Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Wootah
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by Wootah »

ixolite wrote:
Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?
On the oposite, while in the past FFI has been many times mistaken for an atheistic site, it is now seen as a christian right-wing-nut site. Just lately on RDF that was thrown to me (again).
- Do you think that reflects more Christian's 'waking up'?
- What is RDF?

sparky
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:49 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by sparky »

Wootah wrote:
ixolite wrote:
Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?
On the oposite, while in the past FFI has been many times mistaken for an atheistic site, it is now seen as a christian right-wing-nut site. Just lately on RDF that was thrown to me (again).
- Do you think that reflects more Christian's 'waking up'?
- What is RDF?
'Richard Dawkins Forum'. There are some bright cookies over there. Definitely a better place to go if you want some quality discussion with atheists.

buttermint2000
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:23 pm

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by buttermint2000 »

ColonialRustic wrote:I have returned after a long respite to find that a lot of the problems that made this forum so tiresome are still here. Whenever someone makes a reference to other religions - often in comparison to Islam - all the atheists come out of the woodwork to spew their venom against any religious belief whatsoever.

Moreover, it seems there is an increase in posts that have nothing to do with Islam, but rather have the intent to portray any religion whatsoever in a negative light (the Catholics seem to be a favorite target).

While my own religion hasn't been slammed by this forum, I think that it serves no good purpose with these in-your-face atheist rants - especially when they are so rage-filled and lacking in rational arguments. They begin to look too much like the Muslim extremists we are trying to stand against.

As a side note, it seems that the level of civil discourse has also degraded. There is altogether too much profanity in this forum.

Let the rage begin... :roll:

What may have happened over the last few years is that non-Muslims, whether atheist or otherwise, have examined and studies Islam a bit more deeply than previously. What do find? Jinn, a person in a cave claiming he was visited by Gabriel, splitting of the Moon, magical fling horses, a journey to Jerusalem followed shking of hands with Adam, Moses and a few others followed b a chat with God, during which the daily prayer requirement was negatioted by Mohammed down from 50 to 5.

One can't help thinking 'this is a bit rich, isin't it?'

And then, perhaps, we all start re-examining our own childhood religious stories (parting od the seas, water into wine, resurrection of the dead) and think likewise 'this is a bit rich, isn't it?'.

Maybe through examining Islam the rtue silliness of religion of all kinds becomes more apparent.

Discuss!!

LCD
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:31 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by LCD »

antineoETC wrote:
LCD wrote:There are more Christians than muslims and Christians aren't out slaughtering screaming Allhu Akbar Jesus.
Never said they were.
You're a typical athiest hater, who technically, doesn't have the stones to go after Judiaism becauyse whgen you do you'll find the Jews are a giving and kind people despite your so called assesment of their scriptures as "Viscious and jealous.
It is not ME but JEHOVAH who calls HIMSELF a "jealous" god:

for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Deuteronomy 5:8-9)

This jealous psycho massacre-commanding deity is clearly the inspiration for Islam's Allah and his filthy jihad and, I repeat, continues to inspire deranged religious movements whose dangerousness to the rest of us is only limited by their size.
Please refer to me a single christian terrorist in the last 20 years. Thank you. i await your proof.

also, this is a statement to the children of isreal at a certain moment of time, it is a command and a warning. thanks for miosquoting it like a typical athiest moronic deuschbag:


Deuteronomy 5 6-9

'I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
7
You shall not have other gods besides me. (please note that this is the stipulation. I freed you from slavery, that means you can worship no other gods)
8
You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
9
1 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation


Lastly, as you can see, if they do this, there will be punishment. a clear enough warning. this is not open ended, its a warning to isreal. now go over you yoiur copy of Darwin and worship it. and shut your mouth about stuff you know nothing about.
You should command that the Qur’an be collected.’” Abu Bakr added, “I said to `Umar, ‘How can we do what the Prophet never did?Jeremiah 31:25 "there will be no more Jews on the Earth when the sun, moon and stars stop shining," i.e. the end of the Earth and civilization.

LCD
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:31 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by LCD »

antineoETC wrote:So to sum up: Islam stands as a deadly indictment of the bible
no--not to sum up. what you have written is opinion with no fact behind it. sum your own idiot life up. thanks for playing
You should command that the Qur’an be collected.’” Abu Bakr added, “I said to `Umar, ‘How can we do what the Prophet never did?Jeremiah 31:25 "there will be no more Jews on the Earth when the sun, moon and stars stop shining," i.e. the end of the Earth and civilization.

antineoETC
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by antineoETC »

LCD wrote:Please refer to me a single christian terrorist in the last 20 years. Thank you. i await your proof.
I don't see why I should furnish a proof for a claim I have not made. However I will cite the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army as an example of a modern non-Islamic bible-inspired violent movement which can reasonably be labelled "terrorist".
also, this is a statement to the children of isreal at a certain moment of time, it is a command and a warning. thanks for miosquoting it like a typical athiest moronic deuschbag:


Deuteronomy 5 6-9

'I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
7
You shall not have other gods besides me. (please note that this is the stipulation. I freed you from slavery, that means you can worship no other gods)
8
You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
9
1 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation

Lastly, as you can see, if they do this, there will be punishment. a clear enough warning. this is not open ended, its a warning to isreal. now go over you yoiur copy of Darwin and worship it. and shut your mouth about stuff you know nothing about.
So Yahweh has since become a "non-jealous" god and is nowadays completely laid back about idol worshipping? Do I understand you right?
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

Wootah
Posts: 2056
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by Wootah »

buttermint2000 wrote: What may have happened over the last few years is that non-Muslims, whether atheist or otherwise, have examined and studies Islam a bit more deeply than previously. What do find? Jinn, a person in a cave claiming he was visited by Gabriel, splitting of the Moon, magical fling horses, a journey to Jerusalem followed shking of hands with Adam, Moses and a few others followed b a chat with God, during which the daily prayer requirement was negatioted by Mohammed down from 50 to 5.

One can't help thinking 'this is a bit rich, isin't it?'

And then, perhaps, we all start re-examining our own childhood religious stories (parting od the seas, water into wine, resurrection of the dead) and think likewise 'this is a bit rich, isn't it?'.

Maybe through examining Islam the rtue silliness of religion of all kinds becomes more apparent.

Discuss!!
I suspect something similar. Most atheists approach Islam and listen and see and find out what it is about and what they find is unmitigated rubbish ... so they return back to hating on God. Zing.

antineoETC
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by antineoETC »

LCD wrote:no--not to sum up. what you have written is opinion with no fact behind it.
I suppose you could say that if you overlook the inconvenient facts that the Qur'an, Allah and jihad are obviously inspired by the bible, its own bloodythirsty deity and the "holy" wars of conquest he ordained.
sum your own idiot life up.
Your religious mindset has bred in you a Muslim-like aggressive intolerance towards your detractors. You are not a very edifying ambassador for Christianity.
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

buttermint2000
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:23 pm

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by buttermint2000 »

Single Christian terrorist in the last twenty years?

You do not believe they exist? Are yo crazy?

Have you not heard of fundamentalist Christians killing doctirs who provide abortion?

sparky
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:49 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by sparky »

antineoETC wrote:So Yahweh has since become a "non-jealous" god and is nowadays completely laid back about idol worshipping? Do I understand you right?
You have yet to answer my question about whether it is always wrong to be jealous. Until you do that, there is no reason to think that it is problematic at all.

And LCD's point was that your quote crop failed to account for the particular context in which God is identifying himself as a 'jealous' God. 'Jealous' doesn't mean 'envious' here (although it can in English), it means 'expecting a reciprocal commitment - a commitment that he had a right to from his rescue of the Israelites from Egypt when they had 'cried out' to him. Much like I expect a commitment from my wife since she has promised that and I have committed my life to her. So what you need to answer is how this kind of jealousy is problematic.
antineoETC wrote:I suppose you could say that if you overlook the inconvenient facts that the Qur'an, Allah and jihad are obviously inspired by the bible, its own bloodythirsty deity and the "holy" wars of conquest he ordained.
Like I said before, I've no idea what you think this is a meaningful claim at all. The theology and teaching of the Quran are different to that of the bible. This very difference is the key reason for why there is so much emphasis within Islam on the corruption of the bible. Therefore just because the Quran was 'inspired' by the bible to some degree stands as no kind of 'indictment' of the bible any more than George Bernard Shaw's racism was an 'indictment' of Darwin's theory of evolution that, apparently, inspired it.

There is nothing 'inconvenient' about it at all. People who want to do bad things take their 'inspiration' from all over the place. It helps them feel better about the bad they want to do.

antineoETC
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by antineoETC »

sparky wrote:And LCD's point was that your quote crop failed to account for the particular context in which God is identifying himself as a 'jealous' God. 'Jealous' doesn't mean 'envious' here (although it can in English), it means 'expecting a reciprocal commitment - a commitment that he had a right to from his rescue of the Israelites from Egypt when they had 'cried out' to him.
Leaving aside your totally irrelevent earlier comments regarding your wife the "context" of "jealous" is:

>You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

>you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation


The meaning of these passages is quite clear. Jehovah, like Allah, angrily resents worship directed at anything but his ficticious egomaniacal self to the extent that he is prepared to "punish" even the descendants of those who thus express "hatred" of him "down to the third and fourth generation". Now the question is: did Jehovah's words simply apply to the Jews at the time he allegedly spake them or do they establish a general principle applicable to all mankind for all time? Countless people calling themselves "Christian" have down the centuries, and right up to the present, taken the latter view and have regarded these words and the Old Testament in general as a valid source of guidance - including such nuggets of wisdom as "THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE." (Exodus 22:18). Guess what that led to both before and after the Protestant so-called "Reformation"? The Protestant so-called "Reformation" with its clarion call of "scripture alone" led to a proliferation of Old-Testament-oriented sects, subsects, sub-subsects etc etc with a pathological Islam-like antagonism towards anything that smacked of "idolatry" and a desire to apply the "divine law". One of these in post-civil-war England turned that country into something strongly resembling an Islamic state. Hardly suprising that, since both they and "Muhammad" (and/or whoever else might have cobbled together the Koran) were inspired by the same book - The Bible and its idea of "divine law". Indeed, Islam can be regarded as a particularly dangerous Judeo-Christian subsect with the added problem that its founder claimed that his violent bible-based ideology was handed down to him from heaven and that he was the almighty's final prophet.
antineoETC wrote:I suppose you could say that if you overlook the inconvenient facts that the Qur'an, Allah and jihad are obviously inspired by the bible, its own bloodythirsty deity and the "holy" wars of conquest he ordained.
Therefore just because the Quran was 'inspired' by the bible to some degree stands as no kind of 'indictment' of the bible any more than George Bernard Shaw's racism was an 'indictment' of Darwin's theory of evolution that, apparently, inspired it.
To call this comparison specious is an understatement. Unlike the Bible, the Origin of Species does not as far as I am aware, contain any passages remotely suggesting that killing and persecuting "inferior" people is a commendable, let alone holy, thing to do.
Last edited by antineoETC on Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

antineoETC
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by antineoETC »

The problem of "The lure of theocracy" that has ever afflicted Christians is brilliantly discussed in the following excerpt:

Despite the centrality of religious freedom to the American experience, the lure of theocracy is ever with us. For Jews, the Zionist impulse that led to the re-establishment of the nation of Israel has strong theocratic implications. For Roman Catholics, the waves of immigrants from countries such as Italy and Poland imported European notions of theocracy to our shores while, for Protestants, the resurgence of a neo-Calvinism has had a similar effect. Emerging from their fundamentalist rootage, evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have done much to keep the theocratic hope alive in that broad coalition called New Right Religion. Black church leaders of the civil rights movement learned to depend upon the federal government for relief when the white church establishment refused to challenge a segregationist culture. All about us the historic "wall of separation" between church and state is being eroded, especially in this anguished time when praying to God and rallying around the flag have become virtually indistinguishable.

FULL ARTICLE
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

User avatar
diotima64
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by diotima64 »

antineoETC wrote:The problem of "The lure of theocracy" that has ever afflicted Christians is brilliantly discussed in the following excerpt:

Despite the centrality of religious freedom to the American experience, the lure of theocracy is ever with us. For Jews, the Zionist impulse that led to the re-establishment of the nation of Israel has strong theocratic implications. For Roman Catholics, the waves of immigrants from countries such as Italy and Poland imported European notions of theocracy to our shores while, for Protestants, the resurgence of a neo-Calvinism has had a similar effect. Emerging from their fundamentalist rootage, evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have done much to keep the theocratic hope alive in that broad coalition called New Right Religion. Black church leaders of the civil rights movement learned to depend upon the federal government for relief when the white church establishment refused to challenge a segregationist culture. All about us the historic "wall of separation" between church and state is being eroded, especially in this anguished time when praying to God and rallying around the flag have become virtually indistinguishable.

FULL ARTICLE
Utter nonsense. Historically, there have been VERY few instances of christian "theocracy", mostly associated with the "reformation". And Evangelicals themselves are a VERY American and VERY new (19th century at the most) phenomenon.

antineoETC
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by antineoETC »

diotima64 wrote:Historically, there have been VERY few instances of christian "theocracy",
That's not for lack of desire or effort by the Popes and others
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

sparky
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:49 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by sparky »

antineoETC wrote:Leaving aside your totally irrelevent earlier comments regarding your wife the "context" of "jealous" is
Hardly irrelevant as it goes to the definition of 'jealous' which was the key word you were focusing on.
antineoETC wrote: >You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

>you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation

The meaning of these passages is quite clear. Jehovah, like Allah, angrily resents worship directed at anything but his ficticious egomaniacal self to the extent that he is prepared to "punish" even the descendants of those who thus express "hatred" of him "down to the third and fourth generation".
Oh my. Jehovah regards himself as fictitious? Talk about a 'straw man'. But I'm amazed that you feel the need to crop the quote yet again. The 'context' is very much 'I am the God who brought you out of Egypt' like I explained before:

Deut 5:1-6

Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them:

"Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. 2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 " The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. 4 "The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, 5 while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,

6' I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
NASU

Hence the background is a 'covenant' (mutual promise) between God and the Israelites - much like a marriage in fact!
antineoETC wrote: Now the question is: did Jehovah's words simply apply to the Jews at the time he allegedly spake them or do they establish a general principle applicable to all mankind for all time?
Until you understand what they meant to those who heard it, how can you possibly presume to be able to derive the general principle?
antineoETC wrote:Now the question is: did Jehovah's words simply apply to the Jews at the time he allegedly spake them or do they establish a general principle applicable to all mankind for all time? Countless people calling themselves "Christian" have down the centuries, and right up to the present, taken the latter view and have regarded these words and the Old Testament in general as a valid source of guidance - including such nuggets of wisdom as "THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE." Guess what that led to both before and after the Protestant so-called "Reformation"? The Protestant so-called "Reformation" with its clarion call of "scripture alone" led to a proliferation of Old-Testament-oriented sects, subsects, sub-subsects etc etc with a pathological Islam-like antagonism towards anything that smacked of "idolatry" and a desire to apply the "divine law". One of these in post-civil-war England turned that country into something strongly resembling an Islamic state. Hardly suprising that, since both they and "Muhammad" (and/or whoever else might have cobbled together the Koran) were inspired by the same book - The Bible and its idea of "divine law". Indeed, Islam can be regarded as a particularly dangerous Judeo-Christian subsect with the added problem that its founder claimed that his violent bible-based ideology was handed down to him from heaven and that he was the almighty's final prophet.(Exodus 22:18)
Then by all means take it up with them. They, like you, clearly preferred to simplify things rather than to actually have to think about them. The fact is that the context of the commands is very clear - both who is spoken to and what they are commanded to do. Of course, there may indeed be principles to be learned - and taken as a 'source of guidance' - but that hardly justifies extracting them from their context and saying they should apply verbatim to anyone today. Like I said, it is very easy to extract something and claim it as your 'inspiration'.
antineoETC wrote: To call this comparison specious is an understatement. Unlike the Bible, the Origin of Species does not as far as I am aware, contain any passages remotely suggesting that killing and persecuting "inferior" people is a commendable, let alone holy, thing to do.
But that's not the point, is it. The point is that it 'inspired' those who believed in eugenics. If you want to know what a teaching is responsible for, you have to go to that teaching - not to those who claimed that it 'inspired' them.

Cheers,
sparky

antineoETC
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by antineoETC »

sparky wrote:
antineoETC wrote:Leaving aside your totally irrelevent earlier comments regarding your wife the "context" of "jealous" is
Hardly irrelevant as it goes to the definition of 'jealous' which was the key word you were focusing on.
No it doesn't
antineoETC wrote:To call this comparison specious is an understatement. Unlike the Bible, the Origin of Species does not as far as I am aware, contain any passages remotely suggesting that killing and persecuting "inferior" people is a commendable, let alone holy, thing to do.
But that's not the point, is it. The point is that it 'inspired' those who believed in eugenics.
And it could justifiably be regarded as an indictment of the Origin of Species if Darwin had therein explicitly or implicitly argued in eugenics favor. I am not aware of any such passages. Are you?
If you want to know what a teaching is responsible for, you have to go to that teaching - not to those who claimed that it 'inspired' them.
And the teaching of the Old Testament, among other things, IS that:

> Jehovah hates idols, likes to see them smashed to pieces, their worshippers persecuted and killed

> wants to see "witches" killed

> has handed down laws from heaven along with punishments like stoning for transgressing them

> hands down messages to specially selected individuals called "prophets"

> favors particular human groups over others and likes, through his "prophets", to tell his "favorites" to attack and conquer non-group members, plunder them, rape and enslave their wives and children etc etc

The effect of these ideas is with us to day and they continue to spawn demented Islam-like judaeo-Christian subcults, whether led by charlatans or madmen who genuinely believe they are in direct communication with god, whose danger to the rest of us is, I repeat, only limited by the membership they can gather.

The following excerpt from a 17th century document called The Westminster confession of faith under the subheading "The Law of God" highlights the problem:

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God....

It is a thin dividing line between regarding "divine" law as outlined in the Old Testament as "a rule of life informing of the will of God" and regarding it as something by which society as a whole should be governed. It is no wonder then that numerous Christian sects large and small have crossed that line down the centuries right up to the present.
"Prophet Muhammad...bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves" SOURCE: BBC website
"Muhammad is considered to be a perfect model" SOURCE: BBC website

sparky
Posts: 329
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:49 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by sparky »

antineoETC wrote:No it doesn't
Of course it does. You were saying that it was problematic that God was described as 'jealous'. I have argued that in a marriage, 'jealousy' does not necessarily imply something bad. So I'm waiting for you to explain how it is problematic. Unless of course you want to back-track from the claim.
antineoETC wrote: And it could justifiably be regarded as an indictment of the Origin of Species if Darwin had therein explicitly or implicitly argued in eugenics favor. I am not aware of any such passages. Are you?
Utter rubbish. Your claim was that Islam was that the very fact that Islam was 'inspired' by the bible was an indictment of the bible. For this to be true, it really doesn't matter what the original teaching was - only what it 'inspired'. The fact that the ideas of Darwin were used to argue in favour of eugenics should be sufficient to be an 'indictment' of Darwin's theory if your argument is true. If your argument now is that the exact teaching needs to be identified in the original then it is quite plain that what Islam teaches is not what the bible teaches.
antineoETC wrote: And the teaching of the Old Testament, among other things, IS that:
> Jehovah hates idols, likes to see them smashed to pieces, their worshippers persecuted and killed

> wants to see "witches" killed

> has handed down laws from heaven along with punishments like stoning for transgressing them
Actually no. The Old Testament records the giving of laws to the people of Israel in the context of his covenant with them to govern their communal and religious lives. Many of these laws were directed as preserving their religious identity in a threatening political environment. In the light of the New Testament, we can also see that many of the laws also forshadowed the coming of the Messiah and were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is the 'teaching' of the Old Testament in the context of the bible as a whole and what clearly eliminates Islamic teaching as being from the same God.
antineoETC wrote: > hands down messages to specially selected individuals called "prophets"
Yep. And shows how those 'prophets' should be identified and distinguished from 'false prophets'. A key criteria for this is consistency with earlier revelations which is how we can know that Mohammed was not a prophet - no matter where he got his 'inspiration' from.
antineoETC wrote: > favors particular human groups over others and likes, through his "prophets", to tell his "favorites" to attack and conquer non-group members, plunder them, rape and enslave their wives and children etc etc
So many false claims in one sentence it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, he appears to only favour one group - not 'groups'. Secondly, it appears that this 'group' is not ethnically homogenous in the first place. Thirdly, it is clear that he also relates to members of other groups and therefore access to him is not restricted only to his chosen group. Fourthly, he specifically commands his 'group' to attack certain other peoples as his judgement on them. A judgement which as God he reserves the right to command. There is never a generic command to attack all 'non-group' members nor that the important characteristic of these peoples was that they were 'non-group'. Fifthly, there is no command to rape anyone.
antineoETC wrote:The effect of these ideas is with us to day and they continue to spawn demented Islam-like judaeo-Christian subcults, whether led by charlatans or madmen who genuinely believe they are in direct communication with god, whose danger to the rest of us is, I repeat, only limited by the membership they can gather.
Sure, like you, others can misread the texts to suit their own agenda. Like I said, it's really not very hard to do.
antineoETC wrote:The following excerpt from a 17th century document called The Westminster confession of faith under the subheading "The Law of God" highlights the problem:

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God....
Sure, 'true believers are not under the law' but it is useful. Here's the full section:

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.[20]

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.[22]


So the section you quoted is actually describing the usefulness of the 'moral' law which the Westminster Confession of Faith identifies with the ten commandments. Notice also the 'expiry' of the judicial laws with the State of 'that people' in IV. I.e. what you quoted provides your answer - back in 1646!
antineoETC wrote:It is a thin dividing line between regarding "divine" law as outlined in the Old Testament as "a rule of life informing of the will of God" and regarding it as something by which society as a whole should be governed. It is no wonder then that numerous Christian sects large and small have crossed that line down the centuries right up to the present.
It's only a thin dividing line for those who, like you, prefer to crop quotes that support their personal agenda rather than to bother reading what the text is actually saying. Anyone who does bother to actually read the text in full finds that the meaning is fairly obvious.

Cheers,
sparky

User avatar
diotima64
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by diotima64 »

antineoETC wrote:
diotima64 wrote:Historically, there have been VERY few instances of christian "theocracy",
That's not for lack of desire or effort by the Popes and others
yeah, right. Lol. Go learn some real history and the meaning of words.

User avatar
Humanist
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:56 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by Humanist »

diotima64 wrote:
antineoETC wrote:
diotima64 wrote:Historically, there have been VERY few instances of christian "theocracy",
That's not for lack of desire or effort by the Popes and others
yeah, right. Lol. Go learn some real history and the meaning of words.
Well "real history" teaches that all of Europe was nothing but "theocracies". Kings and Queens were appointed by God and anointed only by the Church of Rome. Is that not true?

If not why did the Pope try to kill the Protestant Monarchs of England?
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

User avatar
diotima64
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

Post by diotima64 »

Humanist wrote:
yeah, right. Lol. Go learn some real history and the meaning of words.
Well "real history" teaches that all of Europe was nothing but "theocracies". Kings and Queens were appointed by God and anointed only by the Church of Rome. Is that not true?

If not why did the Pope try to kill the Protestant Monarchs of England?[/quote]
LOL! No, it´s not true. Also, it´s not what would make for a theocracy.
And as for trying to "Kill the Protestant Monarchs of England"... what you on about, Willis? Shall we talk about the times the "Protestant monarchs of England" killed innocent catholics and faithful bishops? Or the times the Popes were taken prisoner by some King? (last time was Napoleon, if I remember correctly - one of many.)
Man, you lot crack me up! :D

Post Reply