Has FaithFreedom Changed into Plain Old Anti-Religion?

User avatar
RichardTheLionheart
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 4:58 pm

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

Post by RichardTheLionheart »

diotima64 wrote:And as for trying to "Kill the Protestant Monarchs of England"... what you on about, Willis?
He's probably talking about Pope Pius V and his papal bull 'Regnans in Excelsis'. And his connections with Roberto di Ridolfi's plan to kill Elisabeth I.
diotima64 wrote:Shall we talk about the times the "Protestant monarchs of England" killed innocent catholics and faithful bishops?
Monarchs of various kingdoms acted just as badly as Popes. For every Thomas More there's a Jan Hus.
diotima64 wrote:Or the times the Popes were taken prisoner by some King? (last time was Napoleon, if I remember correctly - one of many.)
Most of which had more to do with political/territorial struggles not ideology or faith.

On the main theme of this thread: FFI should stick with dealing with Islam. Not attacking every religion out there, RDF forum is ok I guess, but they do go lightly on Islam for the usual PC reasons. :roll:
Ex-Muslims needed to answer my questions: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4519 Serious posts only.

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

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

Post by charleslemartel »

RichardTheLionheart wrote: On the main theme of this thread: FFI should stick with dealing with Islam. Not attacking every religion out there, RDF forum is ok I guess, but they do go lightly on Islam for the usual PC reasons. :roll:
I agree. However, the sight of a potential apostate being wooed to convert to Christianity is not a nice one; defending Christianity is ok, but wooing?
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

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 »

charleslemartel wrote:
RichardTheLionheart wrote: On the main theme of this thread: FFI should stick with dealing with Islam. Not attacking every religion out there, RDF forum is ok I guess, but they do go lightly on Islam for the usual PC reasons. :roll:
I agree. However, the sight of a potential apostate being wooed to convert to Christianity is not a nice one; defending Christianity is ok, but wooing?
Who is wooing anyone? All I try is to have some historical perspective, instead of moronic atheist/prot-propaganda.

User avatar
charleslemartel
Posts: 2884
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Throne Of Allah

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

Post by charleslemartel »

diotima64 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
I agree. However, the sight of a potential apostate being wooed to convert to Christianity is not a nice one; defending Christianity is ok, but wooing?
Who is wooing anyone? All I try is to have some historical perspective, instead of moronic atheist/prot-propaganda.
Please, Dio, don't take my comment personally.
Islam is a funny religion which is misunderstood by its scholars and correctly understood by ordinary Muslims.
Faith is keeping your eyes shut when looking at the world, and/or keeping your eyes open only for the beauty of the world.

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 »

charleslemartel wrote:
diotima64 wrote:
charleslemartel wrote:
I agree. However, the sight of a potential apostate being wooed to convert to Christianity is not a nice one; defending Christianity is ok, but wooing?
Who is wooing anyone? All I try is to have some historical perspective, instead of moronic atheist/prot-propaganda.
Please, Dio, don't take my comment personally.
well, wasn´t doing that. I didn´t see anyone woo anyone is all.

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

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

Post by sparky »

RichardTheLionheart wrote: On the main theme of this thread: FFI should stick with dealing with Islam. Not attacking every religion out there, RDF forum is ok I guess, but they do go lightly on Islam for the usual PC reasons.
I thought it was just because they are all traumatised ex-Christians who can't get past their suffering at the hands of cruel vicars.

But for me, the quality of the discussion there seems great and fairly polite too.

antineoETC
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

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

Post by antineoETC »

sparky wrote:
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.
Yahweh's jealousy is clearly "problematic" in that it drives him to extreme acts of violence when the total fawning devotion he regards as due to him and him alone is directed towards a "graven image"
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.
By your absurd reasoning I should, for the sake of consistency, regard the existence of balistic missiles as an indictment of Isaac Newton's works on the laws of gravity - after all, we wouldn't have the one without the other! There is a manifest difference between an innocuous scientific theory which racists and others hijack for their own nefarious ends and a violence-glorifying "holy book" which people consult for guidance as to what constitutes "righteous" behavior and has, historically, clearly inspired the perpetration of all sorts of brutal acts by people who genuinely believed they were doing good.
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.
The bible teaches that there is an almighty god who has a history of handing down laws through "prophets" along with brutal punishments in this world for transgressing them; ordering his "chosen people" to conquer, rape and enslave his "enemies"; burns people forever in hell for not believing certain doctrines. It is quite clear that Islam in fact DOES teach much of 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.
Christians have always regarded the Old Testament, including the word's that Jehovah (allegedly) spoke to Moses as as having relevence to THEM. That is why for hundreds of years in Europe those accused of being "witches" were brutally murdered and continue to be so today in other parts of the world.
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.
So you acknowledge that the Old Testament possesses an ongoing relevence to you as a Christian. Let us take a small part of that: The ten commandments. These were allegedly "handed down" to Moses to be relayed to the Jews. Now try and claim that you do not regard them as still applicable to you and everybody else in the world.
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.
I am not claiming that Islamic teaching is from REAL "god" or any other supernatural entity. I no more believe in the reality of Allah than of Yaweh. My argument is that "Muhammad" and/or whoever else cobbled together the Qur'an clearly got their ideas about "divine law", "holy war" etc from the bible and his today religion stands as the worst indictment of that book.
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.
If one accepts the premise that the god of the bible reserves the right to send prophets until kingdom come one is going to be naturally inclined to entertain the claims of those who periodically pop up claiming a direct line to the almighty than, say, an atheist. If one is unshakable in their faith that the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then Muhammad naturally must be a false prophet if for no other reason than the Koran disagrees with the bible on certain issues regarding the nature of Jesus and his fate. Other believers in the bible, however, may be rather more open to contemplating Islam's claims that the original message of Jesus has been corrupted and be persuaded to "go over". This does happen. More likely they will be taken in by nominal Christian "prophets" and charismatic preachers like Joseph Smith, David Koresh or Pat Robertson. The existence of millions of mormons and their still-polygamous subsectarians as well as the "Religious right" in the US amply demonstrates the power of Old Testament concepts regarding "The Law", violence etc to subsume those of the New Testament in Christian minds.

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'.
Yes, Jehovah in the OT favors the "Children of Israel" in particular. This is the origin of the CONCEPT of the "divinely favored" group that Muslims and members of countless other bible-inspired subcults right up to the present have claimed to belong to. Do you not YOU as a Christian believe you are favored by the almighty in that as a result of believing certain things you will go to heaven whilst the "disbelievers" who do not share your particular doctrines will be sent to hell?
Secondly, it appears that this 'group' is not ethnically homogenous in the first place.
Expand on that please.
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.
True Jehovah, like Allah who is based on him, allows "access" to those who do bow down to him in unquestioned obedience.
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.
And all you need is some charismatic charlatan or deluded nut job like Muhammad to persuade people religously primed to believe in such vile nonsense that they have been sent by God to so "command" them.
Fifthly, there is no command to rape anyone.
Jehovah allegedly "gave" the women of the conquered to the Jewish men. What do you think they did with them?
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'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.
That is to ignore centuries of Christian history.
It is in the nature of wasp nests that some of their inhabitants are bound to sting someone. The closer you are to are to a wasp nest the more likely you are to get stung, sometimes fatally. Who would encourage wasps to establish a nest in their house?

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:Yahweh's jealousy is clearly "problematic" in that it drives him to extreme acts of violence when the total fawning devotion he regards as due to him and him alone is directed towards a "graven image"
Now you are changing your claim. Before it was that there was something problematic in the term 'jealous' itself. Are you now saying that is not the case?
antineoETC wrote:By your absurd reasoning I should, for the sake of consistency, regard the existence of balistic missiles as an indictment of Isaac Newton's works on the laws of gravity - after all, we wouldn't have the one without the other! There is a manifest difference between an innocuous scientific theory which racists and others hijack for their own nefarious ends and a violence-glorifying "holy book" which people consult for guidance as to what constitutes "righteous" behavior and has, historically, clearly inspired the perpetration of all sorts of brutal acts by people who genuinely believed they were doing good.
Actually, it was your reasoning. Like I said, this was always absurd. The teaching of Islam is not the teaching of the bible. If the claim is that a teaching can be 'hijacked' then that is exactly what Islam has done to the bible. In which case Islam is no indictment of the bible either.
antineoETC wrote: The bible teaches that there is an almighty god who has a history of handing down laws through "prophets" along with brutal punishments in this world for transgressing them; ordering his "chosen people" to conquer, rape and enslave his "enemies"; burns people forever in hell for not believing certain doctrines. It is quite clear that Islam in fact DOES teach much of what the bible teaches.
Wrong. The bible also contains the context for who the laws were handed down to and why - something that is missing from the Quran. The bible also clearly identifies that false prophets exist and warns against them. As a result, the lack of extension of the bibles' laws to Islam is clear from the bible itself. This is particularly true given the New Testament revelation - also included in the bible and claimed by the Quran as its 'inspiration' also - wherein the OT law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ who also says 'my kingdom is not of this world'.
antineoETC wrote: Christians have always regarded the Old Testament, including the word's that Jehovah (allegedly) spoke to Moses as as having relevence to THEM. That is why for hundreds of years in Europe those accused of being "witches" were brutally murdered and continue to be so today in other parts of the world.
Actually the relationship between Christianity and witch-hunts is rather more complex. For much of the time belief in the existence of witches was considered heresy and witch-hunts were more connected to paganism than Christianity. This is still true in other parts of the world today. I would encourage you to read up a bit more on this.

At no point have I said that the Old Testament is not relevant. I simply said that the laws given were clearly given to the Israelites at a particular time for a particular purpose. There is still much to learn from that.
antineoETC wrote: So you acknowledge that the Old Testament possesses an ongoing relevence to you as a Christian. Let us take a small part of that: The ten commandments. These were allegedly "handed down" to Moses to be relayed to the Jews. Now try and claim that you do not regard them as still applicable to you and everybody else in the world.
In fact it's interesting to note that the bible says that the Israelites were themselves asked to go to meet God but were afraid and sent Moses in their place. Note also that there is no angel involved in the transmission of the law and that the Israelites seem to very aware of the directness of the communication between God and Moses (shining face that had to be veiled, thunder and smoke, etc.). As a result God is portrayed as altogether closer to those he is communicating with than in the Quran and those in ultimate receipt have much more to go on than just the laws they receive via the prophet.

The laws were 'handed down' to the Israelites ('Jews' would be anachronistic here) as an expression of the moral law that was to underlie their communal lives. Also summarised more positively in the commands to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. This moral law was given a particular form in the political and religious laws that were given to the Israelites at the time. Those political and religious laws were for them - not for Arabs living a couple of thousand years later.

As Jesus made clear, the moral laws continue to describe how God wants people to relate to him and each other (in love).
antineoETC wrote:I am not claiming that Islamic teaching is from REAL "god" or any other supernatural entity. I no more believe in the reality of Allah than of Yaweh. My argument is that "Muhammad" and/or whoever else cobbled together the Qur'an clearly got their ideas about "divine law", "holy war" etc from the bible and his today religion stands as the worst indictment of that book.
And you are wrong. He may well have got his ideas from the bible but that does not make it an indictment of the bible because he has extracted those ideas from their biblical context so as to make them mean something completely different.
antineoETC wrote:If one accepts the premise that the god of the bible reserves the right to send prophets until kingdom come one is going to be naturally inclined to entertain the claims of those who periodically pop up claiming a direct line to the almighty than, say, an atheist. If one is unshakable in their faith that the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then Muhammad naturally must be a false prophet if for no other reason than the Koran disagrees with the bible on certain issues regarding the nature of Jesus and his fate. Other believers in the bible, however, may be rather more open to contemplating Islam's claims that the original message of Jesus has been corrupted and be persuaded to "go over". This does happen. More likely they will be taken in by nominal Christian "prophets" and charismatic preachers like Joseph Smith, David Koresh or Pat Robertson. The existence of millions of mormons and their still-polygamous subsectarians as well as the "Religious right" in the US amply demonstrates the power of Old Testament concepts regarding "The Law", violence etc to subsume those of the New Testament in Christian minds.
And an atheist might be more likely to entertain claims of a 'non-religious' prophet such as Stalin or Mao. People seem to be able to believe all kinds of things. This is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Nor does it mean that a particular teaching is responsible for everything that others might spin out of it.
antineoETC wrote:Yes, Jehovah in the OT favors the "Children of Israel" in particular. This is the origin of the CONCEPT of the "divinely favored" group that Muslims and members of countless other bible-inspired subcults right up to the present have claimed to belong to. Do you not YOU as a Christian believe you are favored by the almighty in that as a result of believing certain things you will go to heaven whilst the "disbelievers" who do not share your particular doctrines will be sent to hell?
The 'concept' is not that there are 'divinely favoured groups' but that God chose the Israelites for a particular purpose. One that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That's the biblical teaching that clearly rules out the need for God to 'choose' any other group.

And no, as the things I believe are as available to you as they are to me, I see no reason why I am particularly more 'favoured' than you. All the benefits that are available to me are available to you also. You just choose not to take advantage of them.
antineoETC wrote:Expand on that please.
It's probably not relevant to your claim as the muslims are not ethnically homogenous either but this was in case you were claiming the 'favouring' of the Arabs was parallel to that of the Jews. The bible describes the people coming out of Egypt as a 'mixed multitude' which suggests that they were not ethnically homogenous.
antineoETC wrote: And all you need is some charismatic charlatan or deluded nut job like Muhammad to persuade people religously primed to believe in such vile nonsense that they have been sent by God to so "command" them.
Which is an argument from consequences. The prospect of a teaching being corrupted has no bearing on whether that teaching is true or whether it should be recorded. Nor is that teaching responsible for those who want to corrupt it.
antineoETC wrote: Jehovah allegedly "gave" the women of the conquered to the Jewish men. What do you think they did with them?
Marry them. You claimed that he commanded them to be raped. Are you saying that you can't actually find that now?
antineoETC wrote: That is to ignore centuries of Christian history.
Not at all. The church also remains responsible for what it has believed and practiced. Some of that can be traced to biblical teaching, some not.

Cheers,
sparky

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

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

Post by LCD »

RichardTheLionheart wrote:
diotima64 wrote:And as for trying to "Kill the Protestant Monarchs of England"... what you on about, Willis?
He's probably talking about Pope Pius V and his papal bull 'Regnans in Excelsis'. And his connections with Roberto di Ridolfi's plan to kill Elisabeth I.
diotima64 wrote:Shall we talk about the times the "Protestant monarchs of England" killed innocent catholics and faithful bishops?
Monarchs of various kingdoms acted just as badly as Popes. For every Thomas More there's a Jan Hus.
diotima64 wrote:Or the times the Popes were taken prisoner by some King? (last time was Napoleon, if I remember correctly - one of many.)
Most of which had more to do with political/territorial struggles not ideology or faith.

On the main theme of this thread: FFI should stick with dealing with Islam. Not attacking every religion out there, RDF forum is ok I guess, but they do go lightly on Islam for the usual PC reasons. :roll:

The usual posters who attack Islam tend to then attack like Rabid dogs when the muslims are not on. Ale Sina to his credit is not against Christianity or Judiasm.

Other posters tend to gangbang christianity and christians with vile hatred but they never seem to try to find jews and question them. Their plan is to look at history then compare it to stuff in the old testement.

antineoETC
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

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

Post by antineoETC »

sparky wrote:Now you are changing your claim. Before it was that there was something problematic in the term 'jealous' itself.
Here is the ...er... context of my original post raising Yahweh's self-proclaimed "jealous" nature:
The fact is the Bible and its vicious jealous god Yahweh was the inspiration for Islam and continues to inspire "prophets" to found unpleasant religio-political movements that pose less of a threat to the world than Islam only because they have a tiny membership
which of course says nothing about "jealous" in itself being "problematical" - although such a potentially destructive human emotion hardly seems fitting for an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
antineoETC wrote:By your absurd reasoning I should, for the sake of consistency, regard the existence of balistic missiles as an indictment of Isaac Newton's works on the laws of gravity - after all, we wouldn't have the one without the other! There is a manifest difference between an innocuous scientific theory which racists and others hijack for their own nefarious ends and a violence-glorifying "holy book" which people consult for guidance as to what constitutes "righteous" behavior and has, historically, clearly inspired the perpetration of all sorts of brutal acts by people who genuinely believed they were doing good.
Actually, it was your reasoning.
Au contraire. It is YOUR reasoning that because I argue that Islam stands as a deadly indictment of the bible then it logically follows that such ideologies as eugenics and Nazism should likewise be regarded as an indictment of the works of Charles Darwin, which, for reasons I have already explained is absurd.
Like I said, this was always absurd. The teaching of Islam is not the teaching of the bible. If the claim is that a teaching can be 'hijacked' then that is exactly what Islam has done to the bible. In which case Islam is no indictment of the bible either
Again, Charles Darwin did not promote his scientific theories as a source of moral, practical and societal guidance - let alone a divinely inspired one as you and billions of other "believers" regard the bible. The logical ramifications of this fundamental difference ought to be obvious.
The bible teaches that there is an almighty god who has a history of handing down laws through "prophets" along with brutal punishments in this world for transgressing them; ordering his "chosen people" to conquer, rape and enslave his "enemies"; burns people forever in hell for not believing certain doctrines. It is quite clear that Islam in fact DOES teach much of what the bible teaches.
Wrong. The bible also contains the context for who the laws were handed down to and why - something that is missing from the Quran.
So what is the "context" of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18)?
The bible also clearly identifies that false prophets exist and warns against them.
As in "By Their Fruits Shall You Know Them" of course. The trouble is the "fruits" of Moses' alleged prophethood were, among other delights, stoning, "witch killing", polygamy, misogyny, "legalized" slavery, iconoclasm, invasion, conquest, ethnic cleansing, massacre, rape and pillage. Therefore, people who already regard the Old Testament as a source of divinely inspired guidance are not necessarily going to be repelled by subsequent "prophets" - eg Muhammad - bearing similar "fruits"eg:



Indeed, a particular charismatic individual need not claim to be a "prophet" to persuade millions of avowed Christians that the "divine will" as expressed in the Old Testament should be implemented by humans here and now "on earth as it is in heaven" (Lord's prayer) - as the political influence of the "religious right" and its preachers in the USA amply testifies.
Actually the relationship between Christianity and witch-hunts is rather more complex. For much of the time belief in the existence of witches was considered heresy and witch-hunts were more connected to paganism than Christianity.
Two words will suffice to deal with this claim:

MALLEUS MALEFICARUM
At no point have I said that the Old Testament is not relevant.
And, to repeat, once a person regards these violence and intolerance-riddled collection of myths as a source of moral guidance they are on a slippery slope which too many people continue to slide down to absolve the bible of blame.
antineoETC wrote:More likely they [believers in the bible] will be taken in by nominal Christian "prophets" and charismatic preachers like Joseph Smith, David Koresh or Pat Robertson. The existence of millions of mormons and their still-polygamous subsectarians as well as the "Religious right" in the US amply demonstrates the power of Old Testament concepts regarding "The Law", violence etc to subsume those of the New Testament in Christian minds.
And an atheist might be more likely to entertain claims of a 'non-religious' prophet such as Stalin or Mao.
They MIGHT but only in the sense that atheists, unlike say Roman Catholics, would not be put off from Stalinism or Maoism by their rejection of the existence of a god or might even be attracted to it for that reason alone. However, this is not an idictment of atheism which is nothing more than the LACK of the belief in a god and does not in itself predispose people to actively or morally support such things as the enforced collectivization of agriculture, cultural revolutions and gulags.
It is in the nature of wasp nests that some of their inhabitants are bound to sting someone. The closer you are to are to a wasp nest the more likely you are to get stung, sometimes fatally. Who would encourage wasps to establish a nest in their house?

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 »

Two words will suffice to deal with this claim:
lol, no those two words do NOT suffice to "deal with this claim" of the complexity of the relationship and the fact that belief in witches was NOT primarily christian. Not unless you want to disregard facts (like that even as late as 1484, ecclesiastical authorities had REFUSED to help Heinrich Kramer in prosecuting witches, or all the other bulls condemning belief in witchcraft) to keep your bigotry intact.

Doesn´t it ever make you wonder, that in Europe the witchtrials only REALLY started, when "modern times" came about, i.e. the sixteenth and seventeenth century, while they are practically unheard of in the so-called "dark ages", the apex of christian Europe? Or that Spain and Italy - arguably the most catholic of places - remained practically witch-hunt free even at the height of the craze?

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: which of course says nothing about "jealous" in itself being "problematical" - although such a potentially destructive human emotion hardly seems fitting for an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Fine. So 'jealous' was completely redundant in your statement and your later question about whether the NT made God 'not jealous' was a waste of time as well. As we have seen that jealousy is quite a normal counterpart to loving commitment, I would be entirely unsurprised if this characteristic was also to be found in a loving God. I'm not particularly interested in what you think is 'fitting'.
antineoETC" wrote:Au contraire. It is YOUR reasoning that because I argue that Islam stands as a deadly indictment of the bible then it logically follows that such ideologies as eugenics and Nazism should likewise be regarded as an indictment of the works of Charles Darwin, which, for reasons I have already explained is absurd.
And that reasoning stands. Islam is not an indictment of the bible because its teaching is not the same any more than eugenics is an indictment of Darwin.
antineoETC" wrote: Again, Charles Darwin did not promote his scientific theories as a source of moral, practical and societal guidance - let alone a divinely inspired one as you and billions of other "believers" regard the bible. The logical ramifications of this fundamental difference ought to be obvious.
Who cares? The intentions of those who wrote the bible were not to promote world conquest by Arabs in the C7th CE either. Someone takes a bit here, a bit there, adds a bit, claims inspiration and makes up something that fits their purpose. The intention of the original writer is completely irrelevant. The resulting teaching is fundamentally different and so is no indictment of the whatever the 'original' inspiration was.
antineoETC" wrote:So what is the "context" of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18)?
The context is the covenant between God and the Israelites over 3000 years ago as we said already. Whatever it meant, it meant to them at that time.
antineoETC" wrote:As in "By Their Fruits Shall You Know Them" of course.
Actually no. By consistency with earlier teaching as in:

Deut 13:1-3
If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ' Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams
NASU

and

2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies
NASU

If you want to quote Jesus, then clearly the 'fruit' he is talking about is not what you listed. Especially given that he made clear that he did not have political ambitions at all and what his 'kingdom' was all about.

But perhaps this is a good illustration of the kind of mental gymnastics it takes for your kind of reasoning. Take a quote from Jesus given in roughly 30AD to his disciples 'by their fruits you shall know them', completely ignore all the context about what constitutes good and bad fruit for Jesus, then apply this term 'fruit' to your own skewed interpretation of the life of Moses living over 3000 years earlier, throw in a few heinous terms (even though you have already been debunked on at least one of them), compare it to someone living about 4000 years later and say 'there you go - it's just the same'!

Like I said, it is remarkably easy to claim 'inspiration' from something to suit your own purpose.

But did you actually watch the video you posted? I got the first 26 minutes only. He doesn't describe your argument at all. He doesn't say 'well because Moses taught these things I can see that Mohammed was right' or 'because Moses behaved this way, Mohammed must be ok too'. It's just the opposite. His problem is with the fact that the 'prophets' are portrayed has doing bad things - Noah and drinking, Lot and Incest, David and adultery and murder. 'God's prophets are supposed to be examples' he says. But the bible never says that. The only human example is Jesus. But who else claims that 'God's prophet is an example'? Answer: Islam. I.e. he was already thinking like a muslim and then later, unsurprisingly, became one. He didn't become a muslim on a slippery slope from the bible but from a rejection of the bible. He, like you, extracts certain verses to justify what he already believes - and it becomes even more obvious when he gets onto the New Testament.

Of course, there are also many muslim background Christians who might say that 'the Quran led me to Christ'. After all the Quran teaches that Jesus was righteous, did miracles, is a mercy from God, is the word of God, is a Spirit from God, was born of a virgin, etc. Does this somehow 'justify' the Quran or make it the work of a prophet? No. Does it mean that muslims who believe in the Quran are 'pre-disposed' to become Christians? No. The Quran teaches what it teaches and should be evaluated based on that.
antineoETC" wrote: And, to repeat, once a person regards these violence and intolerance-riddled collection of myths as a source of moral guidance they are on a slippery slope which too many people continue to slide down to absolve the bible of blame.
Utter rubbish. The 'bible' clearly identifies both the context and purpose of the commands to the Israelites. Your attempts to generalise them have failed in a couple of short posts. Anyone who wants to 'slide' can do so with or without the bible.
antineoETC" wrote:
sparky wrote:And an atheist might be more likely to entertain claims of a 'non-religious' prophet such as Stalin or Mao.
They MIGHT but only in the sense that atheists, unlike say Roman Catholics, would not be put off from Stalinism or Maoism by their rejection of the existence of a god or might even be attracted to it for that reason alone. However, this is not an idictment of atheism which is nothing more than the LACK of the belief in a god and does not in itself predispose people to actively or morally support such things as the enforced collectivization of agriculture, cultural revolutions and gulags.
Belief in God or even the bible does not 'pre-dispose' people to follow David Koresh either. It's a nonsense argument and you know it. People, or whatever theistic or atheistic persuasion, sometimes get convinced by charismatic teachers who promise participation in some kind of grand plan. That's just how people are. Each person or ideology's teaching is an indictment of nothing more than itself and should be evaluated on its own merits. Things that influenced them also stand on their own. Communism is no more an 'indictment' of atheism because it contains atheism and the rejection of God than Islam is of the bible because it contains extracts or some similar ideas to the bible.

Cheers,
sparky

antineoETC
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

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

Post by antineoETC »

sparky wrote:Fine. So 'jealous' was completely redundant in your statement
No.
and your later question about whether the NT made God 'not jealous' was a waste of time as well. As we have seen that jealousy is quite a normal counterpart to loving commitment,
Leaving aside the absurdity of likening the relationship between humans and a supposedly almighty deity to that of a man and his wife, Yahweh's self-proclaimed "jealousy" is clearly a "counterpart" to violent, murderous rages rather than any "loving commitment" as most of us would understand it. Using your daft analogy, he is like an insanely jealous husband who kills his wife in a fit of uncontrolable anger for looking at another man.
I would be entirely unsurprised if this characteristic was also to be found in a loving God.
I am sure you would. That is because you derive your ideas of a "loving" god from a book that presents him as a jealous, psychotic maniac who, quite apart from permitting one of his "fallen angels" to murder a man's entire family to "test" his faith, massacres thousands of others for utter trivialities like worshipping "graven images".
I'm not particularly interested in what you think is 'fitting'.
Of course you don't.
And that reasoning stands. Islam is not an indictment of the bible because its teaching is not the same
The teaching of Islam is not EXACTLY the same as the bible. If it was the Koran would be the bible and not the Koran. However, I fail to follow the logic of your conclusion that Islam is therefore not an indictment of the bible.
any more than eugenics is an indictment of Darwin.
See earlier answer below
antineoETC wrote:Again, Charles Darwin did not promote his scientific theories as a source of moral, practical and societal guidance - let alone a divinely inspired one as you and billions of other "believers" regard the bible. The logical ramifications of this fundamental difference ought to be obvious.
Who cares? The intentions of those who wrote the bible were not to promote world conquest by Arabs in the C7th CE either.
No. They were written partially to retrospectively morally justify their manifestly brutal conquest of "Promised Land" by presenting it as the will of a god and thus mitigating their own sense of guilt at what they had done.
The resulting teaching is fundamentally different
In what way?
antineoETC wrote:So what is the "context" of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18)?
The context is the covenant between God and the Israelites over 3000 years ago as we said already. Whatever it meant, it meant to them at that time.
So Jehovah is OK with witches nowadays? He would look ill on someone who killed one?
antineoETC wrote:As in "By Their Fruits Shall You Know Them" of course.
Actually no. By consistency with earlier teaching as in:

Deut 13:1-3
If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ' Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams
NASU
So you regard these words of of Deuteronomy as possessing some ongoing applicability for you as a Christian?
It is in the nature of wasp nests that some of their inhabitants are bound to sting someone. The closer you are to are to a wasp nest the more likely you are to get stung, sometimes fatally. Who would encourage wasps to establish a nest in their house?

tobias malachi
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:11 pm

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

Post by tobias malachi »

Yes I think FF is getting back on track, I have not been a member for very long but I have noticed more information on the crimes against humanity that have been carried out in the name of islam allowing me to form an informed view. As a Christian my beliefs do help to mould some of my opinions but I do not allow them to blind me to other peoples ideas, and I can see no good reason not to join with other faiths that I respect to combat islam.

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 the absurdity of likening the relationship between humans and a supposedly almighty deity to that of a man and his wife, Yahweh's self-proclaimed "jealousy" is clearly a "counterpart" to violent, murderous rages rather than any "loving commitment" as most of us would understand it. Using your daft analogy, he is like an insanely jealous husband who kills his wife in a fit of uncontrolable anger for looking at another man.
Firstly, not 'humans' in this case but a specific group of people he had saved from slavery and who made a commitment to follow him. That mutual commitment is just like a marriage and that, of course, is exactly how the bible repeatedly characterises the relationship between Israel and God. Have you ever read Hosea?

Your claim that this analogy is absurd demonstrates only too clearly the total lack of understanding you have of the bible. The corollary of this is that your claim about Islam being an 'indictment' of the bible reflects only your twisted perception of what the bible teaches rather than what it actually contains.

Of course, being God, he is also the one who carries out judgement as well.
antineoETC wrote:
sparky wrote:I'm not particularly interested in what you think is 'fitting'.
Of course you don't.
No, I'm not. Your personal feeling about what God 'should' be like has absolutely no bearing on what he might actually be.
antineoETC wrote:The teaching of Islam is not EXACTLY the same as the bible. If it was the Koran would be the bible and not the Koran. However, I fail to follow the logic of your conclusion that Islam is therefore not an indictment of the bible.
Because the bible cannot be responsible for anyone's misreading, misapplication or misappropriation of it. Just like you prefer to ignore the bible's own presentation of the relationship between God and Israel (saviour/saved, husband/wife, etc) and prefer to extract sections to suit your own agenda, so Islam does the same.
antineoETC wrote:
sparky wrote:Who cares? The intentions of those who wrote the bible were not to promote world conquest by Arabs in the C7th CE either.
No. They were written partially to retrospectively morally justify their manifestly brutal conquest of "Promised Land" by presenting it as the will of a god and thus mitigating their own sense of guilt at what they had done.
Which of course is a view that neither Islam nor the bible takes on its own history. Demonstrating once again that whatever you are arguing against, it has little to do with what is in the bible at all.
antineoETC wrote:
sparky wrote:The resulting teaching is fundamentally different
In what way?
The relationship between God and his people for a start. Where is this described as like a husband and wife in Islam? Where is the picture of oneness between husband and wife as described in Genesis, reflected in Islam? Where are the commands to love your enemies in Islam? Where is the requirement for sacrifice to receive God's forgiveness in Islam? Where is the central role for a model human who sacrifices his life to save others (rather than kill them) in Islam?

That you can launch into a claim about Islam being an indictment of the bible without knowing the answer to that question really beggars belief.
antineoETC wrote: So Jehovah is OK with witches nowadays? He would look ill on someone who killed one?
No and yes in that order.
antineoETC wrote: So you regard these words of of Deuteronomy as possessing some ongoing applicability for you as a Christian?
Of course, they teach a principle that we see consistently applied in the New Testament.

Cheers,
sparky

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

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

Post by LCD »

very nicely done Sparky.

As always, his examples are set in a particular time, when in fact, as Dennis Prager put it, the worst incidencts of the Isrealite Nation being ordered to kill all on the battlefield happens under Joshua.

The other battles, under moses and others have distinct exceptions, as well as Samuals's orders to kill all the amonites and their cattle, which the isrealites cannot do, and fail to do, and because of such there are issues for them 600 years later.

I for one would like to break down every battle, from Exodus forward and show the distinct difference between the isrealites and their enemies.

I think its vastly interesting that nobody really wants to break those battles down and talk about them in their true context.

I also would like to compare them to muslim battles, where significant looting, rape happened to those people, and where the isrealites took slaves. Nowhere.
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.

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

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

Post by sparky »

LCD wrote:very nicely done Sparky.

As always, his examples are set in a particular time, when in fact, as Dennis Prager put it, the worst incidencts of the Isrealite Nation being ordered to kill all on the battlefield happens under Joshua.

The other battles, under moses and others have distinct exceptions, as well as Samuals's orders to kill all the amonites and their cattle, which the isrealites cannot do, and fail to do, and because of such there are issues for them 600 years later.

I for one would like to break down every battle, from Exodus forward and show the distinct difference between the isrealites and their enemies.

I think its vastly interesting that nobody really wants to break those battles down and talk about them in their true context.

I also would like to compare them to muslim battles, where significant looting, rape happened to those people, and where the isrealites took slaves. Nowhere.
I'm not sure there is much to be gained from a study of the details of the battles. If you start from the premise that God doesn't exist, then the Israelites are just one more group writing divine sanction for their bloody political aims. Or if you start from the premise that God doesn't have the right to judge people and command their death, then God is blood-thirsty and not worth worshiping. So, of course the OT is going to be problematic - even considered in its context. And of course, it will be seen as hypocritical for Christians to criticise Islam in relation to its commands to fight and kill other people. As far as I can see, this is how most atheists approach this question. They start from their own assumptions and judge the bible and Christianity accordingly.

But in each case they are assuming things that contradict the bible in the first place - clearly God is taught to exist and clearly he does assume the right to give and take life. So the resulting arguments do nothing to demonstrate any kind of problem within Christian teaching at all. For it is the very reality of death, pain and suffering at the hands of an angry God that necessitate that Jesus should die in the first place. It might be that you happen not to 'like' this reality and wish it was otherwise but that says nothing about whether it actually exists or not.

Islam is wrong, not because of the detail of its commands, but because it does not originate from God in the first place.

Rashna
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:13 pm

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

Post by Rashna »

tobias malachi wrote:Yes I think FF is getting back on track, ... and I can see no good reason not to join with other faiths that I respect to combat islam.
+1. Personally I am as bored listening to missionaries as to Muslim daees, I also don't know that many Muslims who have apostatized based solely on Christian preaching, Bible thumping & Quran thumping doesn't really make me convinced either is true.

But I prefer Jesus to Muhammad, & contemporary Christians to Muslims, in my country or anywhere in the world. I also prefer Judaism to Islam.

If missionaries are able to sway a few Muslims that Islam is false, I would be delighted. If people are already ex Muslims, I don't care if they become Christians or not. They can not "like" the reality of Jesus, like they deny the "reality" of Allah, but as long as they dump Islam, its a positive development.

User avatar
expozIslam
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:32 pm

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

Post by expozIslam »

Rashna wrote:
tobias malachi wrote:Yes I think FF is getting back on track, ... and I can see no good reason not to join with other faiths that I respect to combat islam.
+1. Personally I am as bored listening to missionaries as to Muslim daees, I also don't know that many Muslims who have apostatized based solely on Christian preaching, Bible thumping & Quran thumping doesn't really make me convinced either is true.

But I prefer Jesus to Muhammad, & contemporary Christians to Muslims, in my country or anywhere in the world. I also prefer Judaism to Islam.

If missionaries are able to sway a few Muslims that Islam is false, I would be delighted. If people are already ex Muslims, I don't care if they become Christians or not. They can not "like" the reality of Jesus, like they deny the "reality" of Allah, but as long as they dump Islam, its a positive development.
+1 :rock:
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.”

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

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

Post by LCD »

1. I don't really care what athiests say about god, only that if they are going to say that the isrealites are as bloodthirsty as the muslims, then they have to examine the differeneces.

The isreaqlites are a nation, a very large nation of people, not 75,000 sparse camel herders looking for rape, profit and slaves.

Each indivudal battle is specific. No sparky, the athiest way is always the same, attack god, and attack him specifically on the grounds he doesn't exist, the greatest crime of an athiest is really to attack humans, mostly for inventing god, so they can go and hid their heads and live under the notion of their secular dream of a world, which will never happen.
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.

Post Reply