Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, you guys already did what I came here to do. Thanks peeps, now I can eat some breakfast before my next session, instead of spending time here typing out my response.

There is a big problem with applying Levitical law to behavior today. The Levitical laws are known as moral codes that govern Jews, not Christians. If you are not a Jew, you are not bound by those codes. There are other things mentioned in those codes, and if they were applied to folks today, heaven would be a very empty place. Leviticus passages are often cited by ignorant Christians as stating homosexuality is an abomination prohibited by God. The penalty is death, and if applied today, Christians should be calling for the death penalty to punish gays. Why is this not happening? Why does the condemnation remain, but the penalty gone? It's because the law was not meant for today, not meant for Christians, and not worthy of a mention period in today's context. If the law could be applied today, Dolce and Gabbana would be killed for mixing two different fabrics together, the youth pastor at my church would be killed for having tattoo's, and anyone who harvested, cooked, or served crab, lobster or shrimp would be killed as well. This would also mean that Jesus died on the cross for no reason, and there is no way I believe that.

Ignorant Christians like Peabrain also fail to talk about translation errors, which are quite common in the old testament. Abomination in Hebrew is "toebah". In the Hebrew bible this word refers to Idolatry, or practices associated with idolatry. The Canaanites which surrounded the Jews back in that day had a fertility god called Molech. To honor Molech, incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexual prostitution ceremonies often occurred. So the Levitical law does not address homosexuality at all, but what it does address is idolatrous sexual practices.

Since Peabrain mentions the words of Paul in his ignorant diatribe, let's talk about Paul surroundings. In 1st Corinithians, Paul uses two Greek words a lot in the original translation, Malakoi and Arsenokoitai. These are translated in the King James Version of the bible as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind. Neither of these two words addresses "homosexuality", because there is no specific word for homosexuality in the Greek language in those times. Also many Greeks back in those days slept with both men and women, and the words to describe this activity(we call it bi-sexuality) paiderastes, pallakos, kinaidos was unambigous, and never mentioned by Paul. If Paul was addressing homosexuality, he would have specifically used those words.

The word Malakoi means "soft", Arsenokoitai broken down means Koatai "those who have sexual intercourse" and Arseno "male" or "masculine". Both of these words have very ambiguous meanings. Paul would not be using these words if he was talking about homosexuality. To give this some context - Paul traveled to the city of Corinth often. Corinth was a city dominated by the worship of the fertility goddess Venus. Ephesus were Timothy lived was also a city dominated by fertility worship. Paul saw things like incest, meat being offered to idols, tons of prostitution, and women that dressed in suggestive clothing. Clearly Paul was more interested in addressing Idolatry rather than homosexuality.

Lastly, we have to ask ourselves whether Paul was stating his opinion, or a reflection of God's view. Paul often stated his opinion, and the best example would be 1 Corinthians 7:25. In 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul says it is a shameful thing for a man to have long hair(sorry hippy types), but God nor Jesus state this. Thirdly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 he states that women are to remain quiet in the congregation, and it is shameful for them to speak. Do we condemn men with long hair today? No. Do we condemn woman pastors and speakers today? No. When quoting scripture context, time, culture and current events of the time must be considered. Literalist like Peahead fail to do this, and this is why they constantly misquote and misuse the Bible to support their own biases.

Now I know that Peahead is going to say I am not a real Christian because I have stated what I have. I would strongly disagree, but would agree that I am not an ignorant sheeple like Christian he is. Literalist Christians are going to run into a whole lot of problems when trying to convey their views to rational people. My grandmother was one of the smartest loving Christian woman I have ever met. She lived the life she spoke of. She also knew the Bible inside and out, and made sure I did as well. She is nothing like Peabody. She does not condemn, judge, or use the Bible as a weapon to beat others down. She taught me Bible history, and sent me to courses taught by Bible scholars who had no agenda. I learned to always apply cultural and historical context to scripture, and to be aware that translation problems do exist in the King James and many other translations of the original text in its original languages. There are some English words that have no translation in Greek, Arabic or Hebrew, so they cannot be relied on for true meaning when translated.

To Peabody, the Bible is a weapon to be used to beat people that are not like him down. This is not what the Bible should be used for. It should be used for inspiration and example. IMO Peabody is no different than Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard and Eddie Long, all men that preached hate towards homosexuals, but committed adultery, and engaged in homosexual activities themselves. In the case of Peabody, he is not loving or humble, but attacks people in a bitter revengeful way because that person has exposed his ignorance on something. If he is the example of how Christians should behave, I would rather go to hell.

JM is one of the nicest, kindest persons on this board. He has never attacked anyone vengefully, and I have never read anything he wrote that put another person down. This is more Christian like behavior than Peanut head exhibits, which proves that Peabrain is more talk than action like many of today's Christians are. God is interested in our actions, not our words. In this respect, Peabody is more like the Pharisee, and less example of Christ like actions, all facade with no substance. Boo to that!

If meeting someone face to face from this board is your criteria for legitimacy, then you sure are shallow as heck. I could meet everyone here face to face, and they still would not know anything about me. What makes me legitimate is the information I provide here, and I have provided enough verifiable information to solidify my legitimacy.

By the way peahead, I didn't need to Google this thanks to my grandmother

[GMichael]

Wow, you guys already did what I came here to do. Thanks peeps, now I can eat some breakfast before my next session, instead of spending time here typing out my response.

There is a big problem with applying Levitical law to behavior today. The Levitical laws are known as moral codes that govern Jews, not Christians. If you are not a Jew, you are not bound by those codes. There are other things mentioned in those codes, and if they were applied to folks today, heaven would be a very empty place. Leviticus passages are often cited by ignorant Christians as stating homosexuality is an abomination prohibited by God. The penalty is death, and if applied today, Christians should be calling for the death penalty to punish gays. Why is this not happening? Why does the condemnation remain, but the penalty gone? It's because the law was not meant for today, not meant for Christians, and not worthy of a mention period in today's context. If the law could be applied today, Dolce and Gabbana would be killed for mixing two different fabrics together, the youth pastor at my church would be killed for having tattoo's, and anyone who harvested, cooked, or served crab, lobster or shrimp would be killed as well. This would also mean that Jesus died on the cross for no reason, and there is no way I believe that.

Ignorant Christians like Peabrain also fail to talk about translation errors, which are quite common in the old testament. Abomination in Hebrew is "toebah". In the Hebrew bible this word refers to Idolatry, or practices associated with idolatry. The Canaanites which surrounded the Jews back in that day had a fertility god called Molech. To honor Molech, incest, bestiality, adultery, and homosexual prostitution ceremonies often occurred. So the Levitical law does not address homosexuality at all, but what it does address is idolatrous sexual practices.

Since Peabrain mentions the words of Paul in his ignorant diatribe, let's talk about Paul surroundings. In 1st Corinithians, Paul uses two Greek words a lot in the original translation, Malakoi and Arsenokoitai. These are translated in the King James Version of the bible as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind. Neither of these two words addresses "homosexuality", because there is no specific word for homosexuality in the Greek language in those times. Also many Greeks back in those days slept with both men and women, and the words to describe this activity(we call it bi-sexuality) paiderastes, pallakos, kinaidos was unambigous, and never mentioned by Paul. If Paul was addressing homosexuality, he would have specifically used those words.

The word Malakoi means "soft", Arsenokoitai broken down means Koatai "those who have sexual intercourse" and Arseno "male" or "masculine". Both of these words have very ambiguous meanings. Paul would not be using these words if he was talking about homosexuality. To give this some context - Paul traveled to the city of Corinth often. Corinth was a city dominated by the worship of the fertility goddess Venus. Ephesus were Timothy lived was also a city dominated by fertility worship. Paul saw things like incest, meat being offered to idols, tons of prostitution, and women that dressed in suggestive clothing. Clearly Paul was more interested in addressing Idolatry rather than homosexuality.

Lastly, we have to ask ourselves whether Paul was stating his opinion, or a reflection of God's view. Paul often stated his opinion, and the best example would be 1 Corinthians 7:25. In 1 Corinthians 11:14 Paul says it is a shameful thing for a man to have long hair(sorry hippy types), but God nor Jesus state this. Thirdly in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 he states that women are to remain quiet in the congregation, and it is shameful for them to speak. Do we condemn men with long hair today? No. Do we condemn woman pastors and speakers today? No. When quoting scripture context, time, culture and current events of the time must be considered. Literalist like Peahead fail to do this, and this is why they constantly misquote and misuse the Bible to support their own biases.

Now I know that Peahead is going to say I am not a real Christian because I have stated what I have. I would strongly disagree, but would agree that I am not an ignorant sheeple like Christian he is. Literalist Christians are going to run into a whole lot of problems when trying to convey their views to rational people. My grandmother was one of the smartest loving Christian woman I have ever met. She lived the life she spoke of. She also knew the Bible inside and out, and made sure I did as well. She is nothing like Peabody. She does not condemn, judge, or use the Bible as a weapon to beat others down. She taught me Bible history, and sent me to courses taught by Bible scholars who had no agenda. I learned to always apply cultural and historical context to scripture, and to be aware that translation problems do exist in the King James and many other translations of the original text in its original languages. There are some English words that have no translation in Greek, Arabic or Hebrew, so they cannot be relied on for true meaning when translated.

To Peabody, the Bible is a weapon to be used to beat people that are not like him down. This is not what the Bible should be used for. It should be used for inspiration and example. IMO Peabody is no different than Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, Ted Haggard and Eddie Long, all men that preached hate towards homosexuals, but committed adultery, and engaged in homosexual activities themselves. In the case of Peabody, he is not loving or humble, but attacks people in a bitter revengeful way because that person has exposed his ignorance on something. If he is the example of how Christians should behave, I would rather go to hell.

JM is one of the nicest, kindest persons on this board. He has never attacked anyone vengefully, and I have never read anything he wrote that put another person down. This is more Christian like behavior than Peanut head exhibits, which proves that Peabrain is more talk than action like many of today's Christians are. God is interested in our actions, not our words. In this respect, Peabody is more like the Pharisee, and less example of Christ like actions, all facade with no substance. Boo to that!

If meeting someone face to face from this board is your criteria for legitimacy, then you sure are shallow as heck. I could meet everyone here face to face, and they still would not know anything about me. What makes me legitimate is the information I provide here, and I have provided enough verifiable information to solidify my legitimacy.

By the way peahead, I didn't need to Google this thanks to my grandmother

I thought you said that you were going to skip the typing and eat some breakfast.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought you said that you were going to skip the typing and eat some breakfast.

It took me five minutes to type this up, I knew what I was going to say The Grits and eggs sure was good!

[Feanor]

...

There is a big problem with applying Levitical law to behavior today. The Levitical laws are known as moral codes that govern Jews, not Christians. ...

Blah, blah, blah. Nice try, Sir T, however these are the sort of post facto rationals that "liberal" Christians concoct to justify current notions of morality.

I say this as an atheist to be sure, but if you don't like the despicable things the Bible says, then just give it up, don't try to rationalize it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Blah, blah, blah. Nice try, Sir T, however these are the sort of post facto rationals that "liberal" Christians concoct to justify current notions of morality.

I say this as an atheist to be sure, but if you don't like the despicable things the Bible says, then just give it up, don't try to rationalize it.

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

[ForeverAutumn]

As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

While it may be true that atheists don't believe in god, other people believe it to be real and it affects our lives on a daily basis. So it's hard not to have an opinion.

Just think of all the wars that would not have been fought if all the world were atheists.

[GMichael]

While it may be true that atheists don't believe in god, other people believe it to be real and it affects our lives on a daily basis. So it's hard not to have an opinion.

Just think of all the wars that would not have been fought if all the world were atheists.

People would find another reason to fight. It's in our nature.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While it may be true that atheists don't believe in god, other people believe it to be real and it affects our lives on a daily basis. So it's hard not to have an opinion.

Just think of all the wars that would not have been fought if all the world were atheists.

FA, I do not believe in Budda, have no opinion on it, and it does not effect me at all. I cannot see were ANY belief in God would effect anyone that does not believe in him. What others believe should have no influence on your life at all. I firmly respect the fact that you don't believe in God, but that lack of belief does not effect me at all. I still think you are cool, and that is not going to change just because you don't believe what I believe.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

People would find another reason to fight. It's in our nature.

You got that right! If it is not religion, its race, handicaps, territory, or resources.

[Hyfi]

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

Sorry but I have to jump back in here. Just because one does not believe in something that is not visible, tangible, and logical does not mean that they do not have enough education and supporting data to have an opinion of it.

You only believe it to be true but in no way can anyone prove that it is true or real, that is why it is a belief system and not reality as we know it.

As Mark said to me, this is no different than a cable argument except with cables you can see them, touch and feel them, and hear the reproduced sound delivered from them. With religion, you cannot see anything, and you will never know if it was true or real until you are dead and it's too late to change your mind.

So putting the religion debate vs a cable debate, you would say that every person that does not BELIEVE that cables sound different or change the sound from their system has no right to have an opinion about it. Boy I wish that were so.

All of you quoting scripture cannot prove in any way what happened then, what was said back then, whether the truth has been changed, skewed, translated properly or that any of it is anything more than just a belief that it's true. God did not write the bible and what is quoted in red as Jesus actual words is pure speculation and again will never be proved.

Now if you want to argue that the bible IS the word of god, then everything ever written is the word of god because everyone of us is god experiencing the physical world through man (and woman). We are all one, same spirit, same dna, same everything except individual bodies which just makes things easier for Humans to rationalize.

This debate will have no ending until each one of us dies, in the physical earthy form, and finds out whether we go back to the all knowing spirit, or rot with the worms 6 feet under.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, I do not believe in Budda, have no opinion on it, and it does not effect me at all. I cannot see were ANY belief in God would effect anyone that does not believe in him.

It's not the actual 'believe or don't believe' that affects me. It's the actions that people take based on those beliefs. Prejudice against homosexuals, people trying to take away my right to have an abortion, and reference to God in my national anthem as a few examples. Those things affect me whether or not I believe in God. So I have an opinion.

[Hyfi]

It's not the actual 'believe or don't believe' that affects me. It's the actions that people take based on those beliefs. Prejudice against homosexuals, people trying to take away my right to have an abortion, and reference to God in my national anthem as a few examples. Those things affect me whether or not I believe in God. So I have an opinion.

I stopped saying The Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag in about 4th grade for similar reasons. Again, we are One World under God and he does nothing more for our nation than he does for all others, if he does anything at all.

[Ajani]

No, not Muhammad. What happened was that the angel, Gabriel, quoted God (a.k.a. Allah) to Muhammad as God's chosen messenger. (Muhammad was illiterate so he quoted Gabriel to scribes who wrote it down.)

Oh yes, I totally forgot about that... it just gets better and better... So God told Gabriel, who told Muhammad, who told scribes...

Nothing quite like a game of 'Chinese telephone' to ensure that a message is passed on accurately...

[ForeverAutumn]

I stopped saying The Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag in about 4th grade for similar reasons. Again, we are One World under God and he does nothing more for our nation than he does for all others, if he does anything at all.

When I was in grade school they still recited The Lord's Prayer every morning. I was raised in a Jewish household where we didn't pray that way. But yet every morning I was made to stand with the class and recite this christian prayer. I did it because not doing it would have made me stand out in the crowd. But I always knew that it was wrong for me...as a Jew then, as an atheist now.

When I sing our national anthem I don't sing "God keep our land glorious and free". I sing, "O Canada, glorious and free". I hope I'm never asked to sing at a hockey or baseball game.

[GMichael]

Oh yes, I totally forgot about that... it just gets better and better... So God told Gabriel, who told Muhammad, who told scribes...

Nothing quite like a game of 'Chinese telephone' to ensure that a message is passed on accurately...

And all told around a time when sea-serpents, mermaids, and sailing off the end of the world were commonplace.

[Feanor]

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

On the contrary, I'm perfectly entitled to an opinion. However unreal the underlying fact of the existence of God might be, the religious history, dogma, and polemic are all too real.

[Hyfi]

So here is what I don't get. We have two people in this thread competing as to who can quote the bible better and who is the real true christian.

Oddly enough, there are only two people trash talking and name calling in this thread.

The rest of us, no matter how opinionated have been tolerant and somewhat respectful, even if passionate to a fault.

So the rest of us skeptics and non-believers have been acting in the way Christians teach of Jesus life and how we should all act.

This is one of the reasons so many people are turning away from the church or whatever organized religion they have belonged to.

This below is just from half a page of one of the top true Christians here that are tolerant, forgiving, cheeky turning hypocrites. Maybe provoked, but where is the forgiveness and compassion for others?

"Quote -Sir T >azzhole, Your stupid ass, you are pathetic, stuff them straight up your sorry butt, Your sorry ass can't even follow your own advice,
Peabrain, peahead, bitter revengeful pathetic fool you are , Beezle bub, <

Real nice christian talk. You should really take a good look at who you want people to see you as, good hearted christian is very questionable for both

[bobsticks]

Ah 'Sticks to quote one of my favourite films "you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"...

However your mix of sarcasm and wit is so extreme that I'm often perplexed as to what your actual point is....

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

[Ajani]

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

Well said...

[Feanor]

...

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

[bobsticks]

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

[Hyfi]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

Bottom line is, if you're gonna Talk the Talk, you have to Walk the Walk. You can't preach it one way and live it another. That goes for everyone if you believe in it. You can't turn the other cheek for some and not others.

[Feanor]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.

I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.

The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.