Qur'an specifies as such. I have multiple TaNahKs, Bibles, and Qur'ans in my house. They are all well respected and have their specific spots. My children know not to mishandle any of them and respect the beliefs of each and their followers. Because in the end....

Chapter 5 - 69
"Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah (The God) and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. "

(1) "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7) He was condemned for blasphemy, you know.

(2) No, it's a concept present since the inception of Christianity: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)

The Council of Nicaea just stated that it was a dogma, to counter the teachings of Arius.

(3) False. Coptic Orthodox christians are and always were trinitarian. A friend of mine is Ethiopian. There is an ethiopian church in Rome built in the XII century, if they were not trinitarian (i.e. heretic) that would not be possible.

(4) That's common knowledge and it's not a problem. If you don't know the exact date, choose one. Pope Gregorius reformed the calendar, not because Christmas wasn't on Christmas, but because the equinox wasn't on the 21st of March.

(5) Sunni muslims can follow different schools of interpretation of the Qu'ran, none of which is superior to the others. For example the Grand Mufti of Cairo (who was appointed by Mubarak, a secularist authoritarian leader, by the way) said that women can wear trousers, however some sudanese women were lashed for wearing trousers. They're both right, from an islamic perspective. I laugh hard when someone says that Islam condems this or that: perhaps there's a school of thought that condems such actions, but may be other schools, equally authoritative, that think differently.



FaRmLaNd on 27 February 2011

Its pretty difficult to justify murder with a negative position on a claim. That just doesn't make any sense. An atheist can subscribe to many types of philosophy whether its communism, secular humanism, nihilism etc. Many of them you can justify atrocities with, but that justification doesn't in and of it self come from atheism, because a negative position on a claim by another person doesn't easily translate into any justification for anything, because it only deals with one thing, which is the rejection of the claim by theists. 

What you should look at is the actual philosophies that said atheists posited and critique them vigorously because any philosophical or theological framework that allows for unjustified and unreasonable use of force, should be rightly derided by everyone.



Around the Network
superchunk on 27 February 2011
Joelcool7 said:


Man you need to re-read the Bible if you have ever done so. John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Throughout the Bible Jesus makes many claims to be the direct son of God. I have read the Bible cover to cover three times and while yes I don't have it all memorized I am very sure the Trinity and Jesus claiming to be God are both cornerstones in the Bible's make up.

As for what the Roman's did. They never changed the Bible itself, the Catholic's have the Dogma and other Holy Books. But the Bible itself was not altered. Christmas and Eastern were made so that Christian's could celebrate pagan holiday's without being pagan themselves. However note that the Bible was not altered to tell you the specific days of Easter or Christmas. These days were chosen by the Romans.

But I can rest assure you that the Bible was not altered by the romans. I know this because the dead sea scrolls (Basis for the Bible) actually came to a University in my area and translators translated them again. The origional documents exist today and are constantly being translated. Also almost all translations come out nearly identical.

The Roman's may have created holiday's and shaped the way Christian's thought but the Bible itself and its teachings remained un-altered.

Also just so we are clear, we do both believe in the same God. The God of Abraham the only difference is I believe Jesus was the messiah and the third part of the Holy Trinity. While you believe he was a prophet but you to believe he is the mesiah.

Also the Holy Trinity

Isaiah 48:16 “I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

Mathew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost.

Just to point out two of the passages in the Bible which confirm the Trinity.

I didn't want to turn this thread into a argument about Christianity, so I'm sorry beforehand for replying to this and the one after this.

I have read multiple translations of the Bible. I have taken many history classes on the Jewish TaNaKh, NT, OT, Book of Psalms, various nonCannon Christian books, etc. I do understand the Bible as well as I do the Qur'an, the Hindu Vedas, various other books regarding Zorastoranism, Buddhism, and other general religious literature. I think I mentioned before that my initial degree was going to focus on divinity, so I've read a lot on the subject.

John 14:6 - Just says that people should follow his ways to get to heaven. As a prophet, I wouldn't expect anything less.

Isaiah 48:16 - huh? Bad translation and it has nothing to do with Jesus (its Isaiah talking). Here is the NIV translation...

16 “Come near me and listen to this:   “From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret;
   at the time it happens, I am there.”

   And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me (Isaiah, he's referring to himself),
   endowed with his Spirit."

This does not prove trinity in any way unless you're trying to say Isaiah is also the son of God. Speaking that, just search Google. Israel (as a nation exodus 4:22) and David (the king/prophet psalms 89:20-29) were both called God's son by God himself in the OT.

Mathew 28:19 - This verse is a very big area of conjecture as its argued that since it doesn't exist as quoted above in the oldest copies of the text that it was actually edited to be there and in reality Jesus never said any such thing.

1. Baptising with the trinity is known to not have been used in practice until the 3rd century.
2. Just read about the history around the Council of Nicea in 325CE. There is a reason there was so much fighting about trinity ideology and this council was all about settling this dispute.
3. ACTS 19:5 has baptism set out differently.
4. 4th century citations of this verse by Eusebius of Caesarea mention only baptizing in the name of Jesus, just like acts 19:5.



superchunk on 28 February 2011
Booh! said:

(1) "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7) He was condemned for blasphemy, you know.

(2) No, it's a concept present since the inception of Christianity: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)

The Council of Nicaea just stated that it was a dogma, to counter the teachings of Arius.

(3) False. Coptic Orthodox christians are and always were trinitarian. A friend of mine is Ethiopian. There is an ethiopian church in Rome built in the XII century, if they were not trinitarian (i.e. heretic) that would not be possible.

(4) That's common knowledge and it's not a problem. If you don't know the exact date, choose one. Pope Gregorius reformed the calendar, not because Christmas wasn't on Christmas, but because the equinox wasn't on the 21st of March.

(5) Sunni muslims can follow different schools of interpretation of the Qu'ran, none of which is superior to the others. For example the Grand Mufti of Cairo (who was appointed by Mubarak, a secularist authoritarian leader, by the way) said that women can wear trousers, however some sudanese women were lashed for wearing trousers. They're both right, from an islamic perspective. I laugh hard when someone says that Islam condems this or that: perhaps there's a school of thought that condems such actions, but may be other schools, equally authoritative, that think differently.

1. That isn't Jesus speaking.

2. Read my post above about this verse.

3. Yep, picked Ethiopians incorrectly. But, a quick search for nontrinitarian christians will reveal several others. Wikipedia page has a nice list.

4. If Romans did change important dates like these, what else did they change?

5. Of course there are differing view points. If everyone believed what I believe there would be no X360.



megaman79 on 28 February 2011

Off topic is cancer, why do you even bother superchunk?

Im sorry for the treatment you, and others like you, recieve, but atleast you can feel comforted knowing that most of the people here are either mostly trolling for attention, or genuinely warped by their parents, their media, their government.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Joelcool7 on 28 February 2011
superchunk said:
Joelcool7 said:


Man you need to re-read the Bible if you have ever done so. John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Throughout the Bible Jesus makes many claims to be the direct son of God. I have read the Bible cover to cover three times and while yes I don't have it all memorized I am very sure the Trinity and Jesus claiming to be God are both cornerstones in the Bible's make up.

As for what the Roman's did. They never changed the Bible itself, the Catholic's have the Dogma and other Holy Books. But the Bible itself was not altered. Christmas and Eastern were made so that Christian's could celebrate pagan holiday's without being pagan themselves. However note that the Bible was not altered to tell you the specific days of Easter or Christmas. These days were chosen by the Romans.

But I can rest assure you that the Bible was not altered by the romans. I know this because the dead sea scrolls (Basis for the Bible) actually came to a University in my area and translators translated them again. The origional documents exist today and are constantly being translated. Also almost all translations come out nearly identical.

The Roman's may have created holiday's and shaped the way Christian's thought but the Bible itself and its teachings remained un-altered.

Also just so we are clear, we do both believe in the same God. The God of Abraham the only difference is I believe Jesus was the messiah and the third part of the Holy Trinity. While you believe he was a prophet but you to believe he is the mesiah.

Also the Holy Trinity

Isaiah 48:16 “I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.”

Mathew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son and of the Holy Ghost.

Just to point out two of the passages in the Bible which confirm the Trinity.

I didn't want to turn this thread into a argument about Christianity, so I'm sorry beforehand for replying to this and the one after this.


John 3:16 , disputes the fact that Jesus is not God or his direct son. I could go on finding versus you'd go on disputing them. Then I'd point out the Bible clearly states Jesus died on the cross and rose again three days later which Islam says never happened.

I'm not trying to convert you or somehow belittle your faith. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how the Bible can be considered a Holy text in Islam when it refutes many of the Qur'an and Islam's teachings.

Also you claim to have read the Bible and seem very intelligent. I have read alot of the Qur'an and read the Bible cover to cover three times. I also read the books of apocrypha. But I haven't read as many supposed Holy texts as you have.

So consider my little topic derail over. But in all honesty extreme Islam out numbers moderate Islam and with moderates not moving to lead the others back on the right path extreme Islam will spread like a plague as it already has infected most of the Middle East and North Africa.

I consider extreme Islam a disease and moderate Muslim's are the only cure for this desease. But their aren't enough moderate Muslims fighting it. At this rate moderate Islam will disapear altogether and extreme Islam will rule!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Booh! on 28 February 2011
superchunk said:

1. That isn't Jesus speaking.

2. Read my post above about this verse.

3. Yep, picked Ethiopians incorrectly. But, a quick search for nontrinitarian christians will reveal several others. Wikipedia page has a nice list.

4. If Romans did change important dates like these, what else did they change?

5. Of course there are differing view points. If everyone believed what I believe there would be no X360.

1) It doesn't matter.

2) I read it.

3) Yes and the oldest of them was founded in 1830.

4) The birthday of Jesus is unknown, and no, it isn't important if He was born on the 25th of Dec. or 6th of Jan. None was ever excommunicated for saying that.

5) This was the only argument on topic of the whole derailment of this thread. So I explain it better: if Grand Mufti "A" says "bombing western buildings is wrong", but Grand Mufti "B" says "bombing western buildings is just", a follower of "B" can bomb as he wish and, what's more important, he's a good muslim for both "A" and "B", because none of them is more authoritarian than the other (this is valid for sunni, while shi'a and other Islamic sects differ). This is radically different from religions with a determined central authority that dictates what's good and what's bad.