quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

How do you get from my saying that Quakers shouldn't be killed to 'anti-Christian'? Seriously?

The actions of men are driven by their own desires, they merely quote scripture to rationalize.

It doesn't matter if they quote 'Kill the infidel', or 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me', the victims are just as dead.

What sort of weird semantic quibble are you setting up? That Mary Dyer deserved to die because the Puritans passed a law making it a crime to be an infidel? That the Jews deserved the Inquisition?

Or is this like the 'Show me where the words 'freedom of religion' are in the Constitution' sophistry?

What exactly is your point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

as always when I ask for someone to show me were it says this IN the bible, they point to the actions of MEN, and say well they thought so, so it must be so, but they never show me the parts of the bible used to justify it....

I nevre made a blamket statment saying christianity didn't kill people, I asked someone to please show me the sections and/or sections that condones and/or mandates it...

when people ask for the same things of the koran, within seconds people will show passages of the koran that does it, but all i ever get from anti vhristina people is, well the did it so it MUST be in there someplace!

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
.....
What sort of weird semantic quibble are you setting up?

What exactly is your point?

What he's trying to say is.....

In the Quran, it specifically states, in many places, that non-believers of Islam should be eradicated.
Not as a punishment for this that or whatever crime.... just for not being a believer.

Whilst many other religious texts have also similar punishments for various infractions, he is asking for someone, anyone, to point out where in the bible it says the self same thing; ie: to eradicate all non believers just for not believing as it does in the Quran.

I thought it was a simple enough question.


Any answers??   Anybody?

quote:

So the Quran spells it out, the Bible just says that the 'wages of sin is death', etc. and defines all sorts of things as death-worthy sin, from getting raped to being an idolater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

So the Quran spells it out, the Bible just says that the 'wages of sin is death', etc. and defines all sorts of things as death-worthy sin, from getting raped to being an idolater.

and you translate that to mean ALL non beleivers should be killed?

I have to admit the "wages of sin is death" seems pretty close

still though, it doesn't say if you don't beleive in me you have sinned and therefore should be put to death
as far as I can tell from the lil bit you quoted that could easily also be seen as pertaining to beleivers who have sinned should be put to death and not everyone who sinned anyplace on earth

and forget the death worthy sins part, those are not in question, I have aleady admitted those are there. we all know they are, and as far as I know no one is disputing this fact.

even if some of them are wackaloon laws, they are still punisments for SPECIFIC ACTIONS. what I am asking for is a BLANKET STATMENT that says ALL NON BELEIVERS should be put to death for no other reason than being non beleivers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

OK, so your semantic quibble is that the Bible language isn't as concise or as all encompassing as the Quran? That people have to use 2 or 3 verses and some conjecture to kill in the name of their religion, instead of just one slogan?

I'll agree with that. Now, what's the point?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

So the Quran spells it out, the Bible just says that the 'wages of sin is death', etc. and defines all sorts of things as death-worthy sin, from getting raped to being an idolater.

and you translate that to mean ALL non beleivers should be killed?

I have to admit the "wages of sin is death" seems pretty close

still though, it doesn't say if you don't beleive in me you have sinned and therefore should be put to death
as far as I can tell from the lil bit you quoted that could easily also be seen as pertaining to beleivers who have sinned should be put to death and not everyone who sinned anyplace on earth

and forget the death worthy sins part, those are not in question, I have aleady admitted those are there. we all know they are, and as far as I know no one is disputing this fact.

even if some of them are wackaloon laws, they are still punisments for SPECIFIC ACTIONS. what I am asking for is a BLANKET STATMENT that says ALL NON BELEIVERS should be put to death for no other reason than being non beleivers

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Global dominion? I want global dominion and have almost as good a chance as "muslims". Sorry but anyone who lumps Muslims into one pot needs to put the pot down...

Christians own and run the world and the only serious competitor is the chinese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

They cant even.hold a country together, one half of them hate the other half and the days of savages winning on.horseback hasnt worked in a while.

But then again, aliens could arrive or the goreans could invade...

My money is on the chinese as the general population.here, left or right are pretty much dumb as fenceposts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Global dominion? I want global dominion and have almost as good a chance as "muslims". Sorry but anyone who lumps Muslims into one pot needs to put the pot down...

Christians own and run the world and the only serious competitor is the chinese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I thought this was an interesting article, mainly discussing Egyptian attitudes towards the U.S. but it might also apply to other countries as well.

quote:

Some extremist Muslims hammer us because they don't like Western values; others see the conspiratorial hand of America everywhere -- sucking the life out of Arab and Muslim independence, pride and dignity.

But once you get away from the fringes, what you find is equally disturbing: Millions of Arabs and Muslims don't like us not because of who we are but because of what we do. It's our policies.

And since those are unlikely to change anytime soon, there's a pretty good chance America will continue to lose the public image battle in the Middle East. And here's why:

Minds and hearts: We've always had it backwards. It's not hearts then minds at all. If you want to capture the imagination of people living in the Middle East and get them to warm to America, you don't play to their emotions first. It's as if a new pretty bow on a package with the same contents as ever is somehow going to help sell U.S. policy. It won't.

First, capture people's minds, appeal to their cognitive self-interest and then their hearts will follow.

...

Values vs. interests: It's stunning testament to the American predicament in the Middle East that within two years of Hosni Mubarak's overthrow -- handled relatively well by the Obama administration -- we are being attacked for backing both Mohamed Morsy and the generals and criticized by just about everyone, even the secular opposition.

You can pick your favorite culprit. The U.S. ambassador, Secretary of State John Kerry's yachting outing, Barack Obama's naivete about the Muslim Brotherhood or his softness toward the military.

But none of them is the reason. We lost our footing in Egypt because the tension between our values and interests results in unpopular and inconsistent policies.

...

Great power hypocrisy: Great powers are big and strong enough that they can afford to behave inconsistently and hypocritically. And they do. It's as if it were part of their job description.

But that inconsistency can confuse and disappoint. Our policies toward the Arab Spring are laced with contradictions. We support real political change in Egypt, but we won't push it hard in Saudi Arabia or in Bahrain where oil, stability and U.S. bases reign supreme.

We'll intervene militarily in Libya because it's easier -- but not in Syria, where the strength of al-Assad's allies, military and a chemical weapons capacity make it much riskier.

And in the greatest paradox of all, our ties with the monarchies -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco -- are much closer than with the emerging and struggling democracies at a time when the Middle East yearns for democracy and freedom. It is indeed remarkable that the Arab kings have become our new anchors in a turbulent sea of political change.

I think that the writer makes some interesting points about American inconsistency and great power hypocrisy, but I don't think he delves deeply enough as to the sources of this inconsistency and hypocrisy. What drives these policies that have incurred the wrath of all these people? Some might conclude that U.S. policies are all about money and corporate greed, but that would only explain part of it. A lot of it may be rooted in how we Americans tend to perceive and look at the rest of the world.

For example, I'm struck by phrases the writer uses here: "...emerging and struggling democracies..." and "...Middle East yearns for democracy and freedom." We're talking about an area of the world which learned how to govern itself thousands of years before the United States even existed, yet using phrases like "emerging and struggling" as if they're just starting out, setting ourselves up in some kind of paternalistic role as "mentor" of democracy and freedom - because we do it so much better than everyone else, apparently. That approach may seem somewhat arrogant and rub people the wrong way, even if it's applied with the best of intentions. As long as that perception continues to be propagated and unchallenged, then U.S. foreign policy may not ever change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I thought this was an interesting article, mainly discussing Egyptian attitudes towards the U.S. but it might also apply to other countries as well.

quote:

Some extremist Muslims hammer us because they don't like Western values; others see the conspiratorial hand of America everywhere -- sucking the life out of Arab and Muslim independence, pride and dignity.

But once you get away from the fringes, what you find is equally disturbing: Millions of Arabs and Muslims don't like us not because of who we are but because of what we do. It's our policies.

And since those are unlikely to change anytime soon, there's a pretty good chance America will continue to lose the public image battle in the Middle East. And here's why:

Minds and hearts: We've always had it backwards. It's not hearts then minds at all. If you want to capture the imagination of people living in the Middle East and get them to warm to America, you don't play to their emotions first. It's as if a new pretty bow on a package with the same contents as ever is somehow going to help sell U.S. policy. It won't.

First, capture people's minds, appeal to their cognitive self-interest and then their hearts will follow.

...

Values vs. interests: It's stunning testament to the American predicament in the Middle East that within two years of Hosni Mubarak's overthrow -- handled relatively well by the Obama administration -- we are being attacked for backing both Mohamed Morsy and the generals and criticized by just about everyone, even the secular opposition.

You can pick your favorite culprit. The U.S. ambassador, Secretary of State John Kerry's yachting outing, Barack Obama's naivete about the Muslim Brotherhood or his softness toward the military.

But none of them is the reason. We lost our footing in Egypt because the tension between our values and interests results in unpopular and inconsistent policies.

...

Great power hypocrisy: Great powers are big and strong enough that they can afford to behave inconsistently and hypocritically. And they do. It's as if it were part of their job description.

But that inconsistency can confuse and disappoint. Our policies toward the Arab Spring are laced with contradictions. We support real political change in Egypt, but we won't push it hard in Saudi Arabia or in Bahrain where oil, stability and U.S. bases reign supreme.

We'll intervene militarily in Libya because it's easier -- but not in Syria, where the strength of al-Assad's allies, military and a chemical weapons capacity make it much riskier.

And in the greatest paradox of all, our ties with the monarchies -- Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco -- are much closer than with the emerging and struggling democracies at a time when the Middle East yearns for democracy and freedom. It is indeed remarkable that the Arab kings have become our new anchors in a turbulent sea of political change.

I think that the writer makes some interesting points about American inconsistency and great power hypocrisy, but I don't think he delves deeply enough as to the sources of this inconsistency and hypocrisy. What drives these policies that have incurred the wrath of all these people? Some might conclude that U.S. policies are all about money and corporate greed, but that would only explain part of it. A lot of it may be rooted in how we Americans tend to perceive and look at the rest of the world.

For example, I'm struck by phrases the writer uses here: "...emerging and struggling democracies..." and "...Middle East yearns for democracy and freedom." We're talking about an area of the world which learned how to govern itself thousands of years before the United States even existed, yet using phrases like "emerging and struggling" as if they're just starting out, setting ourselves up in some kind of paternalistic role as "mentor" of democracy and freedom - because we do it so much better than everyone else, apparently. That approach may seem somewhat arrogant and rub people the wrong way, even if it's applied with the best of intentions. As long as that perception continues to be propagated and unchallenged, then U.S. foreign policy may not ever change.

They don't like us because they see through our massive hypocrisy.We don't give a fuck about any of them.They only reason we give a damn at all is because they have oil,which our economy is dependent on. Otherwise,we'd treat the area the same way we do impoverished African nations-who gives a fuck.
We have a long history of acting empirically,overthrowing governments,backing dictators,supplying arms to tyrants and training secret police that torture and imprison the citizenry. Not to mention the deals we've cut that gave us the one precious natural resource the region possesses at far below market rates.
We buy the oil at cut rate prices,make tyrants wealthy,then turn around and take that wealth off their hands,selling them munitions to rape their own populaces.
Yeah,we're nice guys all the way through.

They have all sorts of reasons to dislike us,most solid valid reasons.

Here's the bottomline-some forty odd years after what was at the time the single greatest transfer of wealth in world history (The 72 gas crisis and following OPEC years,when trillions of Western dollars ended up in Despots bank accounts.This,of course,has now been dwarfed by the bailouts we gave the bankers, the single greatest transfer of wealth in human history),once oil is removed from the picture, the Middle East as a whole, exports less than Finland.That's right.Fucking Finland.These despots we've backed, that we've kept in power to support our internal national interests.,have done nothing to better the plight of their people.The economies are in shambles, unemployment is high,there is no infrastructure capable of creating a solid economic base to support a population in the post oil years.
The Arabs see pretty fucking clearly that our policies have raped their countries,led to massive pollution and corruption,and that the only thing we care about is what's good for us,that all our talk of democracy and human decency and crap is just that,crap,not worth the breath expended to say the words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

OK.. I'll take 'Semantic Quibbles' for 600 Alex.


So the Quran spells it out, the Bible just says that the 'wages of sin is death', etc. and defines all sorts of things as death-worthy sin, from getting raped to being an idolater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
.....
What sort of weird semantic quibble are you setting up?

What exactly is your point?

What he's trying to say is.....

In the Quran, it specifically states, in many places, that non-believers of Islam should be eradicated.
Not as a punishment for this that or whatever crime.... just for not being a believer.

Whilst many other religious texts have also similar punishments for various infractions, he is asking for someone, anyone, to point out where in the bible it says the self same thing; ie: to eradicate all non believers just for not believing as it does in the Quran.

I thought it was a simple enough question.


Any answers??   Anybody?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

OK.. I'll take 'Semantic Quibbles' for 600 Alex.


So the Quran spells it out, the Bible just says that the 'wages of sin is death', etc. and defines all sorts of things as death-worthy sin, from getting raped to being an idolater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
.....
What sort of weird semantic quibble are you setting up?

What exactly is your point?

What he's trying to say is.....

In the Quran, it specifically states, in many places, that non-believers of Islam should be eradicated.
Not as a punishment for this that or whatever crime.... just for not being a believer.

Whilst many other religious texts have also similar punishments for various infractions, he is asking for someone, anyone, to point out where in the bible it says the self same thing; ie: to eradicate all non believers just for not believing as it does in the Quran.

I thought it was a simple enough question.


Any answers??   Anybody?

I don't know if that is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Bible or an accidental one. But I presume it is deliberate.

The full quote is " For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

They're not talking about killing anyone. To the contrary they are saying that the result of sin leads to hell.

The correct answer for 600 is nowhere in the bible do Christians call for death - for any offense.

Christians believe that christ supplanted the mosaic law which *did* offer many prescriptions for death. Ie, man lying with man, woman committing adultery, woman laying with a beast etc.

Recall that the bible is a combination of the old testament (jewish books) and the new testament (christian).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

OK.. I'll take 'Semantic Quibbles' for 600 Alex.


So the Quran spells it out, the Bible just says that the 'wages of sin is death', etc. and defines all sorts of things as death-worthy sin, from getting raped to being an idolater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
.....
What sort of weird semantic quibble are you setting up?

What exactly is your point?

What he's trying to say is.....

In the Quran, it specifically states, in many places, that non-believers of Islam should be eradicated.
Not as a punishment for this that or whatever crime.... just for not being a believer.

Whilst many other religious texts have also similar punishments for various infractions, he is asking for someone, anyone, to point out where in the bible it says the self same thing; ie: to eradicate all non believers just for not believing as it does in the Quran.

I thought it was a simple enough question.


Any answers??   Anybody?