Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on July 02, 2005, 06:07:05 PM
-
Hi All,
Every Sunday we include a section in our worship folder entitled "Praying for the Persecuted Church" where we have details about Christians throughout the world who are suffering because of their faith and are in need of prayer. Pakistan, the Sudan, and Indonesia are the "big three" that seem to come up again and again. Here is the one for this Sunday, I wish I could say that this kind of thing was uncommon, but unbelievable nuttiness like this seems to be becoming all too common in the nations of the 10/40 window.
-----------------------
Christian Areas Attacked in Pakistan
June 30, 2005
Sources have told The Voice of the Martyrs that at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, Christian homes in three areas near Peshawar, Pakistan were attacked by a radical Muslim mob. VOM contacts are currently investigating, and more details of the story should be available soon.
The attacks came after a Christian man was accused earlier that day of burning pages with Koranic verses written on them.
VOM sources say that the man, Yousaf Masih, is more than 60 years old and has worked for almost two decades as a sweeper for the Pakistani military. His most recent assignment was cleaning in the home of a military officer, a major. Yesterday the major asked him to clean the office at the major’s home. During the cleaning, he came across a bag of “rough papers,” and the major told Yousaf to take the papers outside and burn them.
Yousaf is illiterate, and would have no way of knowing what was written on the papers he had been told to burn. Other workers saw the papers and said that Yousaf was burning pages from the Koran.
After hearing their accusations, Yousaf ran away and went to his home, in the Lama Veera area of Nowshera, east of Peshawar, in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier. At 3 p.m. yesterday, police came to the home and arrested Yousaf. Insulting Islam, the Prophet Mohammed or the Koran can be punishable with death under Pakistan’s harsh anti-blasphemy laws. Following the arrest, a group of angry Muslims came to the home and began to beat Yousaf’s three sons.
Radical Muslims returned to the area at about 10 p.m. last night, and burnt an estimated total of 200 houses in Lama Veera, CMH and Saran. Many houses were looted by members of the mob, who stole TVs, refrigerators and other items. The mob beat Yousaf’s three sons, and his brother, Yaqoob. Police have reportedly arrested 16 people involved in the attacks. A Hindu temple was also attacked, as apparently the mob at first believed Yousaf was a Hindu.
Large police forces have surrounded all three areas in an effort to restore order. The Voice of the Martyrs workers are en route to the area, and will evaluate the immediate needs of the Christians there who have lost their homes. Reportedly Christians are currently in fear of further attacks.
------------
Source: VOM (http://www.persecution.com/news/index.cfm?action=fullstory&newsID=328)
Independent confirmation of the story in Pakistani Press: here (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg7_16)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Every Sunday we include a section in our worship folder entitled "Praying for the Persecuted Church" where we have details about Christians throughout the world who are suffering because of their faith and are in need of prayer.
Seagoon, you do realize that the "Persecuted Church" is usually the one commiting the most persecution? Do they ever talk about that? About the atrocities commited all the way back from the Crusades through to the mass murder of muslims in Bosnia and Serbia? All commited in the name of Christianity?
If you read through a little history you'll soon realize that Christianity "started it" - with their attacks on a quite moderate muslim civilisation that didn't deserve it. And then theres the whole Jewish thing...
What amazes me about the whole thing is that Christianity, Islam, and Judism all believe in the same god.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
What amazes me about the whole thing is that Christianity, Islam, and Judism all believe in the same god.
And they all believe the 'other guy' is going to hell and rush to send him to it by any available means.
Some of the best and worst incidents since recorded times have happened because of religion.
Some things never change...
-
Deleted.
Rule #7.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Deleted.
Rule #7.
No, the Christians leave the villages standing and take the inhabitants out to a quiet field dig their own mass grave.
Much as I despise some parts of Islam, I have to admire parts of it as well. For instance, the koran is the original source work of their prophet, untranslated, unchanged, straight from prophet to paper. Their "prophet" never claimed any supernatural powers, and was fairly well educated and rounded for the time. They were also extremely tolerant up until the crusades unsettled things, they also had some of the most amazing advances in architecture and technology, as well as awesome libraries (once again the crusades took us back 500 years to take care of those).
One I look at my fundamental criticisms of christianity those same issues just aren't as prolific with islam.
-
Hi Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Seagoon, you do realize that the "Persecuted Church" is usually the one commiting the most persecution? Do they ever talk about that? About the atrocities commited all the way back from the Crusades through to the mass murder of muslims in Bosnia and Serbia? All commited in the name of Christianity?
If you read through a little history you'll soon realize that Christianity "started it" - with their attacks on a quite moderate muslim civilisation that didn't deserve it. And then theres the whole Jewish thing...
What amazes me about the whole thing is that Christianity, Islam, and Judism all believe in the same god.
A few points.
1) I'm curious, did you read the post? Was this a justified reaction? Does this sound like an understandable mistake?
If bible-believing Christians are about this kind of activity all the time, could you cite some examples where 200 Muslim homes were recently burned because an illiterate Muslim disposed of a few pages with bible quotes when commanded to do so by his Christian boss? How about something fairly close? Can you name a majority Christian nation where blasphemy against Christ is a death penalty offense or even brings a prison sentence? How about a Protestant nation where destroying a bible is even a crime?
2) Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats have been killing each other for centuries, the last time before the Balkan wars of the 90s was when the Nazis paid the Croats to slaughter Serbs.
The religious tensions of the area were largely the result of the Turkish invasions of the Balkans and the forced conversions of large areas (particularly in Bosnia) to Islam.
3) Christian Attacks on "moderate Muslim civilzations?" The fact that Islam extends throughout the middle east and North Africa was the result of the spread of that religion via Jihad, these Jihads began under the direct supervision of the Prophet. The Muslims invaded and conquered Christian North Africa and large areas of Europe including Spain hundreds of years before the crusades. They would have conquered France as well, had not Charles Martel vanquished the invading Muslim armies at Tours in 732, 3 centuries before the first crusade.
The Crusades themselves started after the pope wrongly called first for the Spanish nobility to unite to take back the Iberian peninsula from the Moors and then a few years later the call went out for princes of "Christendom" to band together in order to REconquer recently taken Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land and to prevent the Seljuk Turks from conquering the Byzantine empire. While there was no love lost between the Western and Eastern churches the pope realized that should Byzantium fall, the eastern gateway to Europe would be wide open to the Turks. That in fact proved to be the case after the Turks finally took Constantinople in the 15th century and continued their advance to the gates of the Vienna.
As far as Allah being the same God as that of the Christians, neither consistent Christians nor Muslims would agree with you there. To begin with the Christian God is Triune, and Muslims insist that this is a terrible blasphemy. There is not even a real historical relation between Allah and Yahweh. Prior to Muhammad, Allah was one of at least 360 different gods of the Arabs which all had different shrines at their holy site in Mecca, the Kaaba. Muhammad reduced this number to one god, Allah and insisted that Allah was also the God of Abraham spoken of in the Torah. So it was the a co-opting of some of the elements of the Torah (with major adjustments) that led to the perceived relation between the two terrible different gods.
I'd love to discuss the subject with you further if you'd like. I first developed an interest in Arabic/Muslim history at the University of St. Andrews several years before I became a Christian. In fact I enjoyed it so much, I ended up making the Ottoman empire my primary emphasis in my Modern History MA.
- SEAGOON
-
Comon seagoon you know as well as I do there are christians out there giving as good as they get.
Thanks for the "same god" info, having a browse now. I didn't realize that. Although it appears that the whole islams god is not christianity comes down to a modern definition and based on symantic intrepretation, for example the disbelief in mary and jesus, which although islam might not believe does not rule out the relgions coming from the same roots. In fact from the brief look I had at the "differences" theres almost equal differences between some of the christian sects.
The real answer would be what did mohammed believe - wouldn't you agree?
-
Whats funny is asking for prayers for these "christians". Here is a little background on them. Lets take one of the Big three, Nigeria for example,
Reports estimate that between 67 and 300 are dead after Christian ethnic Taroks attacked Muslim cattle-herders in the town of Yelwa in central Nigeria's Plateau State. The Tarok ethnic group used machine guns mounted on jeeps, along with rifles and machetes, to attack the Muslim community. Possibly three mosques were damaged and at least 67 people have been buried, while hundreds more have fled or disappeared. Just last week, the Christian Tarok were attacked by the Muslim Hausa in the region.
In the most recent attack, the Associated Press reports that more that 100 were killed and 1,000 homes destroyed. "It will take time to account for the exact number of dead and missing. It's mass murder, because machine guns were used, not machetes," Justice Abdulkadir Orire, secretary general of the Jama'atu Nasril Islam, told Agence France-Presse.
Two sides to every story...
I gotta say if you are christian and you live in a predominantly(sp?) muslim country, then I just don't think you are that bright.
-
Best thing mankind can do is abandon religion full stop,hell,Im all for the old Roman gods,god of wine, god of luvvin,could even create a god of sheep......hang on....sounds like meeeeeeeeeee lol
yes Im drunk.....;) still, religion is something mankind is better off with...
-
I dont mind religion as long as people keep it to themselves, and dont let others "suffer" for their belives.
My grandparents on my mothers side were _very_ religious, but they never preached to me or my cousins. Infact, they didnt mention it all unless we asked. They wanted us to find out if it was for us by ourselfes. They actually supported my parents when they said they were not going to baptise us as babies. We did go to sundayschool with them when we wanted to and i have fond memories of that.
That attitude by them has prolly brought me closer to religion than i ever would have if they shoved it down my throat.
Lovely people and i miss them and their warmth alot. Kids tended to flock around them, and most of them didnt even know they were religious at all.
-
Deleted
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Is it just me or don't you all just wanna hug Nilsen?
mac
-
Had a few hugs this morning mac.
If you are offering, then i must say that your avatar is not that inviting. ;)
I know from another thread that you could use one tho.... nobody deserves going through that.
-
Thanks Nilsen...means alot Bro.
älskar dig med!
mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Thanks Nilsen...means alot Bro.
älskar dig med!
mac
http://www.freetranslations.com? ;)
have a nice day.. as nice as it can be anyway :)
-
älskar dig med Nilsen.
mac
-
Religious Persecution, regardless of brand, is a disgusting thing. Violence done 'in the name of God' is a particularly hideous affliction of man, making war upon another for the rightousness of divinity is neither divine nor justice.
-
Perhaps at this point it might be good to remember a joke I heard a few years back, during the height of the ethnic cleansing tragedy:
Q: What's the difference between a Bosnian Christian and a Bosnian Muslim?
A: On Sunday, the Bosnian Christian doesn't go to church, and on Friday the Bosnian Muslim doesnt go to mosque
Remember that the Oklahoma City bombing was done by men who claimed to be true American patriots, and selectively quoted the founding fathers.
Instead of looking at what is done "in the name of" islam or christianity, by people whose commitment may be more tribal, political, or economic than spiritual, in fairness we'd best look at what the religions themselves teach.
There is no Christian doctrine that corresponds to the Muslim conversion by conquest, or "death to the infidel." In contrast, Christians are directly taught to submit to the political and social dictates of higher authorities, even if they are frankly pagan. We are taught to love those who hate us, to pray for those who persecute us, and to extend service beyond what is unfairly demanded ("going the extra mile").
Lastly, to those who would prefer a world without religion and cite atrocities jsutified on religious grounds: in fairness, shouldnt you also cite the atrocities justified by materialist or atheist philosophies? Please don't forget that Napolean killed thousands of innocents (including those who refused to recant their faith), instituted the first modern "secret police" state, and was responsible for mass atrocities in conquered lands -- in the name of France and Empire. Hitler justified his slaughters on the grounds that there was no God, and that for the good of humanity only the strongest people should survive -- a nasty but direct outgrowth of Social Darwinism and Nietzche. Stalin killed even more than Hitler, even before the war, and during the war he used his troops like ammunition to be freely consumed -- because to him all that mattered was presrvation of the State (and his own power).
One can thus show that in terms of sheer lethal ferocity, godlessness is more deadly that even miusused religion.
Regards,
Simaril
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
What amazes me about the whole thing is that Christianity, Islam, and Judism all believe in the same god.
Thats called political coalition.
And if you will compare list of "useless religion whitch are BS" , you will find it almost same for all 3 parties.
Its quite simple... When christians didnt manage to annihilate muslim, they had to explain to their people hows that. Since they cant say... Loook jesus didnt help us, while that bloody Allah used to help them........ you have to find some excuse.
Like.... muslim version: When we killed almost all of crusaiders, we realized that they worship same god.. so we let them be.
christian version.... We almost annihilated most of muslim, but god stoped us and told us, that they are his children as well.
Every new religion in human history were subject of annihilation. And those who manage to defend themself on the battlefield somehow discovered that they have "same god" :D
Most funny battles were in central eurpe between traditional christian and reformist some 500 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Vulcan,
3) Christian Attacks on "moderate Muslim civilzations?" The fact that Islam extends throughout the middle east and North Africa was the result of the spread of that religion via Jihad, these Jihads began under the direct supervision of the Prophet.
Would you be so kind and write some exact years of those events ?
-
Deleted
16- All posts, in public forums, should be made in the English language.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
As far as Allah being the same God as that of the Christians, neither consistent Christians nor Muslims would agree with you there.
Hehe you probably never spoke about this theme with muslims did you ?
They have quite funny explanation why christian and muslim god is the same.
-
The concept of religion as we know it is outdated and impractical.
Most if not all of the world problems has been caused by religion.
Man's inhumanity to man typically is caused by some outdated belief in a religion or cultural belief that was created just after we were walking upright and learned how to speak. I myself am a spiritual being beliving in God and the wonders of creation. I do not believe in any established religion but respect those that do. I understand why they were created. But they were created by man to serve a select group of men to serve their selfish purpose to dominate a culture. This has been going on since the dawn of recorded history. My point is the human race needs to look beyond their self imposed limitations and realize that god is in all of us and everything and we need to embrace this fact and evolve.
:D
-
lada re you seriously questining the fact that islamic armies on jihad conquered vast tracts of north africa, the mid east and even europe?
You must remember, christianity is 700 years older than islam and had established itself for centuries around the mediterannian world when the muslim conquests began..
Although islam and arabs came up with some great advances in technology, math and culture during those times there is no reason for ou to sugar coat their agressive nature during those times.
Just look where mecca is and where spain is on a map....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
lada re you seriously questining the fact that islamic armies on jihad conquered vast tracts of north africa, the mid east and even europe?
yea im seriously asking him, about whitch era is he talking.
Does he speak about Otoman empire ?
Islamic horde is not quite specific is it ?
-
Originally posted by uberhun
The concept of religion as we know it is outdated and impractical.
Most if not all of the world problems has been caused by religion.
Religion is just an excuse. If we were not religious, we would find other things for which we could kill each other.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Religion is just an excuse. If we were not religious, we would find other things for which we could kill each other.
ummmm .naaaa ... what about freedom...
if you kill 10 000's of civilians in name of freedom you will be same hero , like those who killed 100 000 000's in name of God.
Give it some time and watch the score.
edit.: damm i forgot..... since "freedom is right given to us by god" .... we should not count this one... coz its also religion stuff... hmmm ok
-
Well, the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain around 711 AD.
Mohammed started islam in Saudi Arabia around 630AD.
You really should read up on the sopread of islam during those years...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well, the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain around 711 AD.
Mohammed started islam in Saudi Arabia around 630AD.
You really should read up on the sopread of islam during those years...
Sorry ... my books doesnt speak about country or kingdom called "Muslim"
however i will try to find that event by year.
Btw how are you sure that he spoke about this event ?
He also might speak about Ottoman empire.
-
Lada, look up Mohammad leading and army to take Medina and Mecca.
-
IIRC the arts, culture, science and trading flourished in Spain when it was ruled by moors.
interesting artice:
http://www.scienceandyou.org/articles/ess_06.shtml
In any case, even during most of the time when the Muslims ruled the city there was evidently also a large contingent of Jews and Christians who coexisted quite nicely with the Moors.
Only when the Christians succeeded the Moors did the life of the Jews in Spain begin to take a turn for the worse and by the 15th Century, the Inquisition actively persecuted them.
-
Staga I have no clue why the Spanish Church (Catholics iirc) persecuted Jews in Spain. The Jews (according to the Bible) are God's chosen people.
I gotta say that the Muslin reaction to an illiterate man burning papers on the orders of his boss was way over board.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The Jews (according to the Bible) are God's chosen people.
So what happens to the rest of us? Aren't we invited to the party or what?
Oh well.
-
Don't worry; Finns are God's Frozen people. ;)
-
A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven.
An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain - then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity.
Is that the system?
-
No.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven.
An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain - then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity.
Is that the system?
Hangtime, getting into Heaven is solely based upon your belief in Christ. John 3:16 says, For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. In Romans Paul talks about good works being unworthy to get one into Heaven.
Lets say that Hitler (with all the evil he started) heard the Gospel 15 minutes before he died and believed with his heart and confessed with his mouth, then even Hitler could have found forgiveness and made it to Heaven. (I only used Hitler as an example because I think he is the one person in history that EVERYONE can agree was evil. I was gonna use Stalin until I remembered Boroda is a member of this bbs ;) )
On the opposite end, one can accept Christ as your savior and all things are forgiven. If (in your example) I were to use God's name in vain, then immediately die from a heart attack I would still make it to Heaven. Why? Because I have accepted Christ as my savior and my sins have been forgiven.
The Bible also tells us that once we are saved, we are His for eternity.
-
Much as I despise some parts of Islam, I have to admire parts of it as well. For instance, the koran is the original source work of their prophet, untranslated, unchanged, straight from prophet to paper.
The Koran has been translated numerous times. A page with links to all sorts of stuff regarding translating the Koran, reading it online, listening to it online etc etc.
http://www.solidine.com/kb/turkey/koran_quran.htm
One link I followed was an article describing the nature of the original Koran. It is written in Classical Arabic and very few muslims would be able to speak, let alone read/write Classical Arabic due to the evolution of the language.
For a large portion of the worlds muslims, the Koran must be translated so they can read it. For instance, how many Indonesian muslims read/write/speak Arabic, let alone Classical Arabic? I'm betting it's not many.
We still have many of the books of the Bible in their original, untranslated versions. The Dead Sea scrolls are a good example. I don't think it's to amazing that the original Koran is still with us considering that Islam isnt exactly an *ancient* religion.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The Koran has been translated numerous times.
To get the true meaning of the Koran, you must read it in Arabic. Translations are considered inferior by Islamic Clerics.
-
even Hitler could have found forgiveness and made it to Heaven.
Yup.. that's the system.
;)
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Nope. Hitler committed suicide. You can only ask for absolution while you're alive, and suicide is a mortal sin. Catch 22.
Point was, that even a person as evil as Hitler can find forgiveness and make it to Heaven.
-
L O V E
-
Hi Lada,
Originally posted by lada
Would you be so kind and write some exact years of those events ?
Here are some of the more important events in the military history of Islam, up to the advent of Wahabbi Islam, arranged on a timeline (all events are AD) I've drawn from several sources. Please note the events PRIOR to the first Crusades, such as the fact that Muslims sacked Rome hundreds of years prior to the Christian reconquest of Jerusalem in 1099:
570 Birth of Muhammad.
610 Muhammad claims to have received first vision in a cave near Mecca.
610-22 Muhammad preaches in Mecca.
622 Hijira - Muhammad and followers flee to Medina.
624 Muslims successfully attack Meccan caravans at Badr.
625 Muslims are defeated by Meccans at Uhud.
630 Muslims capture Mecca. Ka'ba is cleansed (360 gods reduced to one god - Allah), pilgrimage rites are Islamicized, tribes of Arabia vow allegiance to Muhammad
632 Death of Muhammad. Abu Bakr (Muhammad's Uncle) chosen as caliph.
632-33 Wars of ridda (apostasy) restore allegiance to Islam
633 Muslim conquests (Futuhat / Jihad) outside Arabia begin.
633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq.
634 - 0644 Umar (c. 0591 - 0644) reigns as the second caliph.
635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria.
635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus from the Byzantines.
637 The Arabs occupy the Persian capital of Ctesiphon. By 651, the entire Persian realm would come under the rule of Islam as it continued its westward expansion.
637 Syria is conquered by Muslim forces.
637 Jerusalem falls to invading Muslim forces.
639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia.
641 Under the leadership of Abd-al-Rahman, Muslims conquer southern areas of Azerbaijan, Daghestan, Georgia, and Armenia.
644 Muslim leader Umar dies and is succeeded by Caliph Uthman, a member of the Umayyad family that had rejected Muhammad's prophesies. Rallies arise to support Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, as caliph. Uthman launches invasions to the west into North Africa.
649 Muawiya I, a member of the Umayyad family, leads a raid against Cyprus, sacking the capital
650 Caliph Uthman has the Qur'an written down.
652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims from Tunis
653 Muawiya I leads a raid against Rhodes
654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus and stations a large garrison there
656 Uthman is murdered; Ali becomes fourth caliph.
657 Battle of Siffin. Mu'awiya, governor of Syria, claims the caliphate.
659 Arbitration at Adruh is opposed by Ali's supporters.
661 Ali is murdered; Mu'awiya becomes caliph. Beginning of Umayyad Caliphate (661-750).
668 First Siege of Constantinople
669 The Muslim conquest reaches to Morocco in North Africa
672 Muslims under Mauwiya I capture the island of Rhodes.
674 Arab Muslim conquests reach the Indus River
680 Death of Husayn marks beginning of the Shi'at Ali ("party of Ali") or Shi'a Muslim movement.
685-705 Reign of Abd al-Malik. Centralization of administration - Arabic becomes official written language (instead of Greek and Persian) and Arab coinage is established.
698 Muslims capture Carthage in North Africa.
711 - Beginning of the Muslim Conquest of Spain
711 Tariq ibn Malik, a Berber officer, crosses the strait separating Africa and Europe with a group of Muslims and enters Spain.
711 With the further conquest of Egypt, Spain and North Africa, Islam included all of the Persian empire and most of the old Roman world under Islamic rule. Muslims began the conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan
715 By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years.
716 Lisbon is captured by Muslims.
717 Second Siege of Constantinople
719 Muslims attack Septimania in southern France
724 Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes
730 Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.
732 Battle of Tours: With perhaps 1,500 soldiers, Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe.
732 Muslim empire reaches its furthest extent.
755 Abd ar-Rahman founds an Umayyad Dynasty in Cordoba, Spain.
800s Written collections of Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) are compiled. Sicily comes under Muslim rule.
813-33 Reign of Ma'mun. Theological controversy over whether the Qur'an is created or uncreated and eternal. Center for translation of texts from Greek to Arabic founded in Baghdad.
813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome.
831 Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.
838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille.
846 Muslim raiders sail a fleet of ships from Africa up the Tiber river and attack outlying areas around Ostia and Rome. Some manage to enter Rome and damage the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. Not until Pope Leo IV promises a yearly tribute of 25,000 silver coins do the raiders leave. The Leonine Wall is built in order to fend off further attacks such as this.
859 Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Castrogiovanni
869 Arabs capture the island of Malta
870 After a month-long siege, the Sicilian city of Syracuse is captured by Muslim invaders.
876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy.
884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground.
902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed. Muslim rule of Sicily would last for 264 years
911 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy, cutting off passage between the two countries.
920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony, and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse.
928 Umayyad Abd ar-Rahman III declares himself caliph in Cordoba.
939 Madrid is recaptured from Muslim forces.
969 Fatimids gain power in Egypt and attack Palestine, Syria, and Arabia.
985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona
994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destroyed a second time by Arabs.
996-1021 Reign of Fatimid al-Hakim. Hamza ibn Ali forms basis of esoteric Druze religion.
1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa
1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies.
1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands.
1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed.
1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia.
1030 Umayyad caliphate in Cordoba defeated by the Christian Reconquista.
1042 The rise of the Seljuk Turks begins.
1055 Seljuk Turks take Baghdad
1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia.
1071 Seljuk Turks defeat Byzantines at Battle of Manzikert.
1071 - 1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine.
1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara.
1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans.
1096 FIRST CRUSADE
1099 Christian Crusaders take Jerusalem.
1100-1200s Sufi orders (turuq) are founded.
1171 Fatimid power ends in Egypt with the conquests of Saladin.
1174 Saladin declares himself sultan of Egypt and Syria.
1193 Death of Saladin; most of Crusader states have returned to Islam.
1221 Genghis Khan and the Mongols enter Persia.
1241 Mongols take the Punjab.
1258 Mongols capture Baghdad; city is sacked and caliph is killed. End of Abbasid caliphate.
1281-1324 Reign of Uthman (Osman), who founds the Ottoman Empire. Muslim merchants and missionary Sufis settle in SE Asia.
mid-1300s Ottomans capture Bursa and Iznik and move into Europe.
late 1300s Ottomas take control of the Balkans.
1400s Islam reaches the Philippines.
1453 Mehmet Fatih (rules 1451-81) conquers Constantinople.
1492 Reconquista ends. All Muslims (and Jews) expelled from Spain.
1516 Ottomans conquer Syria and Egypt.
1517 Ottomans control Mecca and Medina.
1520-66 Reign of Suleyman the Magnificent; Ottoman Empire reaches its zenith. Hungary and coastlands of Algeria and Tunisia come under Ottoman rule.
1526 Babur (Mongolian) seizes the Delhi sultanate and takes control of northern India.
1556 Akbar founds the Mughal (Muslim) dynasty in northern India.
1625 Java comes under rule of Muslim kingdom of Mataram.
1699 Treaty of Karlowitz confirms first substantial losses of Ottoman Empire in Europe.
1700s Muhammad Abd al-Wahhab (Founder of Wahhabism) rejects Sufism and all innovation (bid'a). Founds what becomes the Saudi Arabian kingdom. Hindus regain power from Mughals in northern India.
The following site, while pro-Islamic and pro-Arab has a fairly good summary of the history of Islam:
mid-east web (http://www.mideastweb.org/islamhistory.htm)
-
Getting so I hate religions.
Back when I was young...seeing loved ones later in the afterlife sounded great.
But now a 6ft black hole of peace and quiet doesnt sound so bad.
Its the fear of dying..and becoming nothing that bothers people. Im willing to bet if everyone excepted that...we'd all treat eachother a little better. What do I remember before I was born? Was I a mineral in some banana my dad ate?
If I am a lifeform...created by the sludge pool we call earth...and am destined to become sludge once again..so be it.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Nope. Hitler committed suicide. You can only ask for absolution while you're alive, and suicide is a mortal sin. Catch 22.
Ahhh...but what if Hitler wasn't a catholic?
Originally posted by Elfie
Point was, that even a person as evil as Hitler can find forgiveness and make it to Heaven.
What he said...
Anyhow, I'm so glad I worship the only true god...the big ball of orange in the sky...oh hail the big ball of orange in the sky, all praise be upon him!!!
Tronsky
-
even Hitler could have found forgiveness and made it to Heaven.
And a newborn baby too young to "find forgiveness"?
-
What sin has a newborn committed?
-
Just a few paragraphs from Wayne Dyer.
Made a lot of sense to me, helped me be a lot happier with everyday life.
Maybe it'll make sense to some others.
Essentially, there are two points of view regarding this dilemma of your own death. The first says that we’re physical bodies that are born and we on to live for a while; we die and are dead forever. This first perspective, if you embrace it either consciously or otherwise, is terrifying from our alive viewpoint. Unless you embrace the second point of view, it’s completely understandable that your fear death. Or you may welcome it if you hate or fear life. The second point of view says very simply that you’re eternal, an infinite soul in a temporary expression of flesh. This second point of view says that only your physical body dies, that you were whole and perfect as you were created and that you physicalness emanated from the universal mind of intention . That universal mind was and is formless – it’s the pure energy of love, beauty, kindness and creativity and it can’t die, since there’s no form involve – no form, no death, no boundari8es, no deterioration, no flesh, no possibility of it wasting away.
Now which of these two points of view gives you the most comfort? Which is associated with peace and love? Which invokes fear and anxiety? Obviously the idea of your infinite self keeps you on friendly terms with infinity. Knowing you’re first and foremost an infinite being consciously connecting with your Source, which is eternal and omnipresent, is surely the more comporting prospect. Because of its infinite nature, it’s everywhere, and it then follows that the whole of Spirit must be present at every point in space at the same moment.
Thus, Spirit is present in its entirety everywhere, which includes you. YOU can never, ever be separate from it. You’ll learn to laugh at the absurd idea that you could ever be separate from the universal mind. It’s your Source. You are it. God is the mind through which you think and exist. It’s always connected to you even if you don’t believe in it. Even an atheist doesn’t have to believe in God to experience God. The question then becomes, not whether your body I going to die, but rather on what side of infinity you wish to live. You have two choices, either you live on the inactive or the active side of infinity. In either case, you have an appointment with infinity and there’s no way to avoid it.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What sin has a newborn committed?
Good point. My pastor is always saying we are all sinners but I never understood how this applied to babies.
So to get to heaven you either:
1. Never sin
2. Sin but then ask for forgiveness.
Is that correct?
If so, where does accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior fit into this?
-
I don't know, I'm agnostic.
I guess I'll be gong to hell, but maybe I'll get to meet Ghandi.
-
Originally posted by myelo
And a newborn baby too young to "find forgiveness"?
There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores.
-
Seagoon, Check your e-mail ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What sin has a newborn committed?
Hi Holden,
The Bible teaches that since the fall all mankind has inherited the sin nature of Adam along with the guilt of of his initial transgression (called "original sin"). As a result, all men are born not sinless.
We see this summarized in statements like Paul's in Romans 5 where Paul shows that death is the result of sin, and the universality of death (even over those who did not sin by breaking a command "physically" i.e. infants who die in infancy, etc.) shows the universality of sin:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" and "14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." (Romans 5:12; 14)
The reason he did this was not to say "Ha ha, you're all headed to hell" but rather to show the love and grace of God in sending Jesus to be the savior or mankind, suffering the wrath that should have fallen rightly upon us and atoning for our sin, that we might have salvation. The need for this salvation is universal because the extent of sin is likewise universal. This doctrine of original sin is common to both Protestants and Catholics.
Theologian RC Sproul offers a more complete unfolding of the doctrine in this passage from "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" which was written to explain the basic tennets of Christian theology to laymen:
-------------
ORIGINAL SIN
It is commonplace to hear the statement, “people are basically good.” Though it is admitted that no one is perfect, human wickedness is minimized. Yet if people are basically good, why is sin so universal?
It is often suggested that everybody sins because society has such a negative influence upon us. The problem is seen with our environment, not with our nature. This explanation for the universality of sin begs the question, how did society become corrupt in the first place? If people are born good or innocent, we would expect at least a percentage of them to remain good and sinless. We should be able to find societies that are not corrupt, where the environment has been conditioned by sinlessness rather than sinfulness. Yet the most dedicated-to-righteousness communes we can find still have provisions for dealing with the guilt of sin.
Since the fruit is universally corrupt we look for the root of the problem in the tree. Jesus indicated that a good tree does not produce corrupt fruit. The Bible clearly teaches that our original parents, Adam and Eve, fell in sin. Subsequently, every human being has been born with a sinful and corrupt nature. If the Bible didn’t explicitly teach this, we would have to deduce it rationally from the bare fact of the universality of sin.
Yet the Fall is not simply a question of rational deduction. It is a point of divine revelation. It refers to what we call original sin. Original sin does not refer primarily to the first or original sin committed by Adam and Eve. Original sin refers to the result of the first sin—the corruption of the human race. Original sin refers to the fallen condition in which we are born.
That the Fall occurred is clear in Scripture. The Fall was devastating. How it came to pass is open to dispute even among Reformed thinkers. The Westminster Confession explains the event simply, much in the manner that Scripture explains it:
Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.1
Thus, the Fall occurred. The results, however, reached far beyond Adam and Eve. They not only touched all mankind, but decimated all mankind. We are sinners in Adam. We cannot ask, “When does the individual become a sinner?” For the truth is that human beings come into existence in a state of sinfulness. They are seen by God as sinful because of their solidarity with Adam.
The Westminster Confession again elegantly expresses the results of the Fall, particularly as it relates to human beings:
By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
That last phrase is crucial. We are sinners not because we sin. Rather, we sin because we are sinners. Thus David laments, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5, NIV).
[R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers., 1992.]
- SEAGOON
-
Forgot about paying off our ancestors debts...
But there has to be an out for infants, and those children who do not live to be infants, as they are not aware of and/or capable of making the choices available.
Therfore, as they were incapable of acceptance of the Savior, they do not die in a state of grace.
-
Holden,
The Bible teaches that regeneration or being "born again" is the work of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts, bringing us from spiritual death to spiritual life (hence "regeneration" - new life) "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1) the Bible also teaches us that the Spirit works how and in whom he pleases.
When an adult is born again, which usually accompanies the preaching of the word, one of the immediate manifestations of this spiritual rebirth is faith in Jesus Christ. Thus there are observable phenomena in the life of the adult who is born again.
However, theologians have long accepted that God is also able, if he wishes, to regenerate an infant and bring them to spiritual life even in the womb, thus for instance John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb, hence the declaration of the Angel regarding John Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."
Thus my denomination formally confesses that the word of God teaches that both children dying in their infancy and even the severely retarded or brain damaged can be saved by the extraordinary regenerating work of the Spirit:
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." [Westminster Confession of Faith 10.3]
- SEAGOON
-
Thus my denomination formally confesses that the word of God teaches that both children dying in their infancy and even the severely retarded or brain damaged can be saved by the extraordinary regenerating work of the Spirit
So, lemme see if this is the gist.. Theologians, in essentialy the same role as Supreme Court Justices attempting to divine the intent of the Constitution, can sit down and pass 'yea' or 'nay' rulings on the scriptures.. i.e. Infant Damnations, Exceptions and Exclusions, Part 1, etc..
And then denominations, having a wealth of theological precedents to draw from can just pick and choose among the opinions for those that that fit their particular practice of faith.
Have I got that right?
-
Hi Hangtime,
Originally posted by Hangtime
So, lemme see if this is the gist.. Theologians, in essentialy the same role as Supreme Court Justices attempting to divine the intent of the Constitution, can sit down and pass 'yea' or 'nay' rulings on the scriptures.. i.e. Infant Damnations, Exceptions and Exclusions, Part 1, etc..
And then denominations, having a wealth of theological precedents to draw from can just pick and choose among the opinions for those that that fit their particular practice of faith.
Have I got that right?
No, the teaching of scripture is normative, and the final decision is always that of the word of God. The scriptures themselves are what are known as "perspicuous" - literally transparently clear and the vast majority of what the scripture teaches is so easily understood that the smallest of children might understand. In areas where the teaching of scripture is less clear, the rule that "scripture interprets scripture" is applied: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
Additionally men and councils have and frequently do err, therefore all the decisions and doctrines of men are to be tested according to the authority of the word.
"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
Therefore a creed or confession is intended to be simply a synopsis of what the dilligent search of scripture has revealed.
I mentioned the teaching of the Confession before simply because it takes less time than reinventing the wheel by gathering the various scripture quotations and showing the doctrinal links between them, I hope you will forgive me for being lazy in that respect.
A couple of years ago I wrote a short piece entitled "Why Do We Need Creeds" for publication in a Christian magazine. The essay can be found here:
Why Do We Need Creeds? (http://www.providencepca.com/essays/creeds.html)
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, thanks for the informed replies.
Could I ask a couple more questions along the lines of infants if you have time? What about adults who never have exposure to Christian teachings --for example, a hunter-gatherer in the New Guinea highlands. Is there any exception for them as for infants?
And this may seem a bizarre one but I’ve wondered about it: when an unborn baby – say a 4-week old embryo – goes to heaven, does she stay at that age?
-
Ive found the deeper I dig..and the more I question...the more it relies on faith...and ones own hopes to what it will be like. Nobody here has the answers..only what the bible says...and in many areas Ive found its left to faith.
Two of my biggest questions is..
1. Since living in a free society..what would it be like to serve a king again?
2. Infinity is a long time. I bore easily.
-
Spiritual Update:
Had a discussion tonight with my sisters' sister in-law about whats after death. Shes big into re-encarnation, all these spiritual self-help type books that are out there. Rather than to discuss my beliefs, and what Ive been taught through the years from a religious point of view ( Im not educated enough in the bible to do that), I went at it from a totally neutral pov.
Whenever we have a get together around a campfire, or the like..she usually starts talking about these books shes read that "explains" life to her. I hold nothing against her..its her life..but I dont like her dragging my sister..who has always been easily swayed, into this self help self centered stuff shes into.
So..me being me..I cant keep my mouth shut. The discussion began with UFOs. Naturally, science is the area where my faith is tried the hardest. She..of course believes in them, abductions and all that crap. I said..think of this. Our planet is special in that its just far enough from the sun to survive its heat, has an atmosphere that protects us from its radiation, and of course has the water that without, nothing would be alive.
Now imagine..even the furthest star to be fair has this same planet type. Imagine further that this planet has an advanced species that can actually travel to us. What would be the odds...in all the billions of years...that the two different worlds..would have living advanced civilizations..on the same time line. Odds are an asteroid would end one civilization at some point in time starting it back to square one.
And if they could travel to us..why wouldnt they land, and teach us how to better improve our lives. I cant help but think that any species that made it to the point they could space travel light years across space..must have conquered war,greed, aggression. That said..why wouldnt they help us?
Why? Because that world is likely in its birth, or the ruins of its once great civilization are buried under millions of years of dust. "But what about all the reports of victims of abductions? They cant all be lying can they?" she asks. Chances are they are either lying, or they think they are telling the truth. Which is more likely an hallucination, a dream, or even government abduction. Im not X-Files conspiracy nut...but that is more likely than aliens landing and doing this.
But enough of the space talk. It eventually led into what happens when we die. Like so many campfire chats have done for eons. Like I said..I wanted to keep an religious viewpoints out of the discussion. So I asked her..."If you were suddenly made aware that when you died..it was nothing. But more than that...you ceased to exist so completely, you werent aware of the blackness, the nothing that you bcame. Would that bother you?"
She replied something along the lines of "But I dont believe that.." and continued with what she believed. Which basically is you determine your destiny in how you think about things..a mixed bag of karma, buddism, witchcraft, christianity all balled up in one glass half full view of things.
What I told her is the reason she cant imagine it, is because she is selfish. She cannot imagine that there could be a possibilty that she..someone who gone through so much to get where she is today...childhood, schooling, life lessons, good and bad, marriage all the memories, friends, family...could end up a pile of ooze in the bottom of a casket. I told her there is one form of re-encarnation...its when your body's flesh and water, returns to the earth to rejoin the cycle of life, to feed microbes, than may one day feed other things to become new life. And..that her idea of re-encarnation was that of someone too self-absorbed, too shallow minded to realize that a "spirit" may just be her sub-concious working with her chemical/electrical charged brain. And that her view of what she really is, is actually so insignificant, so unimportant in the big picture of not only this planet, but of the universe as a whole.
She ended up turning me off..getting real cold as the topics changed yet again to lighter talk.
I am a Christian. Not a very good one. Im full of questions, and have talked to many pastors over the years, and usually end up with none of them satisfying me, and usually with more questions than I started with. I think these thoughts as I mentioned above. It tries my faith greatly. Some days are better than others. What I learned tonight is that to talk to someone who is so lost, yet so sure of themselves...from either side..religious, or from a more scientific view, about the afterlife, its pointless. THEY ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG! Why..because your answers dont appeal to them. They dont fit their life. Sacrifice might have to be made...guilt may have to be carried. They cant have that. Its all about "ME!".
In closing...I pity her. But I pity all of us. We are in a life full of questions, with few answers. You have to chose your own path. She can can set hers upon books written a few months ago, I'll chose mine to follow the book written many many years ago. Who knows...maybe its all wishful thinking. If it is...whats it matter. If there is something to it...I'd rather be ready.
-
One final note...on the question I asked her if it would bother her if we all just end up a pile of black ooze on the bottom of a casket? Personally...It really doesnt bother me. After a life of hard work, and imagining the ailments old age may bring...the peace of nothingness seems somewhat comforting in itself. Yes we love alot of people in the world, but if by chance we arent destined to see them again, we did our best to enjoy those that we had the privilege to share this brief moment in time with.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Seagoon, thanks for the informed replies.
Could I ask a couple more questions along the lines of infants if you have time? What about adults who never have exposure to Christian teachings --for example, a hunter-gatherer in the New Guinea highlands. Is there any exception for them as for infants?
And this may seem a bizarre one but I’ve wondered about it: when an unborn baby – say a 4-week old embryo – goes to heaven, does she stay at that age?
Myelo,
I hope you will forgive me if I answer these quickly, without as much nuance as I would like. I have a committee meeting tomorrow AM and have to drive 3 hours to be there.
1) The bible is quite clear that all men are born fallen, and that in order to be saved, they must be "born again" in the case of normal adults, this comes via the preaching of the gospel. The bible is also clear that salvation cannot be obtained via any other means than faith alone in Christ alone, hence the urgency that attends missions and evangelism. As Christ put it "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) and the Apostles echoed, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12). We should remember there are no "innocent natives" out there just fallen ones, and we should remember that there are places in Europe and North America were people are just as likely these days to live their entire lives without ever once hearing the gospel. The wonder of it all isn't that some men remain in their sins and end up going to hell, it lies in the fact that we have a God so merciful that he made a way for sinners to be forgiven and reconciled and end up in heaven at the greatest possible cost.
If men could have been saved by any other means than the sacrifice of God's beloved Son in whom he was well pleased (Matt. 17:5) then the Father surely would have encouraged us to follow that path, rather than doing that which was most painful and costly to him.
2) The bible tells us that those who die in Christ, of what ever age, will be raised with bodies that have become incorruptible, celestial, and eternal (1 Cor. 15). I have no doubt that each and every renewed body will be perfectly suited for life in the heavenlies. So no, I don't think they will exist as embryos, but rather their bodies will be made perfect and absolutely adapted for eternity. This is after all the work of the God who "does all things well". Other than that, we don't know much, other than that it will be far, far, better than we could ever imagine: "But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Cor. 2:9)
Lets put it this way, the "heaven can wait" theme of movie is entirely wrong, trust me that none of your loved ones of whatever age now present with the Lord in heaven would ever want for a moment to be back here. ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
One final note...on the question I asked her if it would bother her if we all just end up a pile of black ooze on the bottom of a casket? Personally...It really doesnt bother me. After a life of hard work, and imagining the ailments old age may bring...the peace of nothingness seems somewhat comforting in itself. Yes we love alot of people in the world, but if by chance we arent destined to see them again, we did our best to enjoy those that we had the privilege to share this brief moment in time with.
The death question is usually a fundamental one many religious followers have issues with. Why do we die? Why do we age.
The answer is evolution, a fundamental part of evolution is the ability to adapt, unfortunately to adapt we must die to make way for offspring, who get weeded out by natural selection. Some people can't deal with the fact that built into our genes is this live reproduce die loop, and that when we die the only thing we leave behind is our children.
On the UFO note, yes I do believe in "ET"s. However, when you take the size of the universe, the statistical likely hood of the right planet, life evolving, life developing technology (this is a biggie, do you need an air breathing organism to develop along the fire technology tree?) then throw in the span on time I think we aren't going to meet someone anytime soon.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
732 Battle of Tours: With perhaps 1,500 soldiers, Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe.
hu ?
It was Poitier not Tours.100km between both towns (http://www10.mappy.com/siddj4O4TW8VWDMn21w/CFGT?anchor=0&option=0&csl=i1%2Cv1%2Cv2%2Cv3%2Cv4%2Cv5%2Ci2&fsl=i1%2Cv1%2Cv2%2Cv3%2Cv4%2Cv5%2Ci2&gsl=i1%2Cv1%2Cv2%2Cv3%2Cv4%2Cv5%2Ci2&isl=i0&xsl=2&out=2&issl=i1&iesl=i2&ivsl1=v1&ivsl2=v2&ivsl3=v3&ivsl4=v4&ivsl5=v5&iveh=car&isveh=sedcar&wni1=&wci1=&noi1=&tci1=41559%3Ba10i1%3D&tni1=poitier&pci1=&cci1=250&wni2=&wci2=&noi2=&tci2=70328&tni2=tours&pci2=&a10i2=&cci2=250&imode=0&x=14&y=13&wnv1=&wcv1=&nov1=&tnv1=&pcv1=&tcv1=&a10v1=&ccv1=250&wnv2=&wcv2=&nov2=&tnv2=&pcv2=&tcv2=&a10v2=&ccv2=250&wnv3=&wcv3=&nov3=&tnv3=&pcv3=&tcv3=&a10v3=&ccv3=250&wnv4=&wcv4=&nov4=&tnv4=&pcv4=&tcv4=&a10v4=&ccv4=250&wnv5=&wcv5=&nov5=&tnv5=&pcv5=&tcv5=&a10v5=&ccv5=250&order=0)
-
Originally posted by straffo
hu ?
It was Poitier not Tours.100km between both towns (http://www10.mappy.com/siddj4O4TW8VWDMn21w/CFGT?anchor=0&option=0&csl=i1%2Cv1%2Cv2%2Cv3%2Cv4%2Cv5%2Ci2&fsl=i1%2Cv1%2Cv2%2Cv3%2Cv4%2Cv5%2Ci2&gsl=i1%2Cv1%2Cv2%2Cv3%2Cv4%2Cv5%2Ci2&isl=i0&xsl=2&out=2&issl=i1&iesl=i2&ivsl1=v1&ivsl2=v2&ivsl3=v3&ivsl4=v4&ivsl5=v5&iveh=car&isveh=sedcar&wni1=&wci1=&noi1=&tci1=41559%3Ba10i1%3D&tni1=poitier&pci1=&cci1=250&wni2=&wci2=&noi2=&tci2=70328&tni2=tours&pci2=&a10i2=&cci2=250&imode=0&x=14&y=13&wnv1=&wcv1=&nov1=&tnv1=&pcv1=&tcv1=&a10v1=&ccv1=250&wnv2=&wcv2=&nov2=&tnv2=&pcv2=&tcv2=&a10v2=&ccv2=250&wnv3=&wcv3=&nov3=&tnv3=&pcv3=&tcv3=&a10v3=&ccv3=250&wnv4=&wcv4=&nov4=&tnv4=&pcv4=&tcv4=&a10v4=&ccv4=250&wnv5=&wcv5=&nov5=&tnv5=&pcv5=&tcv5=&a10v5=&ccv5=250&order=0)
Quite right.
You guys lost at Poitiers, non?
-
yep, yetanotherexample of the english treachery
-
32 Battle of Tours: With perhaps 1,500 soldiers, Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe.
Sure it wasn't 15,000 ? Estimates go as high as 75,000 at times.
-
Thanks Seagoon.
-
It is never good to allow any religion to become too big.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Yet the Fall is not simply a question of rational deduction. It is a point of divine revelation. It refers to what we call original sin. Original sin does not refer primarily to the first or original sin committed by Adam and Eve. Original sin refers to the result of the first sin—the corruption of the human race. Original sin refers to the fallen condition in which we are born.
That the Fall occurred is clear in Scripture. The Fall was devastating. How it came to pass is open to dispute even among Reformed thinkers. The Westminster Confession explains the event simply, much in the manner that Scripture explains it:
Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.1
Thus, the Fall occurred. The results, however, reached far beyond Adam and Eve. They not only touched all mankind, but decimated all mankind. We are sinners in Adam. We cannot ask, “When does the individual become a sinner?” For the truth is that human beings come into existence in a state of sinfulness. They are seen by God as sinful because of their solidarity with Adam.
- SEAGOON
Nice. The drug companies have started to learn a thing or two about marketing from religion and you can see it on TV more and more these days.
If they could just make everyone think they are sick with somekind of problem that they have the solution too, from the first day they are born... (as christiananity makes everyone think they are a sinner) then everyone will think they immediately need their drugs from the first day of life to the last.
I work in Direct response marketing and one of the most amazing things in DR is watching how people are always on the lookout for the easy "Miracle" product that will fill a need. Usually, it is presented as something incredibly easy to do....but you have to get it from the guy that is selling it. Getting it from someone else doesn't work becasue it's a inferior product.
This pitch about accepting Jesus Christ (Who happens to be the main man in christiananity) as your ONLY way to get into the best place to be after you die (Hell being the ONLY alterative) is pretty much the same thing as any other marketer trying to convince you that you can ONLY lose weight and thus being happy (heck who doesn't want THAT!) ....by doing something incredibly easy like taking this "Miracle" pill that only they offer.
Accepting Jesus is the ONLY way to get into heaven..... so call now while supplies last!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The Bible teaches
:lol
-
That Jesse guy sounds bit selfish and arrogant bellybutton dont you think? "It's me or hell; whatcha gonna do?"
I think I choose ancient Norsk gods like Freya and Odin; looks like Folkvang will be open to just anyone and if watermelon really hits the fan I may find myself from Valhalla drinking with old vikings.
Sounds much more interesting way to spend the eternity :)
-
Not if their favorite drinking game is "pass the staga" around.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Not if their favorite drinking game is "pass the staga" around.
lazs
:rofl
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Spiritual Update:
And if they could travel to us..why wouldnt they land, and teach us how to better improve our lives. I cant help but think that any species that made it to the point they could space travel light years across space..must have conquered war,greed, aggression. That said..why wouldnt they help us?
This one I can answer:)
Greed and Power:)
With all the modern worlds marvels we have, we dont completely help those with less. And with all our material superiority over much of the world we havent conquered war,greed, aggression ourselves:)
Just because a distant more advanced civilization exists doesnt mean that they have become peaceful and loving.
Now you have made me feel DIRTY:)
-
Originally posted by Staga
That Jesse guy sounds bit selfish and arrogant bellybutton dont you think? "It's me or hell; whatcha gonna do?"
I think I choose ancient Norsk gods like Freya and Odin; looks like Folkvang will be open to just anyone and if watermelon really hits the fan I may find myself from Valhalla drinking with old vikings.
Sounds much more interesting way to spend the eternity :)
Is the question really "what we choose"? The relativistic, "whatever works for you" ethos we're steeped in makes it very easy to forget that some things are just true/false no matter what we think about it. "Visualizing victory" wouldn't help Shirley MacLean outfight Joe Frazier.....(Not that I wouldnt actually pay to see THAT fight.)
Shouldn't the question really be "what is the truth?"
And not having certainty DOES NOT mean that truth does not exist. Some truth is jsut harder to find.
At the end of life, we either continue as spiritual beings or we dont. If there is another existance, we either find that somebody's doctrine is true, or it is false. If real science shows anything, it shows that wishful pollyannna thinking is generally useless, for reality is a hard, cold fact that sits there whether we like it or not.
So how hard do we look for truth? Or do we sit by the campfire and change teh subject?
-
In a past life Shirley Maclean was Jess Willard. She would have cleaned smokin' Joes clock in the second round.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In a past life Shirley Maclean was Jess Willard. She would have cleaned smokin' Joes clock in the second round.
Or {more likely) she'd become some new incarnation with very confused thoughts about the 20th century...
-
How can the religion of Jesus have strayed so far from his teachings, Seagoon?
-
question... Was Eve like Adam in that he was perfect?(pre- tree of knowledge) ?
-
Eve was, but Adam was missing a rib-hardly a perfect specimen.
I have always found it odd that a religion would consider knowledge to be a sin, much less the original sin.
However, I have always interpreted that biblical story to mean something along these lines:
The original sin, that is the original responsibility for one's own actions, began when Mankind became cognizant of himself as separate from his environment. He became something other than an animal. His new status, while not a sin, per se, did lead to the development of behaviors and ethical constructs that could be considered sinful, or that would recognize those behaviors as sinful, in and of themselves.
An example would be the concept of murder as opposed to simple killing for survival or food.
To take any biblical story as the literal truth is to veer onto shaky ground, especially when you are dealing with intangible concepts and not hard historical facts.
Please do not take my stance to be anti-God, I am merely anti-religion.
-
Well if she was perfect how could Adam and she have erred and eaten the apple?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
How can the religion of Jesus have strayed so far from his teachings, Seagoon?
How do you mean Lizking? Give me a point of reference if you would.
Thanks,
Seagoon
-
Hi Mosgood,
Originally posted by mosgood
Nice. The drug companies have started to learn a thing or two about marketing from religion and you can see it on TV more and more these days.
If they could just make everyone think they are sick with somekind of problem that they have the solution too, from the first day they are born... (as christiananity makes everyone think they are a sinner) then everyone will think they immediately need their drugs from the first day of life to the last.
I work in Direct response marketing and one of the most amazing things in DR is watching how people are always on the lookout for the easy "Miracle" product that will fill a need. Usually, it is presented as something incredibly easy to do....but you have to get it from the guy that is selling it. Getting it from someone else doesn't work becasue it's a inferior product.
This pitch about accepting Jesus Christ (Who happens to be the main man in christiananity) as your ONLY way to get into the best place to be after you die (Hell being the ONLY alterative) is pretty much the same thing as any other marketer trying to convince you that you can ONLY lose weight and thus being happy (heck who doesn't want THAT!) ....by doing something incredibly easy like taking this "Miracle" pill that only they offer.
Accepting Jesus is the ONLY way to get into heaven..... so call now while supplies last!
On the other hand, from my perspective, it's funny how time goes on but human nature stays the same,
"And their scribes and the Pharisees complained against His disciples, saying, "Why do You eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." (Luke 5:30-32)
The presumption that everyone makes is that they are "spiritually well" and in no need of the physician of souls. Sinners are always the people slightly worse than you, or at least worse in one's own eyes. We assume that if there is a heaven, our own standard of virtue will be more than enough to get us in.
Personally, the greatest day of my own life was when, by god's grace I began to see the darkness of my own heart and I realized not only how sick I was, but how great my need of healing was. I have only ever met one physician who is still raising the dead.
- SEAGOON
-
The entire concept of accepting Jesus into your heart as a rebirth and the sole method of entry into Heaven has nothing to do with Jesus's teachings, only with doctrine from after he was killed.
-
Let me ask you this, Seagoon:
Is someone berift of sin, according to your religion, who is not a follower of said religion, any less likely to go to the Heaven of their choice, simply because they have not been exposed to said religion?
Does your religion dictate that the only way to enter heaven is to practice your rituals, as opposed to your ethics?!
That Sir, is a cult, in particular a personality cult, and no better than worshipping a Golden Calf.
Respectfully,
Tom Scarborough
-
Hi Tom,
Originally posted by Lizking
The entire concept of accepting Jesus into your heart as a rebirth and the sole method of entry into Heaven has nothing to do with Jesus's teachings, only with doctrine from after he was killed.
The idea of the necessity of regeneration, being born again, or "born from above" (gennethe annothen), is present within the teachings of Christ. For instance:
"Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" (John 3:3-7)
But the necessity of a "new birth" of becoming a new creation precedes even the ministry of Christ, for instance in Ezek 36:24 we read the following promise of God to those who will be the believing remnant "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them."
Paul beautifully ties together the Old Testament promises of a God-worked inner change of heart and its necessity for salvation in Romans 2:28-29 when he says: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."
Which hearkens back to the promise of God in Deut. 30:6 given thousands of years prior to the birth of Christ: "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
So the idea of a new birth, a new heart, and a new spirit, the idea that one must be essentially a "New Creation" born from above in order to truly be numbered amongst God's redeemed children, is not a novelty that first crops up in Christ's teaching, it's a biblical theme in both testaments.
Let me ask you this, Seagoon:
Is someone berift of sin, according to your religion, who is not a follower of said religion, any less likely to go to the Heaven of their choice, simply because they have not been exposed to said religion?
Well according to the bible, no one is born bereft of sin (see the above messages on original sin) whether they are born into a Christian family or not. Also heaven is not conceived of as a place "of ones own choice" it is a place where God is particularly present, where there is no longer any sin, or any of the results of sin, and where all believers have perfect communion with God and one another. The bible teaches that at the return of Christ, the redemption of the universe will be completed, heaven and earth will be made anew and new heavens and the new earth will be once again united.
Does your religion dictate that the only way to enter heaven is to practice your rituals, as opposed to your ethics?!
That Sir, is a cult, in particular a personality cult, and no better than worshipping a Golden Calf.
Yes, you must sacrifice the goat using the sanctified silver knife and the golden chalice in the month of the harvest moon or there is no hope for you.
I'm kidding of course but having actually spent several years in the occult and working with counter-cult apologetics, I can honestly tell you there is no similarity. Cults are all religions of do - you must do this in order to be purified, in order to get to the next level, in order to merit... and so on. Do, do, do, there is no end of doing in them. Christianity, on the other hand is a religion not of do but of done. One does not work to obtain salvation, one receives it as an unmerited gift bought at the highest possible cost. It is the work of Christ that has secured the salvation of his sheep, all one need do is rest in him. So it is not a religion of esoteric rituals, it is a religion of trusting in, resting in, looking to, and walking with Christ.
Your Servant,
Pastor Andy Webb aka SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, those passages speak of a rebirth, but they speak of a rebirth after death, not a conversion in this life.
You didn't answer my question, either.
-
Originally posted by myelo
when an unborn baby – say a 4-week old embryo – goes to heaven, does she stay at that age?
If it were this way, all christians would probably commit suicide at their best age :D
(not a bad idea in generaly, but they would be gone quite soon :cool: )
I were also wondering why are they sad and cry, when somebody die.
They should be happy and celebrate, that he is in heaven now and he dont have to wait anymore... :)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
question... Was Eve like Adam in that he was perfect?(pre- tree of knowledge) ?
Don't confuse moral perfection with perfection of strength.
Best illustration I can think of: imagine a new, perfectly constructed Ford Fiesta. It has been polished, waxed, and perfectly tuned, but it's been designed for a specific purpose -- cost efficient transportation. So, even though it is complete and the "perfection" of what the designer intended, it still ahs limitations.
I believe we were designed as a specific blend of physical and spiritual beings, to allow us the chance to develop down paths not open to the purely spiritual. Inherent in that design was THE POTENTIAL for fallability, and so the Fall still rests in the responsibility of mankind, not God.
And yes, with that understanding, Adam and Eve were morally without fault before the fall, but still had the potential for making a mistake -- without contradiction in terms or doctrine.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Eve was, but Adam was missing a rib-hardly a perfect specimen.
I have always found it odd that a religion would consider knowledge to be a sin, much less the original sin.
The knowledge itself was not the sin -- it ws the willful choice to step past the limits God put in place. Think of a kid: Mom says "Don't touch that lamp!", and the minute she turns her back he reaches out to touch it with his finger. Not becasue he wants to touch it, but because he was told not to.
Also, although the tree was called "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" for communication to humans, the term jsut sounds like soemthing a dad would use to communicate soemthing complex to kids. I know that when my kids were little, I called the hobby knife I sometimes left on the model table the "finger-chopper-offer-knife" so they got the point to leave it alone.
I suspect the issue was more one of innocence than knowledge. And, since the time in the Garden was interrupted, who are we to say that the knowledge of good and eveil was supposed to be withheld forever? Maybe in God's eyes it was a matter of restricted timing, not forbiddence forever? We are told elsewhere that God wants all to have knowledge of the truth....
-
lada... I believe people cry when they lose someone because....
they have lost someone. They will never see that person again for the rest of their lives. Is that so hard for you to understand?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
lada... I believe people cry when they lose someone because....
they have lost someone. They will never see that person again for the rest of their lives. Is that so hard for you to understand?
lazs
Aye...
they are not crying because that person is in a better place.... but for the criers loss.
-
Hi Liz,
Originally posted by Lizking
Seagoon, those passages speak of a rebirth, but they speak of a rebirth after death, not a conversion in this life.
You didn't answer my question, either.
Actually Liz, those passages speak of a new birth occuring in this life, which results in a new heart here and has profound consequences for the next.
You can see that regeneration refers to our life here and now from several of the passages, for instance - a profound change in behavior:
"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
Writing to Titus, Paul tells him to remind the members of the church in Crete:
"For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:4-6)
You see there the former life, and then the change that results in a new life. It is not that they continue in their prior sinful behavior looking forward to a rebirth after death. The have gone through pallingenesia literally "the new birth" or being "born again" in this life and it has changed the way they act, and think, and feel, forever.
I could pile on some more quotes related to the new birth, but I'm hoping that'll be enough.
As to not answering your question, I had thought I did, forgive me for not being clear enough.
Does one need to worship in my church to be saved? No, clearly not. As the heavenly assembly sings to Christ: "You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" and if I might be allowed to add, in every age since the creation as well. Our church is but one small visible expression of a church vaster than any one can number, as difficult to count as the sands of the sea.
But that assembly is still the assembly of the redeemed, those purchased out of an estate of sin and death by Christ, and forever united to him by faith.
I think that perhaps the problem we are having here is that in the way you seem to be framing it, everyone is worthy of heaven but there are a bunch of Christian meanies saying, "unless you worshipped with us in the right way, you can't get in - only we have tickets." Whereas in the bible, all men are counted as amongst the perishing mass, no one is accounted worthy of heaven, and the only way that can change is to be redeemed by the Lamb, and called to faith in Him by the working of the Holy Spirit within them. This salvation is not earned or merited, it is not because those saved were better than anyone else, and its grounding is only in the grace of God who says "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." (Romans 9:15)
So for a Christian to be "proud and haughty" about salvation is stupid beyond words. They were debtors, poor blind beggars just like everyone else, who received mercy from the hand of the king - and that not on account of anything they did. Can anyone be saved without receiving the mercy of the King? No, they will continue on to receive perfect justice.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, thanks for your reply. As for the question, there are only 2 answers, yes or no. You can, of course, refrain from answering the question as posed.
Please do not bother using a particular quote from the bible to reinforce or illustrate your view on religious matters. They are all liable to be taken out of context, since their meaning depends upon it to such a large extent.
Please discuss it as you see it, no documentation required.
In my reading of the bible, many times and over many years, I have never seen, in context, anything that would indicate that Jesus or God demand anything resembling being reborn (in the sense you used it above) as being a required ritual to enter heaven.
-
Here is the passage I am referring to, by the way:
Seagoon:
The bible is quite clear that all men are born fallen, and that in order to be saved, they must be "born again" in the case of normal adults, this comes via the preaching of the gospel. The bible is also clear that salvation cannot be obtained via any other means than faith alone in Christ alone, hence the urgency that attends missions and evangelism.
To this I can not agree.
I do not worship a deity, only the moral values that it represents. As such, the name and morphology of the deity is unimportant. If you live your life as a moral person, which pretty much all religions are in agreement with as to the general moral rules of civilization, then the particular rituals of those religions serve only as a comfort and teaching tool to perpetuate the concepts.
That is a good thing, until the rituals become more important than the spirit of the lesson.
I fear that that is the case with born-again Christians. They are caught up in the ritual, and forget the ultimate goal.
-
LizKing, I know this wasnt addressed to me, so I wont step in to your conversation to give my answer.
However, your requested fromat isnt quite fair. On one hand, you tell Seagoon to "not bother" using quotations because they are so easily taken out of context -- but then you challenge the core beliefs of Christianity and ask for a dcotrinal answer.
How do you expect him to answer without referring to the text that's the foundation of Christianity??????
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Holden,
The Bible teaches that since the fall all mankind has inherited the sin nature of Adam along with the guilt of of his initial transgression (called "original sin"). As a result, all men are born not sinless.
- SEAGOON
I am completely open to religion. I am not religious nor am i against religion. I would love there to be a God and i keep an open mind whether to believe in god....
However, the belief that there was a garden created by god, with a male and female, adam and eve etc. perplexes me.
I genuinely mean no offence to you Seagoon, from my perspective i am confused on how someone who is so educated can appear to believe in something, which to me, appears to be so far beyond belief that it is almost fairy-tale like. How does the religious view tie in with the proof of evolution?
Again, i mean no disrespect and would be happy to edit this out if you want me to.
-
I once worked with an engineer who thought the solution to all mechanical engineering problems could be found in Kemps Engineering Handbook.
It struck me that this too required a "leap of faith"
The nice thing about Kemps however was that its instructions were precise and not open to multiple interpetations to suit the agenda of who ever read it.
Neither did it become the company doctrine on engineering or indeed the foundation of an enforced rule set.
My associates dependance on Kemps did sort of stop him from thinking outside the box and his contribution was less to do with his own considered judgement than it was his knowledge of Kemps.
However occasionally Kemps did have an answer we had struggled to find and as such proved useful.
-
Simaril, I want his interpretation (doctrine) of the quotes (the bible), not the quotes themselves.
-
Furball if you arent raised in it from birth, its hard to understand. Faith has alot to do with trusting those you love, your family and friends. They guide you. Therefore you accept what they tell you. An adult just being introduced into Christianity is likely looking for something to fill the void most of us feel.
I know I would find it extremely difficult to accept it today if I hadnt been raised in it. To try to convince a Christian he is wrong..is trying to get him to say " What a waste of time its all been. I will never see those I love again. All those Sundays I could have been fishing." That just wont happen...and Im sure its the same with other religions.
There is nothing I know of more comforting than to trust in Jesus, and know its out of your hands. It takes alot of stress off of you.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Furball if you arent raised in it from birth, its hard to understand. Faith has alot to do with trusting those you love, your family and friends. They guide you. Therefore you accept what they tell you. An adult just being introduced into Christianity is likely looking for something to fill the void most of us feel.
I know I would find it extremely difficult to accept it today if I hadnt been raised in it. To try to convince a Christian he is wrong..is trying to get him to say " What a waste of time its all been. I will never see those I love again. All those Sundays I could have been fishing." That just wont happen...and Im sure its the same with other religions.
There is nothing I know of more comforting than to trust in Jesus, and know its out of your hands. It takes alot of stress off of you.
There is a reason we indoctrinate the young. Its easier:)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Seagoon, thanks for your reply. As for the question, there are only 2 answers, yes or no. You can, of course, refrain from answering the question as posed.
Lizking,
I don't seem to be having much luck answering your question to your satisfaction. Here then is one last attempt. Jesus said that unless a man was born again he could not see the kingdom of God and that men could only get to heaven through Him. As an ambassador of Christ therefore, I preach salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone. I do not preach salvation via works, or rituals, or even a rite of initiation.
So to aid in your interpretation of this answer, this means that no man regardless of his tribe, tongue, nation, philosophy or creed can be saved by any other means. I confess with the Apostle Peter that there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Please do not bother using a particular quote from the bible to reinforce or illustrate your view on religious matters. They are all liable to be taken out of context, since their meaning depends upon it to such a large extent.
Please discuss it as you see it, no documentation required.
Liz, my own opinions are ultimately valueless. Let me give you an example of what I mean. I could argue with you at length that Orange is a better color than Magenta, I could appeal to aesthetic principles, quote great artists, and even refer to polls showing that more people prefer orange to magenta. But does any of that really establish that "orange is a better color than magenta" is true? Not at all.
Unless there is in fact a God who has established absolutes and made it possible for us to know them as well, then all we have are conflicting and equally baseless opinions. Then again, most people in the West today, particularly in regards to religion are happy enough with the idea that "what is true for you may not be true for me" even though the statement is ultimately nonsensical. So we treat religions as no more than fairy tales and argue their merits on the same level that we might say "Hansel and Gretel is inferior to Red Riding Hood because I believe the morals taught in Red Riding Hood are superior."
Ok Lizking, you have a set of morals you believe are taught by "all of the major religions." What if a fascist comes along and says, "Bah, all your "morals" are decadent and worthless, my ideals which include eliminating your system of morality are empirically superior to your morals." On what basis do you assert the opposite? My fairytales trump your manifesto? Again it is merely competing preferences, Orange vs. Magenta with anecdotal support.
If that really were the case then there would be no reason why I shouldn't stand up on Sunday and preach my personal opinions, my personal politics, and so on, after all consensus, antiquity, and popularity do not make or unmake truth. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" I believe that to be absolutely true and not merely his opinion and therefore I preach that regardless of how popular or unpopular it may be.
In my reading of the bible, many times and over many years, I have never seen, in context, anything that would indicate that Jesus or God demand anything resembling being reborn (in the sense you used it above) as being a required ritual to enter heaven.
So what is your reading of Isaiah 53? I mean the entire Chapter - not just a potentially out of context snippet - how about Romans 3?
I ask this because if all that was required to enter heaven was a base assent to certain philosophical principles, then why was the crucifixion and death of Christ spoken of as necessary both before and after it happened, by the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles? Was it all an unnecessary tragedy? Why then was it the will of the Father that the Son be put to death? If this was something Jesus was only willing to do because there was no other way for men to be saved, then how can you assert that we can be saved by assenting to certain principles of moral philosophy taught by "all religions."
Surely if "assent to common moral principles in order to be saved" really is the message of the Bible there should be plenty of in context evidence for it in the text that you can give me.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Furball
I am completely open to religion. I am not religious nor am i against religion. I would love there to be a God and i keep an open mind whether to believe in god....
However, the belief that there was a garden created by god, with a male and female, adam and eve etc. perplexes me.
I genuinely mean no offence to you Seagoon, from my perspective i am confused on how someone who is so educated can appear to believe in something, which to me, appears to be so far beyond belief that it is almost fairy-tale like. How does the religious view tie in with the proof of evolution?
Again, i mean no disrespect and would be happy to edit this out if you want me to.
Hi Furball,
No offence taken, its a relevant and common question.
First in answering your question (and this will pertain to both Filth and Silat's comments as well) I should note that I was not raised as an evangelical Christian, in fact for most of my life I despised Christians, thought the Bible was a bad joke, and that Jesus was an utter ninny. I enjoyed making fun of and running down all things Christian and regarded the continuing elimination of the Christian faith and its influence from the culture as a good thing and a sign of progress. I was a practicing occultist and one of my particular peeves was the "narrow-minded" antipathy of Christians towards my own beliefs and practices. One of my central assumptions was that Christianity was inherantantly illogical, ignorant, contradictory, and fideistic. I also felt sure that I, who had barely read the bible, understood it far better than people who read and studied it every day of their lives. I dismissed evangelicals as mindlessly dogmatic, although I myself unquestioningly accepted certain scientific paradigms as "fact," as did all of my friends, this was especially the case because I had been indoctrinated in these principles since my early youth.
For instance, I didn't go to church on Sunday, but on Saturday I went to the local Arboretum without fail and visiting naturalists and biologists taught us the standardized doctrine of Darwinian evolution.
After I became a Christian, I went through exactly the fundamental change of heart and mind that Lizking and I were discussing in the posts above. The things I once hated, I now loved. But I must admit to having initially had a certain uneasiness when it comes to dealing with the issue of Evolution, I believed in the garden account as the origin of man (as did Christ see Matt. 19:4-5 for instance), but how to reconcile it with everything I had been taught?
Well before even becoming a Christian, I'd been reading in the science mags of the increasing splintering and feuding within the scientific community over Darwinian evolution. Evolution, as you know, is a scientific paradigm created to "explain the available evidence." In science, when the evidence exceeds the ability of the paradigm to "hold it" then a change in paradigm or "paradigm shift" occurs. These paradigm shifts can be quite traumatic because men are dogmatic by nature and seek stability (we fear change), and once we become comfortable with a certain explanation of the universe, finding out that it wasn't quite right and needs to be replaced causes a certain amount of panic.
One such paradigm whose parameters were long ago exceeded by the available evidence is Darwinian evolution. For instance, the hope of Darwinian evolutionists was that eventually we would discover transitional lifeforms to explain the "missing links" in the fossil record, that we would find evidence both in biology and paleontology that the variety of life goes from less to greater variety, and many other things that have not come to pass. Also there was the problem of the Cambrian explosion (i.e. that instead of going from fewer to greater lifeforms, the fossil record indicates exactly the opposite) then there were problems biologists were discovering as they learned more about DNA and its mechanics and finally coming close to the frightening conclusion that mutation will not work as an engine for evolution.
The argument and frustration in the science journals lies in the fact that Darwinian evolution is now so established in our society (particularly in teaching) that its truth is now religiously defended. Men like the late Stephen Jay Gould (who was himself a militant atheist) have railed against what they call "Darwinian fundamentalism" and how it is holding up the progress of science to new paradigms.
One of my quirks is that I'm a voracious reader so I began discovering that much of the existing evidence is now pointing inexorably towards intelligent design, but that when this is discussed by scientists (even doggedly non-Christian ones) the scientific community explodes in an uproar. Therefore research, like the DNA markers that point to two common ancestors for all mankind or the wealth of astronomical data that contradicts the "principle of mediocrity" is either suppressed or treated with embarrassment.
The fact is Furball, that whether one believes in the biblical account, the scientific community is struggling to come to grips with the fact that the available data no longer supports (if it ever did) the traditional Darwinian explanations for the origin of the species. They are having grave difficulty moving on though, in an ironic reflection of the same resistance society showed from moving from a geocentric to a heliocentric model of the solar system.
I happen to believe strongly that the more data we have, the stronger the evidence for intelligent design and two common ancestors for all humans becomes. In other words, the doctrine of special creation is becoming more established, not less. So while I may in fact be quite stupid (and aren't we always the last to know? ;) ) the doctrine I happen to believe itself is actually increasingly credible.
For some good laymen level introductions that will get you started on this, you may want to pick up Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson or Intelligent Design by Dembski. Please note, my purpose in writing the above is not to convince you of either position per se, simply to show a) the actual complexity of the issues and b) that it is not necessary to be entirely out of touch with reality to believe the testimony of scripture regarding creation.
- SEAGOON
-
I will take that as a "no" Seagoon.
You were able to answer the question without using hard quotes. When I said "your opinion", I meant, of course of your proffesional opinion, i.e. the doctrine of your church.
As for the last part, no, Seagoon, first Facism is not a relgion, and second, the core beliefs I adhere to are right, prima facie, with no "back-story" (religion) needed to validate them.
-
Thanks seagoon!
But how does the bible allow for different race if adam and eve were the first humans created by god? (please excuse my naivety!)
-
Originally posted by Furball
Thanks seagoon!
But how does the bible allow for different race if adam and eve were the first humans created by god? (please excuse my naivety!)
Hi Furball,
No excuse necessary.
I'm going to be very frank here, it doesn't take much brain power to be a specialist as you can focus on certain areas and avoid other areas where you are weaker. To be a really competent generalist requires a level of brilliance I just don't have, so I have always been a specialist and have focused in particular on theology, philosophy, other sects and religions, and history. This means that I have necessarily neglected certain areas like creation science and apologetics leaving them to better minds than mine.
So with the caveat above, here is my understanding of the origin of the races. First off, race is not a product of Darwinian evolution, which presupposes that species progress from simple to complex. This is especially important because during the 19th and early 20th centuries racists of various materialist philosophies attempted to use a Darwinian explanation to prove that Whites are superior to most non-whites (i.e. whites are more highly evolved that negroes and mongoloids, etc.) in fact even secular science today believes that the differences between the races are actually the result of recombinations of genes extant in all people. We are all the same species, Homo Sapiens and we are all so closely related that interbreeding is not a problem.
So where did the differences come from if (as much DNA evidence suggests) we all came from one pair of humans - Adam and Eve?
Well we know that the greatest separator amongst the races is actually language, and the Bible tells us that the difference of language was a result of God's direct imposition in Genesis 11. God's original command was to multiply and be fruitful and cover the earth, mankind sinfully refused to do that, preferring instead to form one massive supercity at Babel in the land of Shinar thus violating God's command. Thus God purposely "confused" the various languages (hence the name "Babel" which is similar to the Hebrew balal meaning confuse.)
From this separation of languages, separate people groups developed and certain separate racial features began to develop due to the separation of those races. A sort of "E Unum Pluribus" if you will.
- SEAGOON
-
I was only able to read a line or 2 before the edit.
-
Seagoon,
Do you ever talk about the Crusades which turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage? How many houses do you think would of be burned in those times?
...-Gixer
-
Hello Gixer,
Originally posted by Gixer
Seagoon,
Do you ever talk about the Crusades which turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage? How many houses do you think would of be burned in those times?
...-Gixer
Ok, I know I shouldn't be shocked or even mildly amazed that the overall response to 200 families being burned out of their homes by Muslim mobs, because an illiterate man was taking out the trash is "They deserved it because... uh... The Crusades!" but I am.
Gixer, these are people at the very lowest point on the societal scale in Pakistan. They live under Dhimmitude as third class citizens (Muslim convicts have more rights under Sharia law) and whatever their education or ability they have to take the very worst jobs. They do not riot, they do not burn down the local Mosque, they don't join Al Qaeda, and they don't take part in the constant Hindu/Muslim/Sikh quarrel that has rent that area since the time of the Mughals.
What part did they or any of the other Christians currently living as savagely oppressed people in Muslim lands play in the Crusades exactly?
Also, while you are at it, could you explain how "the Crusades" justify arson, terrorism, murder, and Jihad? Did the Londoners whose bodies are still stuck in that tunnel "deserve it" because of the Crusades?
You want my take on the Crusades? I've given it multiple times, they were theologically indefensible, and exactly the kind of vengeful reaction to violence that Christ and the Apostles forbade. They also lasted about 200 years and ended almost a millenia ago. The Christian world has repudiated them again, and again, and again. I would challenge you to find you to find one major Christian leader who endorses them or their Philosophy.
The Jihad however began in 611 under the command of Muhammad (see the timeline near the beginning of this post) and is still continuing. Finding endorsements for continuing the violent Jihad amongst leaders in the Muslim world isn't exactly difficult, for instance the recently elected President of Iran said following his election in June of this year:
"Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if Allah wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.”
"Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
So Gixer, you are free to despise the Dhimmis of Pakistan and blame them for the Crusades if you wish, but frankly I think the problem lies not in the ideology of the illiterate trash collectors but with their home burning neighbors.
- SEAGOON
-
1)"Acording to Voice of the Martyrs, which aids persecuted Christians around the world"
No bias on their part I am sure.
2) I have searched for this article or any info on other sites. The only link I find for it that is legit is this one from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4634813.stm
3)It says nothing about 200 houses being burned. I only find that on the "Christian News" sites.
4)If you live in pakistan and you are christian, you might not be the brightest guy on the block.
5)Your"Independent confirmation link"provides no confirmation on 200 houses being burned. Only a Hindu Temple. It does say this however.
"child spotted Yousaf Masih burning verses from the Quran. He was in fact just burning garbage. The boy raised an alarm, and the swift and ruthless reaction by extremists of the locality led to the ransacking of a Hindu temple on the same night (June 28) by a angry mob”
5)Race cannot be determined through genetics(at least not yet) Skin color follows a clinal distribution. The darkest are found in bright, tropical regions and lightest are far north or south where there is much less sunlight. Primary factor in skin color is melanin. Melanin is produced by melanocytes which all humans have. The different colors in race are caused by different levels of productions of these cells.
Clinal distribution = Frequency change of a particular trait as you move geographically from one point to another.
The sickle-cell anemia gene also follow clinal distribution. It is common in area's of high incidence's of malaria, particularly West Africa, India and the Middle East.
Cultural Anthropology
Nanda & Warms 2004
-
Originally posted by Raider179
SNIP
4)If you live in pakistan and you are christian, you might not be the brightest guy on the block.
SNIP
5)Race cannot be determined through genetics(at least not yet) Skin color follows a clinal distribution. The darkest are found in bright, tropical regions and lightest are far north or south where there is much less sunlight. Primary factor in skin color is melanin. Melanin is produced by melanocytes which all humans have. The different colors in race are caused by different levels of productions of these cells.
Clinal distribution = Frequency change of a particular trait as you move geographically from one point to another.
The sickle-cell anemia gene also follow clinal distribution. It is common in area's of high incidence's of malaria, particularly West Africa, India and the Middle East.
Cultural Anthropology
Nanda & Warms 2004 [/B]
Excuse me? Because you live in a place where you're beliefs make you a minority, this somehow means you are not bright????
How about the democracy movement in Beijing? College students, the peak of the educational system, bucking the established order out of hope and aspiration -- but they must not have been bright either, eh?
Or maybe they're jsut committed to their beliefs in a way we satiated, lazy westerners have long forgotten.
Some things really are worth dying for...
And as to your point about race -- what we refer to as "race" has never been determined by genetic features beyond outside appearance. In the sense of phenotype, the physically apparent differences between individuals, all "racial" characteristics are genetically determined. However, if one refers to innate qualities, of capacityy or intelligence, there is no genetic difference between races.
ANd we ought to acknowledge that the concept of race is so slippery that it has little meaning. In our dark past US southern racists would label people for a few fractions of minority heritage-- not enough to make any functional difference fro a genetica standpoint -- and Hitler twisted "race" to apply to non-racial national heritage. (For example, German nationals from the east might have had significant Slavic heritage but were considered pure german, while others with more german blood were condemned.)
Lastly, clinal distibutions can be created by trait selection -- fair skinned irish looking peoples living in Africa would be less likely to florish, so there would gradually be fewer of them. The sickle cell trait may have genetically emerged all over -- but there was a selective advantage in malarial areas, becasue it provides realtive resistance to the effects of malaria. (If someone has 2 sickle cell genes, they have the disorder -- and die. But having one gene, called the Trait, gives an advantage in survival, so trait carrying people would be more likely to live than non trait carrying people.)
This says nothing about origins either way.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
SNIP
1)"Acording to Voice of the Martyrs, which aids persecuted Christians around the world"
No bias on their part I am sure.
2) I have searched for this article or any info on other sites. The only link I find for it that is legit is this one from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4634813.stm
SNIP
OK, you've documented a difference. Now we need to determine which "side" has messed up their reporting. Is it the religious press, which cares about persecution of co-religionists, or the mainstream press?
Neither of us really knows. But being interested in a report doesnt mean you cant be objective about it. For example, if the Ice Queen were grounded from future air shows, only the air enthusiast press would care enough to make note. Would the absence of CNN reportage mean it wasnt true? Of course not.
Now, in fairness, lets also note that the "religious" press was up in arms about the slave trade in Sudan for literally YEARS before the rest of the world noticed. Even now the food situation in Darfor gets all the attention. Yet, the relligious press noticed precisely BECAUSE they had a particular interest that the mainstream put on a lower priority.
DOn't take the fact that no one else reported all this and assume that the extra deatail in the VOice of the Martyrs came by distortion. I mean, after all, if their mission is explicitly to be a "voice" for the downtrodden, most others arent noticiing anyway...
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Excuse me? Because you live in a place where you're beliefs make you a minority, this somehow means you are not bright????
How about the democracy movement in Beijing? College students, the peak of the educational system, bucking the established order out of hope and aspiration -- but they must not have been bright either, eh?
Or maybe they're jsut committed to their beliefs in a way we satiated, lazy westerners have long forgotten.
Some things really are worth dying for...
And as to your point about race -- what we refer to as "race" has never been determined by genetic features beyond outside appearance. In the sense of phenotype, the physically apparent differences between individuals, all "racial" characteristics are genetically determined. However, if one refers to innate qualities, of capacityy or intelligence, there is no genetic difference between races.
Lastly, clinal distibutions can be created by trait selection -- fair skinned irish looking peoples living in Africa would be less likely to florish, so there would gradually be fewer of them. The sickle cell trait may have genetically emerged all over -- but there was a selective advantage in malarial areas, becasue it provides realtive resistance to the effects of malaria. (If someone has 2 sickle cell genes, they have the disorder -- and die. But having one gene, called the Trait, gives an advantage in survival, so trait carrying people would be more likely to live than non trait carrying people.)
This says nothing about origins either way.
1)Comparing democracy or College students to Religion just doesnt hold any water for a debate in my book.
2)I have seen pictures of Pakistan and trust me it's not worth dying for to live there. lol
3) I dont think you understood what I was saying about race. There were no "fair skinned" irish people in Africa. The "fair skinned" Irish you are talking about immigrated there. So there is no comparison. I am talking about indigenous groups. You know ones that have been there not immigrants.
4)I also dont think you understand the whole sickle-cell/malaria connection.But wont sidetrack...
-
Originally posted by Simaril
OK, you've documented a difference. Now we need to determine which "side" has messed up their reporting. Is it the religious press, which cares about persecution of co-religionists, or the mainstream press?
Now, in fairness, lets also note that the "religious" press was up in arms about the slave trade in Sudan for literally YEARS before the rest of the world noticed. Even now the food situation in Darfor gets all the attention. Yet, the relligious press noticed precisely BECAUSE they had a particular interest that the mainstream put on a lower priority.
Nothing outside of religious circles has anything like the story reported. Propaghanda works on both sides...
Find a reputable source and I will retract my statement. But even the "independent verified source" given does not verify anything.
In fairness I am sure I could take 3 minutes and dig up twenty articles that the "religious press" was up in arms about, that didnt happen the way its reported. Everything has a spin these days and this appears no different.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1)Comparing democracy or College students to Religion just doesnt hold any water for a debate in my book.
2)I have seen pictures of Pakistan and trust me it's not worth dying for to live there. lol
3) I dont think you understood what I was saying about race. There were no "fair skinned" irish people in Africa. The "fair skinned" Irish you are talking about immigrated there. So there is no comparison. I am talking about indigenous groups. You know ones that have been there not immigrants.
4)I also dont think you understand the whole sickle-cell/malaria connection.But wont sidetrack...
1) Why not? Both are deeply held beliefs. The only difference I can see is how popular the beliefs are.
So are you standing by the idea that to be a Pakistani Christian means you're stupid?
2) They arent dying for Pakistan -- any persecution is for their beleifs.
3) In contect, the discussion was about the distant past, essentially origins. The topic was about "Adam and Eve." So nobody here was talking about Belfast immigration.
And, if one takes the hypothesis of original evolution of humans in Africa, one is presented with EXACTLY the same problem -- where did the Irish skin come from when man started in the "dark" zones?
4) I'm a medical doctor. I take care of some sickle cell patients. I some casual familiarity with its genetics and effects.....
-
Originally posted by Simaril
1) Why not? Both are deeply held beliefs. The only difference I can see is how popular the beliefs are.
So are you standing by the idea that to be a Pakistani Christian means you're stupid?
2) They arent dying for Pakistan -- any persecution is for their beleifs.
3) In contect, the discussion was about the distant past, essentially origins. The topic was about "Adam and Eve." So nobody here was talking about Belfast immigration.
And, if one takes the hypothesis of original evolution of humans in Africa, one is presented with EXACTLY the same problem -- where did the Irish skin come from when man started in the "dark" zones?
4) I'm a medical doctor. I take care of some sickle cell patients. I some casual familiarity with its genetics and effects.....
1)Religion requires "blind faith", College students and Governments are "Real"
2)Yes, stupid in sense of being realistic. If you live in Pakistan and are a Christian I am neither shocked nor surprised that something bad happened to you. Therefore since I see these things as "easy to see", I feel they are stupid for not seeing it.
Ever wonder why the KKK doesnt set up shop in Compton?
3)It was a joke.
4)Yeah you did when you brought fair-skinned irish people living in Africa into a discussion on race origins.
5)Adaptation to the enviroment over time.
6) I have no idea what your last statement means.
7) Your an MD?
-
I'm not into a major argument here -- my point was really pretty simple. The fact that only specialty reporting has picked up teh story DOES NOT mean it isnt true. It doesnt prove it is true, but experience has shown that religious issues aren't well covered by the mainstream media. Knowing how the middle east treats religious conflict, it is entirely plausible that the home of christians might be burned -- shoot, the very creation of Pakistan should show that!! And why do you expect people to be realistic when it comes to their unpopular beliefs? Again, how realistic were the democracy demonstrators in Tianamen?
However, in the absence of "outside" evidence either way, your supposition was that the story was false. There wasnt any evidence that it was false, and there was reason why others might not report it.
It's a sign of our culture that we could say democracy is "real" and religion is "just belief," while still considering ourselves openminded.
Judgement with insufficient evidence, or based on predispostion -- that's almost the literal meaning of "prejudice." And in western civilization right now, one could make a reasonable argument that there is a prejudice against people of belief.
My last comment was meant to be on the level of "Is the pope catholic?" I am familiar with the genetics of sickle cell anemia, with epidemiology (the study of disease in a population), and with the selection advantages that sickle cell delivers. I am an MD, and have board ceritfications in 3 different specialties. (Wife says I'm not allowed to get any more -- lol.) I also deeply believe that Christianity is The Truth, despite never having lived in the south, being well educated and well read, being able to think critically and independently, never having owned a pickup, and having no children with multiple first names (ie "Joe Bob" or "Billie Sue"). I admit that I get a bit miffed when I see faith equated with ignorance -- because although that's a popular prejudice in 21st century america, any objective review of history will find that there were some men of truly towering intellect who believed.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I'm not into a major argument here -- my point was really pretty simple. The fact that only specialty reporting has picked up teh story DOES NOT mean it isnt true. It doesnt prove it is true, but experience has shown that religious issues aren't well covered by the mainstream media. Knowing how the middle east treats religious conflict, it is entirely plausible that the home of christians might be burned -- shoot, the very creation of Pakistan should show that!! And why do you expect people to be realistic when it comes to their unpopular beliefs? Again, how realistic were the democracy demonstrators in Tianamen?
However, in the absence of "outside" evidence either way, your supposition was that the story was false. There wasnt any evidence that it was false, and there was reason why others might not report it.
It's a sign of our culture that we could say democracy is "real" and religion is "just belief," while still considering ourselves openminded.
Judgement with insufficient evidence, or based on predispostion -- that's almost the literal meaning of "prejudice." And in western civilization right now, one could make a reasonable argument that there is a prejudice against people of belief.
My last comment was meant to be on the level of "Is the pope catholic?" I am familiar with the genetics of sickle cell anemia, with epidemiology (the study of disease in a population), and with the selection advantages that sickle cell delivers. I am an MD, and have board ceritfications in 3 different specialties. (Wife says I'm not allowed to get any more -- lol.) I also deeply believe that Christianity is The Truth, despite never having lived in the south, being well educated and well read, being able to think critically and independently, never having owned a pickup, and having no children with multiple first names (ie "Joe Bob" or "Billie Sue"). I admit that I get a bit miffed when I see faith equated with ignorance -- because although that's a popular prejudice in 21st century america, any objective review of history will find that there were some men of truly towering intellect who believed.
My point was that the "independent verification" did nothing of the sort. When someone says here this proves this is factual, and it turns out that it does not prove it, I get very skeptical very quick.
I never once said it was implausible for this to happen in fact quite the opposite. here is my quote "If you live in Pakistan and are a Christian I am neither shocked nor surprised that something bad happened to you."
Yes I am starting to doubt this "particular" story. You wouldnt believe (or I guess you would) the number of similar stories that circulate on the "religious sites" I am by no means saying that some or most didnt happen but unless I see more info I am gonna doubt it. Like I said smells like propaghanda to me.
The term democracy is used to describe a form of government in which decisions are made with the direction of the majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
A form of government...Unless you are saying government isn't real either.
ok here is another site that makes no mention of the 200 burnt houses....Also notice the man is 35 and not 60. Closer to the BBC account of the event.
http://www.thenation.co.uk/hn.html
PESHAWAR: A Christian man has been arrested in North-West Frontier Province for allegedly desecrating a Qoran.
Yousaf Masih, 35, was arrested late on Tuesday in the town of Nowshera, 40km (25 miles) east of Peshawar.
Neighbours had complained Mr Masih had torn pages from the Koran and burned them in the street. About 300 people protested, demanding quick punishment.
Insulting Islam, the Prophet Mohammad or the holy book can be punishable with death under blasphemy laws.
Christian and human rights groups have called for the laws to be scrapped, claiming Christians have been persecuted because of them. Some of the people protesting over Mr Masih's alleged actions reportedly pelted a nearby Hindu temple with stones wrongly thinking he was a Hindu. Hindu MP Gur Sardar raised the issue in the provincial parliament, calling for greater protection for minority communities. Police quelled the violence and arrested eight people for rioting. Meanwhile, police in the district of Sheikhupura in the central province of Punjab say they have launched an inquiry into another alleged Koran desecration.
They say a man tore pages out of the book in a village near Sheikhupura town on Sunday. An angry crowd tried to beat him up, police say, but he escaped and is still on the run. The mob later tried to set fire to the local police station.
200 houses burned well you think that would make the news, notice no mention of it.
I wasnt equating faith with ignorance. I was equating the stupidity, with the ignorance of living near someone who considers you an enemy and would just as soon cut off your head as say good morning.
-
SEAGOON,
Your quite a minister sir. I know since today is Sunday you won't probably see this until tomorrow , but , I wanted to say that reading your replies and posts here are good.
You seem to have taken on a second congregation to a point here. I also noticed as I read some of the replies and questions , a certain tone of maybe some wanting to learn more.
Anyway , keep up the fine posts and answers to the questions. I enjoy them very much.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Seagoon,
Do you ever talk about the Crusades which turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage? How many houses do you think would of be burned in those times?
...-Gixer
Why is it every time a conversation starts about religeon , the first thing that flies is what happned centuries ago.
Blaming something that happened years ago is just IMO looking for a way to blast something you don't like.
Instead of trying to bring up ancient history , why not , if you have nothing relevant to say, just be quiet?
-
Fair enough, Raider. I dislike propaganda wherever it comes from, and if this story is distorted it shouldnt be trusted.
I wouldnt consider it stupid to live in Pakistan if you had no choice. I doubt that these folks sit around deciding which overseas vacation to take...
As you said, it is "no surprise" that religious minorities are vigorously persecuted in Pakistan. That, after all, was the real point of the story Seagoon posted, I'm sure in good faith.
I'd argue against any double standard that blamed Christians for being persecuted over there -- "what do you expect?" -- while blaming them for being the majority "discriminators" over here. The emphasis should not be on how we incite the fanatics by disagreeing with them; the problem is the fanatic violence itself.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
The emphasis should not be on how we incite the fanatics by disagreeing with them; the problem is the fanatic violence itself.
Great statment
-
I'd like to know what your trying to gain for Christians by stiring up a thread that's nothing more then a cheap shot and anti muslim?
All christians are good, muslims are bad. blah blah.... please.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Fair enough, Raider. I dislike propaganda wherever it comes from, and if this story is distorted it shouldnt be trusted.
I wouldnt consider it stupid to live in Pakistan if you had no choice. I doubt that these folks sit around deciding which overseas vacation to take...
As you said, it is "no surprise" that religious minorities are vigorously persecuted in Pakistan. That, after all, was the real point of the story Seagoon posted, I'm sure in good faith.
I'd argue against any double standard that blamed Christians for being persecuted over there -- "what do you expect?" -- while blaming them for being the majority "discriminators" over here. The emphasis should not be on how we incite the fanatics by disagreeing with them; the problem is the fanatic violence itself.
Agreed and well spoken :)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
SEAGOON,
Your quite a minister sir. I know since today is Sunday you won't probably see this until tomorrow , but , I wanted to say that reading your replies and posts here are good.
You seem to have taken on a second congregation to a point here. I also noticed as I read some of the replies and questions , a certain tone of maybe some wanting to learn more.
Anyway , keep up the fine posts and answers to the questions. I enjoy them very much.
Also agreed. Seagoon although we differ on many points I have the utmost respect for your intelligence, input, and point of view. Although it can get heated at times (my fault) you keep it all in perspective. to you Chappy
-
Originally posted by Gixer
All christians are good, muslims are bad. blah blah.... please
I'm sorry, I didn't get that impression at all.
In fact, I'm going to get my wife, a proclaimed atheist, to read this thread.
She seems to be reverting to her religious upbringing in casual conversation. Only on occasion, but it's there. I think the posts here will help her decide what she realy believes.
Two genetic decendants for all human kind??
Who got off the Ark??
I think evolution and creationism can exist hand in hand. It just takes open minds from all involved to show what really happened.
Seagoon, I appreciate your diligence on this BBS. I always enjoy reading your posts, whether I agree with them or not.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
You seem to have taken on a second congregation to a point here. I also noticed as I read some of the replies and questions , a certain tone of maybe some wanting to learn more.
Anyway , keep up the fine posts and answers to the questions. I enjoy them very much.
Indeed, i am one of those people that would like to learn other peoples' viewpoint.
Thank you for your time Seagoon.
-
Why cant we just except that our cultures are so different we may never live in peace? That said why dont we meet on the field of battle. Oh ya..if we did that they'd be exterminated. Guess they better stick to cowardly "hide in the shadow" of the sword tactics they know and love.