What will you do with me (and others like me?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, that's about the size of it. It seems to me that everyone carries meaning to scripture, not the other way around, but most people then want to claim their particular interpretation is the actual true truth coming TO them, as you say. My problem then becomes: Which one is correct?

My interpretation? Yours? The Pope's? Warren Jeff's? I dunno.

Any discussion of religion seems to boil down to that: "My version is the absolute true one that God intended and yours is not." What am I supposed to do with that? No matter what I pick it will be wrong according to somebody.

So what can I do but carry my own meaning to it? When I was 16 I had a spiritual experience where Jesus flooded me with love and light which has remained ever since. Scripture is just a signpost, not the goal. That experience, grace, is the goal. I'm not going to focus on trying to force logical meaning into scripture. To me, doing that misses the point.

I appreciate your answer, I hope you'll bear with me, here. But in regards to the constitution, do you believe it is a living document or do you believe in original intent?
 
I appreciate your answer, I hope you'll bear with me, here. But in regards to the constitution, do you believe it is a living document or do you believe in original intent?
We have allowed a lot of conversation that we would not normally allow here, and people have kept it respectful. But this question has nothing to do with the original topic. It seems as if you want to push the envelope as far as you can but we would appreciate it if you stop.
 
We have allowed a lot of conversation that we would not normally allow here, and people have kept it respectful. But this question has nothing to do with the original topic. It seems as if you want to push the envelope as far as you can but we would appreciate it if you stop.

It's simply a discussion and the last question was asked in more of a Socratic fashion than anything else. I'm ok with stopping it here, but I would rather get to the end of the road before we stop the car. I think I may be the only one who cares about what's at the end of this road though, so I appreciate the tolerance and will let it rest. Closing the thread may be the best option, cause I can't promise I won't be baited back in. :)
 
Closing the thread may be the best option, cause I can't promise I won't be baited back in. :)
This is not the first time you have jumped back in after saying you were done. ;)
 
I don't have much to contribute to the thread other than to say I probably agree with the OP more than disagree. I did want to say that I am encouraged that this thing has run 6 pages and other than one person obviously trying to derail, everyone has been very open to hearing others opinions and ideas. I personally would love to sit around the table with @Cooter, @redtail and @Rushie and soak it all in. This thread has given me a smidgen of hope, I white male Christian, a black male Muslim and a White female Christian having an open and frank conversation with respect to one another, we have a chance. @Everskyward, I understand your position, but this is the eventual drift that every thread has. If you shut down every conversation that drifted from the OP, every thread would die. I humbly ask you to let it run its course, if it goes sideways, shut it down then.
 
This is not the first time you have jumped back in after saying you were done. ;)
I can't dispute that.

I enjoy this kind of discussion, and my wife gets bored with me pretty quick. And at church, everybody agrees with me. What fun is that?
 
Yep, that's about the size of it. It seems to me that everyone carries meaning to scripture, not the other way around, but most people then want to claim their particular interpretation is the actual true truth coming TO them, as you say. My problem then becomes: Which one is correct?

My interpretation? Yours? The Pope's? Warren Jeff's? I dunno.

Any discussion of religion seems to boil down to that: "My version is the absolute true one that God intended and yours is not." What am I supposed to do with that? No matter what I pick it will be wrong according to somebody.

So what can I do but carry my own meaning to it? When I was 16 I had a spiritual experience where Jesus flooded me with love and light which has remained ever since. Scripture is just a signpost, not the goal. That experience, grace, is the goal. I'm not going to focus on trying to force logical meaning into scripture. To me, doing that misses the point.
First, I thank the mods for allowing us to continue. Some very deep thoughts have been shared, but every time I try to bail, something draws me back in, lol.

Who's interpretation is correct?

God answers that as well in the final revelation (Qur'an), and believe it or not, this is one of the biggest problems in the Islamic world. That's why there are so many darn 'sects' and 'parties'. Just like what happened to.. 'the people of the book' (Christians, Jews) before.
Jesus (pbuh) even admitted that he did not have knowledge of all things. Some things are known only by "the Father".

So here's what God revealed to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

3:6 He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He pleases. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

3:8 "Our Lord!" (they say), "Let not our hearts deviate now after Thou hast guided us, but grant us mercy from Thine own Presence; for Thou art the Grantor of bounties without measure.
3:9 "Our Lord! Thou art He that will gather mankind Together against a day about which there is no doubt; for Allah never fails in His promise."


3:7 He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allah. and those firmly rooted in knowledge, They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.

Extremist (ISIS, KKK, etc) use their twisted interpretation to cause mischief and bloodshed! Their hearts are perverse.
 
Last edited:
First, I thank the mods for allowing us to continue. Some very deep thoughts have been shared, but every time I try to bail, something draws me back in, lol.

Who's interpretation is correct?

God answers that as well in the final revelation (Qur'an), and believe it or not, this is one of the biggest problems in the Islamic world. That's why there are so many darn 'sects' and 'parties'. Just like what happened to.. 'the people of the book' (Christians) before.
Jesus (pbuh) even admitted that he did not have knowledge of all things. Some things are known only by "the Father".

So here's what God revealed to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

3:6 He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He pleases. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

3:7 He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

3:8 "Our Lord!" (they say), "Let not our hearts deviate now after Thou hast guided us, but grant us mercy from Thine own Presence; for Thou art the Grantor of bounties without measure.
3:9 "Our Lord! Thou art He that will gather mankind Together against a day about which there is no doubt; for Allah never fails in His promise."


3:7 He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allah. and those firmly rooted in knowledge, They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding.

Extremist (ISIS, KKK, etc) use their twisted interpretation to cause mischief and bloodshed! Their hearts are perverse.
I don't mean this to be confrontational, because you're welcome to ask me the same question about the Bible if you wish. But what about the verses that speak to eliminating the non-believers. And what about Muhammad later in life, and his war against Mecca. Those are the things that extremist look to, so how do moderate (or whatever the proper term is) followers of Islam handle them?
 
6:159 "As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did:

42:14 "And they became divided only after knowledge reached them through selfish envy as between themselves. Had it not been for a Word that went forth before from thy Lord (tending) to a Term appointed the matter would have been settled between them: but truly those who have inherited the Book after them are in suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it."

I'm one of those who inherited the book after them:).
 
I don't mean this to be confrontational, because you're welcome to ask me the same question about the Bible if you wish. But what about the verses that speak to eliminating the non-believers. And what about Muhammad later in life, and his war against Mecca. Those are the things that extremist look to, so how do moderate (or whatever the proper term is) followers of Islam handle them?
Yes, good questions.
I'll only say a few words on them at the moment. I handle extremist Muslims (haven't run into any yet in my 51 years) like I handle any other murderous criminals. I call them out and condemn them!
No such thing as a 'moderate' Muslim. Muslim=one who surrenders to the will of God and worships NONE but God ALONE. He believes in ALL of the prophets and messengers of God. Islam is as old as the universe, not 1400 years old. The sun, moon, stars and planets, plants and animals are in submission to their creator.

1. The ONLY 'non-believers' that the book/verses allows to be "eliminated", are the ones who attempt to eliminate me/us! Also known as self-defense. Yes religious enemies are often called "non-believers" ;)

Trying to force someone to believe in God or accept religion is silly. Killing them for rejecting, is murder! It violates the very tenets of Islam, as God reveals in the following verses.

2:255 Allah — there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

2:62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

18:29 And say: The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve.

15:2 Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to Allah's will) in Islam.

15:3 Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them).

Reminder: Arabic speaking Christians and Jews use the same name for God. Allah. It's in their scriptures, which predates the Qur'an.

2. I have blood family members who are Christian, Atheist and Jewish (my brother-in-law is a Jew, so my nieces and nephews are my blood).
3. One of the Holy Prophet's wives, Safiyyah bint Huyayy (pbuh) was a Jew. Safiyyah daughter of Huyayy (Huyayy was a chief of a Jewish tribe in Arabia).
4. You (anyone) can take any verse out of context and use that verse to justify their actions.
5. Yes fighting in self-defense IS allowed, otherwise you and your family will be wiped out! However, when the 'non-believers' cease hostilities, Muslims are to do the same....CONTEXT. This is still a violent world, religion or not. Always has been and alway will be, until Christ returns (after his work is completed, I might add. The wicked must be uprooted from power first!).
Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

At first, the early Muslims weren't even allowed to fight back! Muhammad (pbuh) was always seeking a peaceful alternative.

2:190 And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors.
2:191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it; so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192 But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


8:61 And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower.
8:62 And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee. He it is Who strengthened thee with His help and with the believers.


60:7 It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those of them whom you hold as enemies. And Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

60:8 Allah forbids you not respecting those who fight you not for religion, nor drive you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly. Surely Allah loves the doers of justice.

60:9 Allah forbids you only respecting those who fight you for religion, and drive you forth from your homes and help (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends of them; and whoever makes friends of them, these are the wrongdoers.


War against Mecca?
http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2012/04/important-events-the-conquest-of-mecca/

"By this time, the Muslims had become a formidable force and so in 630 C.E. the Prophet Muhammad decided to take an army of 10,000 towards Mecca. Once the Muslims had reached Mecca, the leaders of Quraysh surrendered. As a result the Prophet Muhammad announced:
"Those who shelter in the Ka’ba are safe; those who shelter in the house of Abu Sufyan are safe, and those who remain confined to their houses are also safe.
This day no reproach shall be on you. God will forgive you; He is the Most Merciful of the Merciful. You can go away!"

Many of the Meccans, who were expecting some sort of punishment, were surprised by the Prophet’s statement and some decided to become Muslim. Thus, the conquest of Mecca was bloodless and ended years of warfare and violence between Quraysh and the Muslims.
This event is significant for Muslims because it demonstrates the character of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He could have exacted revenge, in accordance with the traditions of the Arabs, but instead he showed mercy on the Meccans. This is an important reminder for Muslims even to the present day about how conflict should be addressed. Finally, the conquest was a defining moment because it established Islam on the Arabian Peninsula, from there it spread to become a major world religion."

So, it is pretty clear that Allah (God) does not condone any forced conversion, I don't care what's portrayed in the media!

Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - Forced Conversion?
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.or...misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=3


Forced Conversion?
"So the foundation of Jihad is Islamic propagation (da’wah). The question often asked is whether Islam condones and teaches the forced and armed conversion of non-Muslims. This is the image sometimes projected by Western scholars and as any Muslim scholar will tell you, is seriously flawed. The Qur’an clearly states “There is no compulsion in religion, the path of guidance stands out clear from error” [2:256] and [60:8]. In this verse, the word “rushd” or “path of guidance” refers to the entire domain of human life, not just to the rites and theology of Islam.

There is no debate about the fact that pre-Islamic Arabia was a misguided society dominated by tribalism and a blind obedience to custom. In contrast, the clarity of Islam and its emphasis on reason and rational proofs excluded any need to impose it by force. This verse is a clear indication that the Qur’an is strictly opposed to the use of compulsion in religious faith. Similarly, Allah addressed Sayiddina Muhammad r saying, “Remind them, for you are only one who reminds.” [88:21]

Allah addresses the believers, urging them to obey the injunctions of Islam, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, then know that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the message) in the clearest manner.” [5:92] However, this verse makes it clear that the Messenger’s duty is only to proclaim and preach the message; it remains to each individual to accept and to follow"


I'll end on this note. The prophet (pbuh) rejected all forms of extremism, in all walks of life. He taught people to seek the middle ground in everything from warfare to the volume of our voices in prayer. That is how he lived. He was known as a noble and honorable man even before the call to prohethood at the age of 40.
Peace and blessings be upon him!

"Never! By God, God will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your relatives, help the poor, serve your guests generously, and assist those hit with calamities" ~Khadijah (pbuh), wife.

Moderation and balance in Islam
https://abuaminaelias.com/moderation-and-balance-in-islam/

Does the Quran Really Sanction Violence Against ‘Unbelievers’?
By Kabir Helminski
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kabir-helminski/does-the-quran-really-adv_b_722114.html
 
Last edited:
One last point which needs clarification. That is the word ALLAH. That name was well known in the Arabic language, long before prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was born (570AD).
Allahu Akbar=God is The Greatest. It is a prayer that is uttered in every aspect of daily life, not a rallying call to violence (although some use it for that purpose). The phrase is heard daily all around the globe, without violence.
"In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful."

The Word Allah In The Arabic Bible
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/BibAllah.html

"The images below, with the exception of the first image, were taken directly from The Holy Bible in Arabic. Referred to in Arabic as al-Kitâb al-Muqadis (i.e. ,The Holy Book), this is the scripture which is used by Arabic-speaking Christians (of which there are still about 15 to 20 million in the Middle East). So that those unfamiliar with Arabic script have something to compare these images with, the first image below is a verse from the Qur'ân - which is the Muslim scripture. In the images, the Arabic word Allah is underlined in red so that it can be easily identified. Upon comparing the images, one should be able to clearly see that the word Allah appears in both the Qur'ânic and Arabic Bible images.

Indeed, the word Allah appears throughout Arabic translations of the Bible, since it is simply the Arabic name for Almighty God. Insha'llah, the examples below will help quell the doubts of those who have been duped into believing that Muslims worship a different god - either by the hostile media or by Christian missionary propaganda. We hope that this serves as enough documentation for those who still have doubts about this. We could think of no other way to prove this point, except to encourage everyone to do further critical and open-minded research on their own. Please, don't forget to compare the images . . ."

___________________________________________________________________
"God - Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant “invoked one.”
 
Last edited:
I am very upsetting to people:

I am very pro First AND Second Amendment.

I am a vegan, but I respect hunters.

I am a full-throated supporter of LGBTQ rights, gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana; but -completely- against abortion, and think every American should own any gun they want.

I am a nature lover, will not kill even a mosquito, and literally have tree-hugged on several occasions, but think climate change needs more research and shouldn't be sold as a religion.

I am a rabid peacenik, but support our military and veterans like they are my brothers (one is).

Finally (throwing us all a bone): I am an annoyingly cheap conservationist, and can't stand if even one unneeded light is on in the house, but if I had the money, I'd buy and fly the biggest, most gas-guzzling jet I could, and fly it all day long.

Like most of us, ignore you like you ignore me. Its not only easier that way, its also more polite.

You leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone - fair enough?
 
What I've always wondered... If an atheist woman is having an orgasm... who does she talk too? :dunno:
 
We have allowed a lot of conversation that we would not normally allow here, and people have kept it respectful. But this question has nothing to do with the original topic. It seems as if you want to push the envelope as far as you can but we would appreciate it if you stop.

WE could have ended it with a few keystrokes.

But I can now catalog this thread among the other obvious moderation issues.

Next up, I get to talk conservative politics!
I might start with P****** P***********.

Yippee!
 
I am very upsetting to people:

I am very pro First AND Second Amendment.

I am a vegan, but I respect hunters.

I am a full-throated supporter of LGBTQ rights, gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana; but -completely- against abortion, and think every American should own any gun they want.

I am a nature lover, will not kill even a mosquito, and literally have tree-hugged on several occasions, but think climate change needs more research and shouldn't be sold as a religion.

I am a rabid peacenik, but support our military and veterans like they are my brothers (one is).

Finally (throwing us all a bone): I am an annoyingly cheap conservationist, and can't stand if even one unneeded light is on in the house, but if I had the money, I'd buy and fly the biggest, most gas-guzzling jet I could, and fly it all day long.
Agree with most of what you've written here Ben... except I'm not a vegan and I certainly DO kill mosquitoes. ;)

And as far as leaving those unneeded lights on... if you do the math you quickly realize that the cost is in the noise... but I'm still as compulsive about turning them off as if it really mattered.
 
Holy crap... how did this thread end up going down the rabbit hole of religion and *gasp* politics ?? :dunno: :mad2:
 
Holy crap... how did this thread end up going down the rabbit hole of religion and *gasp* politics ?? :dunno: :mad2:

The politics was in the OP's first post. As for the religion I'm pretty amazed it has stayed courteous and non-confrontational this long.
 
Holy crap... how did this thread end up going down the rabbit hole of religion and *gasp* politics ?? :dunno: :mad2:
Very few threads survive around here without drifting off topic.
In post-74, I responded to post #67 which introduced religion into the discussion. I thought he made some excellent points. Then Cooter followed up with questions for me which deserved to be answered. At that moment, what I should have done was start a separate thread, or just answer him privately (which he also suggested as an option).
Apologies to the OP and anyone who may be bothered by the side conversation that we conducted.
 
Last edited:
We have allowed a lot of conversation that we would not normally allow here, and people have kept it respectful. But this question has nothing to do with the original topic. It seems as if you want to push the envelope as far as you can but we would appreciate it if you stop.

Deleting the SZ was a bad idea. You brought this on yourselves.
 
Last edited:
The politics was in the OP's first post. As for the religion I'm pretty amazed it has stayed courteous and non-confrontational this long.

This has been a fascinating thread and I agree that threads don't normally go this far without running off the rails. It has been refreshing to see people with different views at least listen to others respectfully. Of course there was one earlier in the thread trying to get it shut down, and here at the end another, it was inevitable that some that weren't even participating will come in the room shouting. I still am glad though because I think this is an accurate microcosm of our society, the vast majority will listen to differing views and move on with their lives, but there is a noisy minority that will get the attention and have honest discussion shut down by name calling and shouting.
 
Holy crap... how did this thread end up going down the rabbit hole of religion and *gasp* politics ?? :dunno: :mad2:

Like Rushie said, the OP set it up and some of us followed. A quote from a book that I was reading this morning will help explain why threads tend to go this way.

"Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It influences how we perceive ourselves, how we relate to others, how we adjust to adversity, and what we understand to be our purpose. Our worldview helps determine our values, our ethics, our capacity for happiness." Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr.

People like me think it's odd that culture generally accepts discussion where we can express our opinions, but at the same time wishes to limit the discussion about where our opinions come from. Not all beliefs are equal and our assumptions should be challenged, in my opinion. The real deception and harm comes when we deny our assumptions. It's telling that some people are so put out over an open discussion when all they have to do to avoid it, is to not read it.

I would like to continue the chat with Redtail because I rarely, if ever, get the opportunity to interact with someone of his belief. I don't agree with him, but I can still learn more and maybe understand what attracts him to Islam. Both of our beliefs should be challenged so that we can better understand the merits of our own belief system.

In my experience, atheist are the touchiest and most sensitive to any discussion going there. Personally, I don't think they want their beliefs challenged, in general. Some, on the other hand are well prepared and welcome the challenges. Those are the type I enjoy talking to. I think Christopher Hitchens was a breath of fresh air in that regard, and I enjoy some of his writings and his wit. His crudeness and disdain for religion is off putting, but I still like him and I think he was one of the most honest atheists out there.
 
It's telling that some people are so put out over an open discussion when all they have to do to avoid it, is to not read it. -- @Cooter

It's telling to others that in a place where there are stated rules about acceptable content, the rule is abandoned at the whim of the moderators.

There have been many threads about the particular RoC involved.

"I like it until I don't" seems to be the prevailing school of thought on this. Unfortunately the line moves more than a gerrymandered district in a traditionally _____ (fill in the blank) state.
 
Give it a rest, you sound like a whiney baby. Just ignore this thread if it offends you.

ETA: I'm sure you are trying to goad the mods, I hope they see through you, I certainly do.
 
Give it a rest, you sound like a whiney baby. Just ignore this thread if it offends you.

ETA: I'm sure you are trying to goad the mods, I hope they see through you, I certainly do.

Everything in this thread is taboo, starting from the OP. Everyone who posted is tiptoeing around whatever the mods are allowing today.

There used to be a section on the site where such topics could be discussed without worry of being banned, or the thread being locked. That was done away with, I suppose in favor of some kind of utopian, sterile and conflict free forum. But as long as POA remains a community of people who interact regularly, these topics will continue to surface.
 
Last edited:
I don't deal with attitude. Cop the attitude shown by the OP, and I won't do anything with you. You do your attitude away from me, my home and my hangar.

Come without the attitude, we might get along. I'm not shy about showing irritating people to the door.

I also haven't read but the first half dozen or so posts in this thread, and don't intend to.
 
Everything in this thread is taboo, starting from the OP. Everyone who posted is tiptoeing around whatever the mods are allowing today.

There used to be a section on the site where such topics could be discussed without worry of being banned, or the thread being locked. That was done away with, I suppose in favor of a more sterile forum.
And I think that's ok, as long as they delete the whole thread and don't let someone have the last word and then lock it.
 
Well what I wanted to say in answer to the OP was I was vegetarian once and my intestines could not handle the copious amounts of fiber. The last couple of months I went the complete opposite: meat only. My a1c went from 6.3 to 5.8 and my fasting BS from 109 to 83 and I dropped ten pounds. And my intestines are not protesting whatsoever. But I like meat that lived happy not crowded in meat factories.

Also I am very non violent but I will kill insects. Lobsters are just large sea insects.

I wanted to answer Cooter's question about the Constitution but that's politics again. Oh well, everyone agrees humans wrote the Constitution so originalist I am but the Bible had already been retranslated and revised many times before it ever got to me so who am I to say which version is the legitimate original one and that's all I will say about religion.

Every time I look at this thread I expect it to be locked. I am shocked it lasted this long.

Peace out.
 
and that's all I will say about religion.
So no follow up questions? :(

Early manuscript evidence is one of the strongest arguments for the validity of Christianity. Modern findings and discoveries have confirmed the accuracy of the translations, I can cite sources if you're interested.

I can say with confidence that the message is consistent among the major translations. (KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, NKJV) The Bible has been the subject of intense scrutiny and if it were an unreliable text, you can bet it would be highy publicized. Any disputes among scholars are over semantics, punctuation or otherwise trivial matters when it comes to actual translation. So it is safe to say that you can have confidence that you are reading a reliable representation of the original intent of the authors. If fact, former atheist journalist and lawyer Lee Strobel was convinced of the truth of Christianity and converted to the faith in part because the historical accuracy and textual reliability of the translations. So I don't think it is quite so easily dismissed.

I'll drop the follow up to the originalist question, but it seems like you know where I was going with that. Perhaps part of the reason for confusion among different sects within Christianity is because it's treated like a "living" document. And, why you are bound to accept inconsistencies and contradictions in order to validate the "answers" you have found elsewhere. If it truly is as unreliable as you consider it to be, I don't know why quoting from it adds anything to your already formed opinion.

I don't want my post to come across as filled with animus or ill feelings, I'm just trying to apply logical consistency to the discussion. Sometimes that's difficult to do without sounding grumpy.
 
Last edited:
Give it a rest, you sound like a whiney baby. Just ignore this thread if it offends you
ETA: I'm sure you are trying to goad the mods, I hope they see through you, I certainly do.

I've left your name calling intact. It's an excellent contribution to the reasoned debate that is being praised in this thread. Good for you!

But you are correct... the mods need to be goaded to enforce their rules uniformly.
 
Isn't that sweet... @Mike Smith posted a selfie. How very "modern and enlightened."

Thank you again for continuing the reasoned and informed debate this thread exemplifies.
 
Isn't that sweet... @Mike Smith posted a selfie. How very "modern and enlightened."

Thank you again for continuing the reasoned and informed debate this thread exemplifies.

Thanks!! Look on the bright side, this will certainly get the thread shut down. I feel sure you have reported my posts. Now, go put some ice on that tenderness.
 
I don't deal with attitude. Cop the attitude shown by the OP, and I won't do anything with you.

What "attitude" do you assume I am "copping?"

I enjoy lively discussions, you see.
 
The politics was in the OP's first post. As for the religion I'm pretty amazed it has stayed courteous and non-confrontational this long.
FWIW my mention of politics was tongue-in-cheek... hence the *gasp*. Pretty clear the OP was inviting it. I guess I needed an extra emoticon in there to make my meaning clear.

Agree about the religion, now that I've read the entire thread (mostly). It just seemed like flirting with derailing the thread, and getting it locked.

So rushing in where not even angels fear to tread (it seems)... I've never understood the hostility to Islam among so many Christians in this country. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, all monotheistic religions originating in the Middle East. They all worship the same God, even if they may use different names for said God. As I understand it, the Torah is subsumed into the sacred writings of both Christianity and Islam. And both Christianity and Islam have had, and continue to have, their extremist sects dedicated to conversion or extermination of those who worship differently from themselves. It seems totally provincial and intolerant to brand an entire religion as extremist and violent.

I'm an agnostic myself, but used to work at a university in the inner city of Detroit, where many of the graduate students in my department (and quite a few undergrads as well) were immigrants from Muslim countries and were Muslim themselves. In fact, my dissertation advisor had a Muslim background, though I believe he was non-practicing. Anyway I never met a single Muslim there who professed allegiance to Al Qaeda or ISIL, or attempted to convert me or anyone that I know.

My 2 cents...
 
They all worship the same God, even if they may use different names for said God.
This is far from the truth, in fact its is kind of the reverse of the truth. At least in Judaism and Christianity, we often use the same names but our understanding of who God is, is much different. Jesus told the Pharisees that they didn't know God the Father, because they didn't know Him or where He came from. (He was sent by the Father). Jesus declared that He IS the Truth, and the WAY to God.

Christianity also believes in the Triune God, rejected by Judaism and Islam. So, even when reduced to a basic understanding of the fundamental beliefs, the three you mentioned are quite different. As for the hostility towards Islam, I just don't know what you're talking about. I am a life long church goer and I've never been in a church that expressed hostility towards the people of Islam, not one single time. Westboro Baptist and white nationalists are not representative of the Church. They would be excommunicated from any church I've attended. Their beliefs are not acceptable, and Christianity at its core reaches out to those who serve other Gods. That is fundamental to Christianity. As a matter of fact, we support a Ministry that aids refugees fleeing the hostilities in the middle east and it appeals directly to those of the Islamic faith. Same also for a ministry to the people of India (providing health care), regardless of their belief system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top