PDA

View Full Version : The proposed 13 story mosque at Ground Zero



Pages : [1] 2

Hew
07-15-2010, 05:34 PM
What a disgusting affront to American sensibilities.

Here's an ad that NBC and CBS have already said they won't air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

And here's some commentary on the proposed mosque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=related This guy is a lib Englishman. I've been watching his videos for some time as he's usually pretty funny; but he's always thought-provoking.

Franco
07-15-2010, 06:15 PM
It is a slap in the face to every American citizen!

And they know that.

Blackstone
07-15-2010, 06:23 PM
I am not sure why they would even want to build a cultural center anywhere near ground zero. It seem in particularly bad taste, regardless of how it is intended.

Franco
07-15-2010, 06:27 PM
It is their way of testing us, to see how much they can get away with and how far they can push us.

They know Americans are largely apathetic and preoccupied with personal interest. That we have become mentally soft.

gman0046
07-15-2010, 06:40 PM
They want the mosque as a show of victory on 9/11. They can do it because we has a muslim president.

Blackstone
07-15-2010, 08:02 PM
Is it a mosque or a cultural center? The organization building it claims it is a cultural center open to everyone in the community. I'm still not happy about it because of where it's located. Seems like they could do just as much for the community if they built it somewhere else.

According the the leader of the Cordoba Initiative:

"The project has been mischaracterized, so I want to explain clearly what it would be. Our planned 13-story community center is intended for Park Place between Church St. and West Broadway. It is not a mosque, although it will include a space for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms, a 500-seat auditorium, banquet facilities and many other things a community needs to be healthy. The center will offer theatrical programming, art exhibitions and cooking classes. These are amenities missing now from this part of the city.

And, yes, the center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome for quiet reflection. The center will support soul and body.

The center will be open to all regardless of religion. Like a YMCA, the 92nd St. Y or the Jewish Community Center uptown, it will admit everyone. It will be a center for all New Yorkers."

Franco
07-15-2010, 08:08 PM
I wouldn't expect them to state thier real intentions of why the choose this location.

YardleyLabs
07-16-2010, 04:00 AM
I figure it's easy. Either permit or outlaw all churches, Certainly the people killed in the WTC represented a very wide range of nationalities and religions, including a pretty significant number of Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. The terrorists who caused the destruction didn't care about the religion of the victims, or their nationality, and they certainly didn't represent Islam. They represented their own insanity and hate. The fact that the KKK says it is defending Christianity doesn't make it so. Christianity does not deserved to be measured by the KKK or the Spanish Inquisition and Islam does not deserve to be measured by Osama bin Laden and his bands of evil fools.

Gerry Clinchy
07-16-2010, 05:03 AM
I figure it's easy. Either permit or outlaw all churches, Certainly the people killed in the WTC represented a very wide range of nationalities and religions, including a pretty significant number of Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. The terrorists who caused the destruction didn't care about the religion of the victims, or their nationality, and they certainly didn't represent Islam. They represented their own insanity and hate. The fact that the KKK says it is defending Christianity doesn't make it so. Christianity does not deserved to be measured by the KKK or the Spanish Inquisition and Islam does not deserve to be measured by Osama bin Laden and his bands of evil fools.

I never thought of KKK as being religiously oriented, any more than the Nazis. I can admit to being less knowledgeable about theology than many others here may be. However, I don't know that anywhere in the New Tesstament of the Bible where Christians are directed to spread their faith by killing those who do not accept Christianity. While Christians may have done this in an aberrant interpretation of Christianity, I don't think it is a "directive" to kill in order to purify the world. While Islam, I believe, does have such a directive within its theology.

So, the KKK and The Inquisition where NOT following their religion, but rather were giving an unfounded interpretation of Christianity. Killing infidels, OTOH, is part of Islam's tenets. (I stress my limited knowledge in this latter regard, so am open to correction.)

It may also be of some significance that the Imam from NYC who was called upon after 911 as "counsel" in the aftermath of 911 later turned out to be a radical himself. This might make one suspicious of the motives of the rest of the community that this Imam represented.

Would we encourage the placing of a swastika on a historical center at Auschwitz even if the center were of a community/educational nature? If space in this "community center" is allocated specifically to Muslim prayer, it conveys to me making the area "holy ground" for Islam.

There already exist zoning ordinances in many places which preclude having "churches" in certain areas of municipalities. In fact, not long ago there was a case of such an ordinance (not that I support that) being used to preclude private gathering of a prayer group in a private home. (I don't know what the end result of that was.)

The final thought that occurs to me on this would be why the group proposing this center would persist in this project & not respect the sensitivities of the New Yorkers? To acknowledge the pain of New Yorkers would be a true act of good will. Simply making a large donation to a community center in the area, without superimposing any Islamic religious "stamp", with a suitable plaque expressing the condemnation of violence on behalf of peace-loving Muslims would be more impactful, and acceptable, I think.

ducknwork
07-16-2010, 06:12 AM
Christianity does not deserved to be measured by the KKK or the Spanish Inquisition

So you don't think organized religion is all that bad after all?

YardleyLabs
07-16-2010, 06:15 AM
I never thought of KKK as being religiously oriented, any more than the Nazis. I can admit to being less knowledgeable about theology than many others here may be. However, I don't know that anywhere in the New Tesstament of the Bible where Christians are directed to spread their faith by killing those who do not accept Christianity. While Christians may have done this in an aberrant interpretation of Christianity, I don't think it is a "directive" to kill in order to purify the world. While Islam, I believe, does have such a directive within its theology.

So, the KKK and The Inquisition where NOT following their religion, but rather were giving an unfounded interpretation of Christianity. Killing infidels, OTOH, is part of Islam's tenets. (I stress my limited knowledge in this latter regard, so am open to correction.)

It may also be of some significance that the Imam from NYC who was called upon after 911 as "counsel" in the aftermath of 911 later turned out to be a radical himself. This might make one suspicious of the motives of the rest of the community that this Imam represented.

Would we encourage the placing of a swastika on a historical center at Auschwitz even if the center were of a community/educational nature? If space in this "community center" is allocated specifically to Muslim prayer, it conveys to me making the area "holy ground" for Islam.

There already exist zoning ordinances in many places which preclude having "churches" in certain areas of municipalities. In fact, not long ago there was a case of such an ordinance (not that I support that) being used to preclude private gathering of a prayer group in a private home. (I don't know what the end result of that was.)

The final thought that occurs to me on this would be why the group proposing this center would persist in this project & not respect the sensitivities of the New Yorkers? To acknowledge the pain of New Yorkers would be a true act of good will. Simply making a large donation to a community center in the area, without superimposing any Islamic religious "stamp", with a suitable plaque expressing the condemnation of violence on behalf of peace-loving Muslims would be more impactful, and acceptable, I think.
There is no place in the Koran that allows forced conversions (something done rutinely by Christian missionaries over time); they are specifically prohibited. Killing is only justified in defense of an attack. Those claiming justification of the Koran for their acts of violence are generally claiming that they are simply responding to attacks on Islam by the west. However, even there, they are not following the teachings of the Koran any more than the KKK (which does define itself as an organization for the defense of Christianity and white America.).

pat addis
07-16-2010, 06:19 AM
am i the only one who wonders where the money comes from,who in their right mind would sell the property to them?

troy schwab
07-16-2010, 07:37 AM
Y'all should read up on what really happened in Cordoba around 1200....... at least what most scholars agree to. Peace my A&&........ I have no problem with a mosque.... ok, im lying........... but why not have a church and a synogogue(sp) too???? To bring religion into something that a group declare a bridge-type, realtionship healing place is biased and wrong. If you cant see that, then God help you. And yes, they have another agenda.

Hew
07-16-2010, 08:33 AM
An uber-PC defense of the absurd by Yardley. I'm shocked. :rolleyes:

The swastica was a sacred symbol for both Hindus and Buddhists centuries before the Nazis used it. Would you accept a group's purchase of land next door to the National Holocaust Museum in Washington so they could honor their supposed Hindu roots by erecting a giant swastica to tower over the musem's entrance?

Would you be so accepting of a group purchasing land next to the Martin Luther King memorial in Atlanta so they could erect an eternally burning cross to supposedly honor their Scottish heritage (from which the origins of a burning cross originate)?

I'm sure you'd be apoplectic if the Baptist church bought the ruins of a bombed out abortion clinic and built a church on it.

Would you be so supportive of Rupert Murdoch erecting a giant dollar symbol within sight of Karl Marx's gravesite? My bad. That was a low blow. ;-)

It's not America's fault that islamo-facists have hijacked the face of Islam in much of the worlds' eye. IMO, and of others, Muslims don't seem too upset or concerned about that perception. Building a 13 story monument to Islam at Ground Zero seems to reinforce that perception. It's a thumb to our eye. It's tasteless and insensitive and hopefully most Americans are as disgusted by it as I am.

Doc E
07-16-2010, 08:38 AM
I say let 'em build it - - - - - - - - Then crash a fully fueled, unmanned drone airplane into it.



.

gman0046
07-16-2010, 09:59 AM
These posts by Yardley fully expose him for what he is. He is a one man defender of muslims and the koran.

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2010, 09:17 AM
Heard an interesting discussion on radio on the proposed mosque.

The host wondered why New Yorkers at large have not been more vocal in opposition to the proposal. He could not understand why New Yorkers would not be outraged over the proposal.Surely is a good question. Have I missed some coverage on that?

Also had a tape of Mayor Bloomberg advocating for "tolerance" WRT to the mosque. Somehow, I don't think Guiliani would feel the same as Bloomberg.

They did agree to change the name from Cordoba once it was publicized what the extended meaning of Cordoba signified in Muslim history.

Also, the proposal is to dedicate the mosque on ... 9 - 11 - 2011. While I am NOt a big Palin fan ... her words "stab in the heart" are not far off the mark for me. The mosque spokesperson (a woman), stated that we just don't understand how peaceful Muslims are. Since it was only a small clip ... no way to know if she also issued any public condemnation of the violence that the non-peaceful Muslims favor.

Clint Watts
07-21-2010, 09:35 AM
Yardley sure does know how to stir up the troops, I'm starting to think he's having fun messing with the group. Nobody in their right mind agrees with this.

346ci
07-21-2010, 10:03 AM
I say let 'em build it - - - - - - - - Then crash a fully fueled, unmanned drone airplane into it.



.

Sounds good to me!

gman0046
07-21-2010, 10:10 AM
Over the tears muslims have built mosques on the scenes of their victories. Thats why they want it on Ground Zero. We as Americans need to prevent it. What say our muslim president?

david gibson
07-21-2010, 10:41 AM
Over the tears muslims have built mosques on the scenes of their victories. Thats why they want it on Ground Zero. We as Americans need to prevent it. What say our muslim president?

he is mum on the subject and will continue to be because he does not want to insult our enemies and his "other people"

Leddyman
07-21-2010, 10:44 AM
I figure it's easy. Either permit or outlaw all churches, Certainly the people killed in the WTC represented a very wide range of nationalities and religions, including a pretty significant number of Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. The terrorists who caused the destruction didn't care about the religion of the victims, or their nationality, and they certainly didn't represent Islam. They represented their own insanity and hate. The fact that the KKK says it is defending Christianity doesn't make it so. Christianity does not deserved to be measured by the KKK or the Spanish Inquisition and Islam does not deserve to be measured by Osama bin Laden and his bands of evil fools.

I'm sorry, what is the KKK building at ground zero? The Imam in this mosque is clearly linked to radical elements of jihad. Try to follow the argument. Strawmen are just tricks.

david gibson
07-21-2010, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
I figure it's easy. Either permit or outlaw all churches, Certainly the people killed in the WTC represented a very wide range of nationalities and religions, including a pretty significant number of Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. The terrorists who caused the destruction didn't care about the religion of the victims, or their nationality, and they certainly didn't represent Islam. They represented their own insanity and hate. The fact that the KKK says it is defending Christianity doesn't make it so. Christianity does not deserved to be measured by the KKK or the Spanish Inquisition and Islam does not deserve to be measured by Osama bin Laden and his bands of evil fools.

until "mainstream islam" - IF there really is one - stands up and decries radical islam and takes tangible, loud and clear steps against it by educating their youth against jihad and every other possible action to denounce and stop their ranks from within from jihad, then they are one and the same. all i have ever seen them do is give lip service.

they claim to be the religion of peace, but deep down i bet every single one of them gives their heart's stamp of approval on every act of terrorism committed.

kill 'em all let god/allah sort them out regards.......

zeus3925
07-21-2010, 11:59 AM
I
So, the KKK and The Inquisition where NOT following their religion, but rather were giving an unfounded interpretation of Christianity. Killing infidels, OTOH, is part of Islam's tenets. (I stress my limited knowledge in this latter regard, so am open to correction.)


Citation, please, Gerry.

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2010, 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=645977#post645977)
I
So, the KKK and The Inquisition where NOT following their religion, but rather were giving an unfounded interpretation of Christianity. Killing infidels, OTOH, is part of Islam's tenets. (I stress my limited knowledge in this latter regard, so am open to correction.)

Citation, please, Gerry.

I would have to rely on my own interpretation of the Bible to say that the KKK and Inquisition were aberrant interpretations of the Bible.

I believe the issue on killing infidels was addressed by Jeff:


There is no place in the Koran that allows forced conversions (something done rutinely by Christian missionaries over time); they are specifically prohibited. Killing is only justified in defense of an attack. Those claiming justification of the Koran for their acts of violence are generally claiming that they are simply responding to attacks on Islam by the west. However, even there, they are not following the teachings of the Koran any more than the KKK (which does define itself as an organization for the defense of Christianity and white America.).[/QUOTE]

I did recently come across this quote:
[quote]“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (Koran, 9.29)

My perception is that most influential relgions of today (Christian, Judaism, Buddhist, Shinto, etc.) have today disavowed the aberrant practices of events like the Inquisition. (That is my perception). Undoubtedly, there are still wingnuts out there who promote violence in the name of religion.

I would fault Muslims for not loudly & consistently disavowing violence of their own wingnut factions. But I have trouble not remembering the celebrations in the streets in some Muslim countries when the Towers fell.

road kill
07-21-2010, 12:38 PM
I can only imagine Yardley and the rest of the progressives outrage if the Baptists tried to build a Church at ground zero!!!
Or the Catholics, or the Jews building a Temple.

Freakin' amazing........


rk

zeus3925
07-21-2010, 01:24 PM
Qote from Gerry:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (Koran, 9.29) "

Allah is a term not only used by Muslims, but by middle eastern Christians as well, before the establishment of Islam. It is a Arabic word, not a religious word. They believe that Allah is one and the same as Yahweh of the Jewish religion. Muslims hold that that Jews, Christians and Sabaeans, (those of the other Abrahamic faiths) are believers as well. Islam is viewed by them as an updated version of worship to the God of Abraham. Muslims hold the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as scripture for their faith. They also hold that Allah instructed Mohhammed to develop a third form of worship because Jews and Christians had strayed far from Biblical tenets.

Gerry, there have been numerous condemnations by Muslim clerics and groups of acts of violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. Much of it doesn't make the front page.

I am not a Muslim. I own three dogs which Muslims condemn as being unclean animals. I am too irreverent to pray five times a day, let alone shagging my butt to the local mosque to do it.


I am amazed how many here profess to be so great an expert on Muslims and Islam. Yet, they don't know any Muslims nor have they read up on any thing dispassionate about the faith. However, they will pontificate at length on "what THEY want".

For most of my adult life I have known Muslims. They have never ever given me any indication they want to bring down America or forcefully coerce you into joining their religion.

In large part, you are seeing middle eastern cultures trying to hang on by their finger nails against the onslaught of western culture. Cultures under threat circle the wagons and get very conservative. Pushed further, some will respond with violence--often using religion or some other sacred belief to justify their cause.

road kill
07-21-2010, 01:34 PM
Qote from Gerry:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” (Koran, 9.29) "

Allah is a term not only used by Muslims, but by middle eastern Christians as well, before the establishment of Islam. It is a Arabic word, not a religious word. They believe that Allah is one and the same as Yahweh of the Jewish religion. Muslims hold that that Jews, Christians and Sabaeans, (those of the other Abrahamic faiths) are believers as well. Islam is viewed by them as an updated version of worship to the God of Abraham. Muslims hold the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as scripture for their faith. They also hold that Allah instructed Mohhammed to develop a third form of worship because Jews and Christians had strayed far from Biblical tenets.

Gerry, there have been numerous condemnations by Muslim clerics and groups of acts of violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. Much of it doesn't make the front page.

I am not a Muslim. I own three dogs which Muslims condemn as being unclean animals. I am too irreverent to pray five times a day, let alone shagging my butt to the local mosque to do it.


I am amazed how many here profess to be so great an expert on Muslims and Islam. Yet, they don't know any Muslims nor have they read up on any thing dispassionate about the faith. However, they will pontificate at length on "what THEY want".

For most of my adult life I have known Muslims. They have never ever given me any indication they want to bring down America or forcefully coerce you into joining their religion.

In large part, you are seeing middle eastern cultures trying to hang on by their finger nails against the onslaught of western culture. Cultures under threat circle the wagons and get very conservative. Pushed further, some will respond with violence--often using religion or some other sacred belief to justify their cause.

I wonder how the Muslims (peaceful or otherwise) would feel about the Lutherans building a Church in down town Tehran???:D




rk

zeus3925
07-21-2010, 02:49 PM
I wonder how the Muslims (peaceful or otherwise) would feel about the Lutherans building a Church in down town Tehran???:D

rk

We have a New Age religion headquartered near Chanhassen, MN that has as one of its tenets a person can learn to channel his mental energy so that he might travel freely throughout the universe outside of his body. When the church sought to build a church and headquarters, the reactions from some of the good Catholics and Protestants of the community was explosive. Lawsuits ensued, but went no where. I suppose the reactions from the Muslim fundys would be similar. They put their pants on the same way.

road kill
07-21-2010, 02:52 PM
We have a New Age religion headquartered near Chanhassen, MN that has as one of its tenets a person can learn to channel his mental energy so that he might travel freely throughout the universe outside of his body. When the church sought to build a church and headquarters, the reactions from some of the good Catholics and Protestants of the community was explosive. Lawsuits ensued, but went no where. I suppose the reactions from the Muslim fundys would be similar. They put their pants on the same way.

Back in the day, we called that a bong.;-)

"Timothy Leary's dead..........."


rk

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2010, 03:16 PM
Zeus, are you saying that the quote that I came across (I wasn't actually looking for one, but just stumbled across it) does not appear in the Koran?


In large part, you are seeing middle eastern cultures trying to hang on by their finger nails against the onslaught of western culture. Cultures under threat circle the wagons and get very conservative. Pushed further, some will respond with violence

When you say "middle eastern cultures" are you including others besides Muslim? I have seen many notations that Muslims are migrating more and more into many parts of Europe, increasing their percentages of population in many traditionally non-Muslim countries.

Evidently the problems there are similar to some of our US immigration issues, i.e. the newcomers are reluctant to assimilate into their adopted countries. The article I read about the head-covering for women law in France does not include scarves, but does include the coverings that conceal the face. I can see the practicality of that in a country that might require photo ID for legal purposes (like the photo required on my state's driver's license). The discussion on the law was whether it violated freedom of religion.

If I migrated to another country for permanent residence, I would expect that I should do so with the intention of adapting to a new culture to a large degree.

I admit that I do not know any Muslims personally. Nor do I know any Buddhists or Shintoists. I only know Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics. I just try to keep an open mind about it.

gman0046
07-21-2010, 03:20 PM
zeus3925, you are wrong about the way muslims put their pants on. They don't wear pants. They wear what's called Seven Day Sh*tters. The leg's are tied closed at the bottom and they clean them out every seven day's.

pastorjames50@gmail.com
07-21-2010, 03:29 PM
This is like adding salt to a wound.
Let's stand together, practice your Christian beliefs.We cannot allow such things to happen or even be thought of.
Pastor James

gman0046
07-21-2010, 03:32 PM
Most Americans are with you Pastor James. Too bad our president isn't.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2010, 03:36 PM
From my perspective, there are no relevant differences between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They share common religious and moral roots with minor differences. I don't believe in any of these religions, and therefore take no interest in doctrinal differences between them. All three religions are plagued by "true believers" who are defined by their intolerance. Interestingly, of the three, Christianity is the one that supports the most aggressive perspective on conversions, while Judaism actively discourages conversion. The Koran prohibits any efforts to impose Islam on a non-believer. Mainstream Islam has often denounced Muslim extremists. American Muslims have done this even more aggressively. Many Muslims were among the victims of 9/11 and among the first responders. Islam is not responsible for the evil done in its name any more than Christian churches are responsible for the evil done in the name of Christ. Islam is not a monolithic church. The days of the caliphates have passed. There are many broad sects of Islam (e.g. Sunni, Shiya), but individual clerics operate with a great deal of autonomy -- freer than a Catholic or Episcopal church, but not as free as a Unitarian church or even a synagogue. Unfortunately, that allows any number of people to speak in the name of the religion without giving anyone else the authority to demand that they stop.

Many of my relatives are Muslim (and many more are Christian, Jewish, or not religious at all). I see no reason to accept the kind of labeling and condemnation suggested here of a religion believed in one form or another by almost as many people as profess to be Christian. Religious war, in my mind, are always evil.

zeus3925
07-21-2010, 03:42 PM
This is like adding salt to a wound.
Let's stand together, practice your Christian beliefs.We cannot allow such things to happen or even be thought of.
Pastor James

Well Pastor, I am going to enter an objection here in the name of libertarianism. I am not saying that we as Christians should forsake our beliefs. But when you say we should not allow such things to happen, what do you invoke as an enforcer here? Muslims, pagans, wickens, and what-have-you, have a First Amendment right to practice their religions in America. To not allow such things to happen would require governmental intervention in a manner in which I am not interested in seeing.

And who else are you going to deem as an inappropriate church or religion? It might be your church one day and the next day mine.

road kill
07-21-2010, 06:20 PM
Well Pastor, I am going to enter an objection here in the name of libertarianism. I am not saying that we as Christians should forsake our beliefs. But when you say we should not allow such things to happen, what do you invoke as an enforcer here? Muslims, pagans, wickens, and what-have-you, have a First Amendment right to practice their religions in America. To not allow such things to happen would require governmental intervention in a manner in which I am not interested in seeing.

And who else are you going to deem as an inappropriate church or religion? It might be your church one day and the next day mine.
Whatever standard the city fathers of NYC have should hold.
If Christians or Jews would be denied zoning then so should Muslims.

Fair enough??




rk

zeus3925
07-21-2010, 06:37 PM
Whatever standard the city fathers of NYC have should hold.
If Christians or Jews would be denied zoning then so should Muslims.

Fair enough??




rk

Yep! If done in similar manner across the board.

zeus3925
07-21-2010, 07:27 PM
Zeus, are you saying that the quote that I came across (I wasn't actually looking for one, but just stumbled across it) does not appear in the Koran?



When you say "middle eastern cultures" are you including others besides Muslim? I have seen many notations that Muslims are migrating more and more into many parts of Europe, increasing their percentages of population in many traditionally non-Muslim countries.

Evidently the problems there are similar to some of our US immigration issues, i.e. the newcomers are reluctant to assimilate into their adopted countries. The article I read about the head-covering for women law in France does not include scarves, but does include the coverings that conceal the face. I can see the practicality of that in a country that might require photo ID for legal purposes (like the photo required on my state's driver's license). The discussion on the law was whether it violated freedom of religion.

If I migrated to another country for permanent residence, I would expect that I should do so with the intention of adapting to a new culture to a large degree.

I admit that I do not know any Muslims personally. Nor do I know any Buddhists or Shintoists. I only know Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics. I just try to keep an open mind about it.

Gerry, I am no Koranic expert. I have a hard enough time keeping up with my own scripture. I do posses a copy of the Koran that a Muslim friend gave me but there isn't much there that would induce me to Islam. However, I did get far enough to see this quote from the Koranic Book of the Cow:

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Remember again Allah is an Arabic word meaning God, as in the God of Abraham.

There is not a unitary Muslim culture. There are many cultures in the Middle East where Islam is the dominant religion. Iranian culture is different from Arab Culture as is Turkish from Arabic. Doctrinally they have their differences. We have our Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant camps as they have their Sunnis, Shiites and Sufi. And they kill themselves over the differences as we did in Europe in the aftermath of the Reformation.

France is a country to which there has been a lot of Muslim migration. France is an old colonial power and they maintain a relationship with their former colonies as the British in their commonwealth. Immigration from former colonies, including Muslim colonies, has up to this point been pretty open. Since the formation of the European Union, the people once landed in a EU country are free to move into any country in the union, as a right guaranteed under the EU constitution. There are no internal borders in the old traditional sense.

France is seen as a good destination as France prides itself on being egalitarian. Even so, there is a definite wall that is erected between the indigenous population and the new comers.

If I were to emigrate, France would be near the top of my list. At my age, learning French is most traumatic. I can read it to a fair degree. Speaking it is another matter.

As Mark Twain once said," My recent trip to France was most frustrating for me. Try as I might, I couldn't get the French to understand their own language."

bobbyb
07-21-2010, 09:49 PM
These posts by Yardley fully expose him for what he is. He is a one man defender of muslims and the koran.

You forgot Obama....oops you did say defender of muslims didn't you ? sorry my bad...
BobbyB
cajun

BrianW
07-22-2010, 09:32 AM
Y'all should read up on what really happened in Cordoba around 1200....... .

I hope Jeff can help me with this;
Why would any thoughtful, community minded actionary for peaceful Islam eve consider naming theis project the Codoba Initiave (from Wik just now) ;
An Iberian and Roman city in ancient times, in the Middle Ages it was capital of the Islamic caliphate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_Cordoba) which conquered and occupied Spain for nearly 800 years. During this time Cordoba was one of the largest cities in the world whose name continues to represent a symbol of Islamic conquest to many faithful Muslims around the world.

Would you not agree that symbolism is one of the most powerful messages that a faith based organization relies? That this intelligeant successful man studied it very carefully? Also the purpose of the building sends a message too.
From it's own mission staement.
Cordoba Initiative tackles this mandate with forethought, expertise and the ability to leverage contacts in influential positions within the Muslim World and the West. Thinking outside the box about international and intercultural conflict resolution also means thinking introspectively about each side's place within its own historical narrative with a view to devising internally oriented solutions

Could not a reasonable interpretation of this be that the CI intends to work to further the prospect of Sharia law in New York City?

Do you think that this is the best message to send at this particular location?

troy schwab
07-22-2010, 09:49 AM
That is precisely my point Brian........ the mere name is a slap in the face on New Yorkers......IMO Cordoba was nothing but a major persecution and slaughter of non-muslims..... pretty ugly period of time actually. Not withstanding..... other religions are guilty of this too....... but to name your "peaceful" organization the Cordoba Intiative is eerily EVIL.

BUT..... Im sure someone's pockets are getting fatter over this..........

david gibson
07-22-2010, 10:16 AM
you truly have to wonder about anyone who defends this mosque

Gerry Clinchy
07-22-2010, 11:38 AM
Just wondering ... that piece of land had to be really, really expensive to start with. Could this organization not have spent those bucks in some other way to better serve the purpose of "reconciliation"?

Even if the $ were used for charitable purposes within the Muslim community (I'm sure there are needs there), it could be of better use than becoming involved this morass of controversy ... that seems to be creating more confrontation than reconciliation.

Gerry Clinchy
08-06-2010, 07:47 AM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/05/911-mosque-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-blames-christians-the-us-and-the-west-must-acknowledge-the-harm-th.html

This article is old, goes back to 2004, but it is disturbing. Even though Imam Rauf is considered among the most West-friendly type, his basic mindset is based in Islam that the West must apologize to Muslims.




The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric invited to Sydney by Premier Bob Carr.



New York-based Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who impressed Mr Carr at an international conference last year, arrives in Sydney today for two weeks of meetings and public talks.



Speaking from his New York mosque, Imam Feisal said the West had to understand the terrorists' point of view.



In a move likely to cause controversy with church leaders, Imam Feisal said it was Christians who started mass attacks on civilians.



"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
This is outrageously specious, but it depends on the ignorance of the listeners. The bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima were not justified by the bombers on the basis of Christian theology. The bombings by terrorists -- 9/11, 3/11, etc. -- are justified on the basis of Islamic theology. By claiming that they are equivalent, Abdul Rauf obscures the Islamic roots of modern-day terrorism, thus hindering the prospects for the reform within Islam that is so desperately needed if jihad terrorism is ever going to cease.


I believe that the zoning people made the right legal decision. They followed the law. Justifying their decision based on the law is reasonable. OTOH, (I think paraphrasing Pope John Paul's words regarding a similar situation): Just because they have a right to build there, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

dnf777
08-06-2010, 07:57 AM
I wonder if the true motivation behind this mosque being built is to actually promote and encuorage an attack or vandalism, in order to run to the press with "See? We're the innocent victim!" headlines?? If so, I hope there's no rednecks willing to oblige their plan, because that would only precipitate retaliation against a Church, then another, and pretty soon, we'll be just like the middle east with funeral assasinations in our streets.

I wish common sense would prevail, and they would just build somewhere else. I see no legal justification to block construction, but damn, a little horse-sense would say otherwise.

troy schwab
08-06-2010, 08:05 AM
[QUOTE=Gerry Clinchy;656218

I believe that the zoning people made the right legal decision. They followed the law. Justifying their decision based on the law is reasonable. OTOH, (I think paraphrasing Pope John Paul's words regarding a similar situation): Just because they have a right to build there, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately..... legally your right. But, as Americans, they also had the ability to throw a huge wrench in the operation, which they chose not to. I dont like their decision one bit. They are probably being paid accordingly.......

road kill
08-06-2010, 08:17 AM
Just wondering ... that piece of land had to be really, really expensive to start with. Could this organization not have spent those bucks in some other way to better serve the purpose of "reconciliation"?

Even if the $ were used for charitable purposes within the Muslim community (I'm sure there are needs there), it could be of better use than becoming involved this morass of controversy ... that seems to be creating more confrontation than reconciliation.


If that were their intent, yes!!:D
(but of course it is not)




RK

road kill
08-06-2010, 08:22 AM
I wonder if the true motivation behind this mosque being built is to actually promote and encuorage an attack or vandalism, in order to run to the press with "See? We're the innocent victim!" headlines?? If so, I hope there's no rednecks willing to oblige their plan, because that would only precipitate retaliation against a Church, then another, and pretty soon, we'll be just like the middle east with funeral assasinations in our streets.

I wish common sense would prevail, and they would just build somewhere else. I see no legal justification to block construction, but damn, a little horse-sense would say otherwise.

Page 2!!


BTW--NYC is a BIG TYME union town.
Which union will build this?
What inspecters will approve this?

If you have ever worked with these guys, Teamsters, Carpenters, Plumbers, Lectricians etc you know what's coming.
These guys can make it take 37 years to build this and still not approve it to code.
Even though NYC is a progressive leaning voting block and these unions are strong and vote Dem, the guys in the street are as big of rednecks as anyone on earth.
(proud redneck here, no insult)


This is more than likely going to get ugly.





RK

Gerry Clinchy
08-06-2010, 08:29 AM
One then asks, why not build something that does NOT include a mosque as part of the "community center"?

http://www.goarch.org/special/september11/stnicholas

The historic St. Nicholas Church was destroyed when part of the Tower fell on it. They are having a much harder time raising money. If the Park 51 project, which seems to be flush with funds, were trying to be a healing agent, why not contribute some of those funds to re-build St. Nicholas?

Gerry Clinchy
08-06-2010, 08:30 AM
BTW--NYC is a BIG TYME union town.
Which union will build this?


Had not thought of that perspective.

Roger Perry
08-06-2010, 10:25 AM
They want the mosque as a show of victory on 9/11. They can do it because we has a muslim president.

This is not a federal project. The blame should fall to New York City and its Mayor and City Councel.

YardleyLabs
08-06-2010, 11:27 AM
A New Yorker's perspective on this building is likely to be foreign to most living outside of the City. That block on Park Place (not Park Avenue as many stories have incorrectly reported) is basically filled with junk. Nearby Church Avenue is occupied largely by shoe shine stores, discount electronics stores, and occasional bad restaurants. The buildings on Park Place are aging, second rate office spaces badly in need of repair. The tenants are primarily governmental since commercial firms have tended to avoid those buildings. Exiting the door at 51 Park Place, you would have had to look straight up to see the WTC, and from the top of a 13 story building, I doubt that you could see anything at Ground Zero other than the top of whatever gets built in the area. At night, that area is largely depopulated. There is nothing historic about the buildings there, which is why zoning boards have refused to declare them landmarks. The area already designated as a landmark is huge, and one of the problems the City faces is that it needs to get that area back to being a generator of tax revenues. While the Park Place location is not very interesting to developers, the Ground Zero location is the northwestern boundary of what is generally viewed as the financial district and real estate there is very valuable.

While it may be viewed as a national landmark, the nation isn't helping out very much with the financial burden involved, and never even followed through on delivering all the aid that was promised and authorized following 9/11. Under interesting observations, the economic damage resulting from the 9/11 attacks was greater than the total economic damage resulting from Katrina (in the first year following 9/11, NYC losses were estimated at more than $90 billion in 2002 dollars), and the total number of people directly affected through loss of life, loss of jobs, loss of power, and loss of real estate was either comparable or greater depending on the measure. Federal aid following Katrina was more than three times the Federal aid provided following 9/11.

dnf777
08-06-2010, 11:28 AM
Page 2!!


BTW--NYC is a BIG TYME union town.
Which union will build this?
What inspecters will approve this?

If you have ever worked with these guys, Teamsters, Carpenters, Plumbers, Lectricians etc you know what's coming.
These guys can make it take 37 years to build this and still not approve it to code.
Even though NYC is a progressive leaning voting block and these unions are strong and vote Dem, the guys in the street are as big of rednecks as anyone on earth.
(proud redneck here, no insult)


This is more than likely going to get ugly.


RK


Interesting slant. Now I don't promote violence, but I know what my Grandfather said happened to the china-men who thought they would break a United Mine Workers' picket line. UMWA is also democrat leaning, but they'll put a hurt on you if you if necessary.

road kill
08-06-2010, 11:31 AM
A New Yorker's perspective on this building is likely to be foreign to most living outside of the City. That block on Park Place (not Park Avenue as many stories have incorrectly reported) is basically filled with junk. Nearby Church Avenue is occupied largely by shoe shine stores, discount electronics stores, and occasional bad restaurants. The buildings on Park Place are aging, second rate office spaces badly in need of repair. The tenants are primarily governmental since commercial firms have tended to avoid those buildings. Exiting the door at 51 Park Place, you would have had to look straight up to see the WTC, and from the top of a 13 story building, I doubt that you could see anything at Ground Zero other than the top of whatever gets built in the area. At night, that area is largely depopulated. There is nothing historic about the buildings there, which is why zoning boards have refused to declare them landmarks. The area already designated as a landmark is huge, and one of the problems the City faces is that it needs to get that area back to being a generator of tax revenues. While the Park Place location is not very interesting to developers, the Ground Zero location is the northwestern boundary of what is generally viewed as the financial district and real estate there is very valuable.

While it may be viewed as a national landmark, the nation isn't helping out very much with the financial burden involved, and never even followed through on delivering all the aid that was promised and authorized following 9/11. Under interesting observations, the economic damage resulting from the 9/11 attacks was greater than the total economic damage resulting from Katrina (in the first year following 9/11, NYC losses were estimated at more than $90 billion in 2002 dollars), and the total number of people directly affected through loss of life, loss of jobs, loss of power, and loss of real estate was either comparable or greater depending on the measure. Federal aid following Katrina was more than three times the Federal aid provided following 9/11.
I wish I could say that this makes sense.

What is the point here?


RK

troy schwab
08-06-2010, 11:42 AM
Understand it RK, but I too, am wondering what the point is????

Yardley, care to elaborate?

gdgnyc
08-06-2010, 12:26 PM
I live in NYC and would like to comment on the 13 story mosque. Good idea, wrong place. To put that mosque there is like thumbing your nose at me. I could recommend several other sites. Besides, that location could be home to a building that housed several businesses that could generate more money in taxes for NYC.

BTW, how many churches and synagogues are in Mecca and Medina?

YardleyLabs
08-06-2010, 12:37 PM
I wish I could say that this makes sense.

What is the point here?


RK
The point is simple. No matter how close the proposed mosque may seem, it is not really that close in any symbolic way. The mosque would not be visible from ground zero and ground zero would not be visible from the mosque. More people work in offices between the proposed site and ground zero than live in a large percentage of American cities. I worked within four blocks of the WTC for eight years and hardly ever noticed it unless I was actually going to a meeting there.

troy schwab
08-06-2010, 12:46 PM
No matter how close the proposed mosque may seem, it is not really that close in any symbolic way.


IT IS TOO CLOSE, IN EVERY SYMBOLICAL WAY!!!!!! Wow, your predisposition with fact and law seems to cloud your feelings for the American people............. For that, I am sorry.

aandw
08-06-2010, 01:51 PM
Understand it RK, but I too, am wondering what the point is????

Yardley, care to elaborate?

that is the silliest question i have seen on here.

road kill
08-06-2010, 01:55 PM
Understand it RK, but I too, am wondering what the point is????

Yardley, care to elaborate?

that is the silliest question i have seen on here.

Touche'.......may well be the first time anyone ever asked that of Yardley!!:D



RK

troy schwab
08-06-2010, 02:34 PM
Im sure he's off somewhere researching and proof reading his next post....... just wondering where he's goin with all that?

YardleyLabs
08-06-2010, 03:11 PM
Im sure he's off somewhere researching and proof reading his next post....... just wondering where he's goin with all that?
No need to research, no need to proofread. I see no basis whatsoever for blocking construction as long as the facility is consistent with zoning. In America we don't have different rules based on religion. For those who want a politically "pure" zone around ground zero, my suggestion would be to raise the money to buy all the properties. It shouldn't cost more than a few billion plus future taxes and maintenance. Until then I assume we are planning to remain a land of the free with all that entails. The planning board fulfilled its legal responsibilities; it voted 9-0 against making this inconsequential building an historic landmark.

Henry V
08-06-2010, 04:16 PM
Gosh, after reading this, I hope that no Christian-based religion ever wants to build a church near the federal building in Oklahoma City.

I know, it is a totally different situation right? Maybe not. http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532

road kill
08-06-2010, 04:27 PM
Gosh, after reading this, I hope that no Christian-based religion ever wants to build a church near the federal building in Oklahoma City.

I know, it is a totally different situation right? Maybe not. http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532

Oh, well, in that case I guess it's OK.:rolleyes:


RK

BrianW
08-06-2010, 05:38 PM
If this was truly a "community center desigened to bring all peoples togeher
"We believe that Park51 will become a landmark in New York City’s cultural, social and educational life, a community center to promote the American values we all aspire towards and to realize a better city for all." why is Bloomberg explaining it as "“If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it ..."

I'm accepting the standard interpretation that this is a "mosque" Mosques have a predominant history of being built in locations of significant advancement in the establishment of Islam as the guiding cultural force of that area and/or military conquests. Does anyone dismiss the volatility of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and even the potential study of the Temple Mount location? Yes, modern mosques have a variety of amenities available to their congregants but their primary function is to devotion of Islam.

Some may dismiss the Islamicists as "fringe believers perverting the "religion of peace" but some fundamentalist extremist will proclaim that "the GZM is a holy shrine that symbolizes the victory of Allah over the infidel Great Satan and must be defended by the faithful". It will become a focus of contention and concern for the foreseeable future. Wiill the whole building be guaranteed access to polytheists? Or will the "prayer room" be off limits?
isn't That a sure legal, if not theological battle?

As a statement from one of the protesters said "It may be their "right" , but is it the right, and responsible, thing to do?"

Gerry Clinchy
08-06-2010, 06:38 PM
No need to research, no need to proofread. I see no basis whatsoever for blocking construction as long as the facility is consistent with zoning. In America we don't have different rules based on religion. For those who want a politically "pure" zone around ground zero, my suggestion would be to raise the money to buy all the properties. It shouldn't cost more than a few billion plus future taxes and maintenance. Until then I assume we are planning to remain a land of the free with all that entails. The planning board fulfilled its legal responsibilities; it voted 9-0 against making this inconsequential building an historic landmark.

Evidently, there is a precedent for establishing "hallowed ground" in areas. Gettysburg and Manassas have a precedent of denying uses to areas around their battlegrounds on such a basis.

So, while the commission could not deny the permission to the mosque, they could have previously established a "hallowed ground" area around the area.

As for people not noticing the WTC ... I think that may have changed after 9-11.

YardleyLabs
08-06-2010, 07:29 PM
Evidently, there is a precedent for establishing "hallowed ground" in areas. Gettysburg and Manassas have a precedent of denying uses to areas around their battlegrounds on such a basis.

So, while the commission could not deny the permission to the mosque, they could have previously established a "hallowed ground" area around the area.

As for people not noticing the WTC ... I think that may have changed after 9-11.
What I am saying is that physically you cannot see over the tops of the surrounding buildings that lie between 51 Park Place and ground zero. It's a physical limitation, not an emotional one. If you go to Google and type in the 51 Park Place address (New York, NY 10007) and go to street view, you can get some idea of what I mean. To orient yourself, to get to ground zero you go to Church Avenue and turn right and then go for two blocks (not trying to be pedantic, but I assume most people here are not familiar with the neighborhood). With Gettysburg, I am not sure if you are discussing something related to the Gettysburg national ark or if the town passed an ordinance of its own. New York could obviously write a new zoning code. However, that zoning code could still not discriminate among religions. Churches for anyone or churches for none.

YardleyLabs
08-06-2010, 07:37 PM
If this was truly a "community center desigened to bring all peoples togeher
"We believe that Park51 will become a landmark in New York City’s cultural, social and educational life, a community center to promote the American values we all aspire towards and to realize a better city for all." why is Bloomberg explaining it as "“If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it ..."

I'm accepting the standard interpretation that this is a "mosque" Mosques have a predominant history of being built in locations of significant advancement in the establishment of Islam as the guiding cultural force of that area and/or military conquests. Does anyone dismiss the volatility of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and even the potential study of the Temple Mount location? Yes, modern mosques have a variety of amenities available to their congregants but their primary function is to devotion of Islam.

Some may dismiss the Islamicists as "fringe believers perverting the "religion of peace" but some fundamentalist extremist will proclaim that "the GZM is a holy shrine that symbolizes the victory of Allah over the infidel Great Satan and must be defended by the faithful". It will become a focus of contention and concern for the foreseeable future. Wiill the whole building be guaranteed access to polytheists? Or will the "prayer room" be off limits?
isn't That a sure legal, if not theological battle?

As a statement from one of the protesters said "It may be their "right" , but is it the right, and responsible, thing to do?"
Mosques are located in the same places as other churches: street corners, storefronts, and anonymous locations on major highways. Churches are also built on land with religious and historical importance (look at Jerusalem and Bethlehem where Christian churches are located prominently in areas that are Muslim and Jewish). The same is true for Mosques. Muslim traditions in that regard are the same as Christian ones, and the same as Roman and Greek traditions from even earlier eras. The people killed on 9/11 were of all faiths. The terrorists didn't care.

Keith Farmer
08-06-2010, 08:38 PM
Interestingly, of the three, Christianity is the one that supports the most aggressive perspective on conversions

Christianity, understood from a proper biblical perspective, does not have an aggressive "conversion perspective". Salvation is of the Lord as Jonah declared...not a product of coercion.

Christianity is the only "world religion" where it is taught that God Himself stepped into humanity by coming to earth in the form of a man...fully man-fully God; the God-Man Jesus the Christ. God did this in order to reconcile men to Himself. The atoning work of Jesus is effective in securing eternal life and satisfying the wrath of God for anyone who repents of his sin and believes in Jesus' completed work on Calvary by faith alone...Islam has no such teaching nor does any other "world religion".

Jesus said Himself that nobody can come to Him (Jesus alone is the only way to God the Father...Who is not Allah) for salvation unless God the Father (the First Person of the Trinity...Father, Son, Holy Spirit) draws him.

Further, Jesus will be the judge of all mankind as Acts 17:30-31 declares (as does many other passages):

30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

To gain a better perspective of just who, in terms of religions, are forcing their way on a major portion of the world just review the articles in the link below:


http://www.persecution.com/public/homepage.aspx




Allah is not Yahweh...

Here are a few resources that may help anyone who is interested with this issue (note...these are just primers and not comprehensive in nature):

Mark Dever-

http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/video/Are-Yahweh-and-Allah-the-same-deity

John Piper-

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MediaPlayer/2588/Audio/

John MacArthur:

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A322_Understanding-Islam?q=allah

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A289_The-Gospel-According-to-Islam?q=allah


.

Keith Farmer
08-06-2010, 09:23 PM
Just a few passages from the "peaceful religion". Actually Islam means submission to god...


“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." Koran 2:191

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." Koran 9:123

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Koran 9:5

“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." Koran 3:85

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Koran 9:30

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,” Koran 5:33

“O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise." Koran 9:28

“These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads." Koran 22:19

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish." Koran 47:4

“O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." Koran 8:65

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." Koran 3:28

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Koran 8:12

“And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly." Koran 8:60




.

dnf777
08-07-2010, 04:37 AM
I think religion is between a man and his God. If it were left at that, we'd have a whole lot less wars and terrorists, the world over. Its when people band together, and try to push their beliefs on others that we end up with such un-Godly situations such as holocausts, mass exterminations, church bombings, and religious hatred.

Was it St. John who believed in going out into nature, alone, to talk with God, and said we don't need churches to be pious?

YardleyLabs
08-07-2010, 05:40 AM
Just a few passages from the "peaceful religion". Actually Islam means submission to god...


“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." Koran 2:191

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." Koran 9:123

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Koran 9:5

“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers." Koran 3:85

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Koran 9:30

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,” Koran 5:33

“O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise." Koran 9:28

“These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads." Koran 22:19

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish." Koran 47:4

“O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." Koran 8:65

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." Koran 3:28

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Koran 8:12

“And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly." Koran 8:60




.
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.

Franco
08-07-2010, 06:25 AM
I

Was it St. John who believed in going out into nature, alone, to talk with God, and said we don't need churches to be pious?



Not sure about John but in the Gospel of Thomas, he saw no need for an organized religion just as long as one believed. This gospel was later banned since it weakened the early church's authority. The Gospel of Thomas is also an older book than Mathew, Mark, Luke or John.

Though these gospels were written much later than Thomas', like around 400 AD, they better served the church in Rome as well as the Roman Emporer and were adopted over the Gospel of Thomas written around 250 AD.

Since all gospels are man created, we should take them for what they are; mortal man's attemp at explaining his exsistence.

road kill
08-07-2010, 07:03 AM
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.
What does that have to do with his post and the topic of Islam building a Mosque at ground zero???

I would like to read the passage were "thousands are murdered by God," I totally missed that part.
Share that will you?

Thanks, looking forward to reading another "well thought out fact based" post describing something that doesn't exist.




RK

Gerry Clinchy
08-07-2010, 07:22 AM
What I am saying is that physically you cannot see over the tops of the surrounding buildings that lie between 51 Park Place and ground zero. It's a physical limitation, not an emotional one. If you go to Google and type in the 51 Park Place address (New York, NY 10007) and go to street view, you can get some idea of what I mean. To orient yourself, to get to ground zero you go to Church Avenue and turn right and then go for two blocks (not trying to be pedantic, but I assume most people here are not familiar with the neighborhood). With Gettysburg, I am not sure if you are discussing something related to the Gettysburg national ark or if the town passed an ordinance of its own. New York could obviously write a new zoning code. However, that zoning code could still not discriminate among religions. Churches for anyone or churches for none.

I can't quote the zoning codes :-) ... but the general idea is that the local authorities established zoning for any area considered to be historically wothy of its own zoning designation, and uses of land in those areas are subject to review to preserve the "hallowed" nature of the vicinity. Evidently, NYC did not have the foresight to anticipate the kind of emotional monument Ground Zero has become ... though there were certainly clues by the response of the nation and the world at the time.

While you may not be able to see the mosque from Ground Zero, I'm thinking that the dailly calls to prayer will be heard for a considerable distance ... just as a reminder that it's there in their midst, even if it is not visible. Would this be the reason to include a mosque in the community center ... to announce Islam's presence; a constant reminder of the tragedy of the Twin Towers? Could that be more inflammatory than healing to many?

I would also understand if any sectarian churches were not permitted in the area ... although the St. Nicholas Church existed prior to the WTC event, and such pre-existing structures would generally be "grand-fathered" into any new ordinance.

You might say that Christ was the first religious figure to espouse separation of church & state ("Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's ...) ... but religion has often become a tool of the political situation as it did with Constantine.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 07:34 AM
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.


I would be interested in debating any aspects of the Old Testament with you...you start by citing specifics and we can discuss from there.

One, if not THE, biggest problems men have with the idea of God is that He is a God of wrath as well as a God of love. We like the love part...we abhor the wrath part. The fact is if you are going to believe in the God of the bible you must understand that He is also a God of wrath...that truth is precisely what Calvary is all about.

What many fail to see is that God is holy and man has sinned against a holy God. That sin demands justice...not "pacifism". Here is the glorious Good News of the Gospel...God's wrath was/is fully and suffeciently satisfied for all those who repent of their sin and believe by faith alone in the atoning death of His own Son...Jesus the Christ. God's love for men is so deep that He did not leave man in his rebellious state with no hope. No, God was proactive in that He gave His only Son so that His holy and righteous wrath could be satisfied and that true peace could be established between Himself and men...forever.

Repent and believe by faith in Jesus today for today is the day of salvation!



.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 07:44 AM
Here is a valuable story, albeit a tragic one, hot off the press:

10 Christian medical aid workers (6 Americans) were killed by Muslims in Afghanistan.

Here is what the terrorist spokesman said:

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told The Associated Press in Pakistan that they killed the foreigners because they were "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity."

The truth is they were returning from an eye clinic where they had provided medical assistance to needy folks in that region.

Here is what the mission group said regarding future work:

"This tragedy negatively impacts our ability to continue serving the Afghan people as IAM has been doing since 1966," according to a statement released by the nonprofit Christian organization. "We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year."


Christian workers provide aid to people and are killed for their efforts...where are the Islamic clerics demanding justice for this action???




.

Franco
08-07-2010, 08:24 AM
Christian workers provide aid to people and are killed for their efforts...where are the Islamic clerics demanding justice for this action???




.

Something we can agree on!;-)

Legally, they have the right to build near Ground Zero. Morally, they are rubbing Cordova in our face as a Muslim victory!

YardleyLabs
08-07-2010, 08:25 AM
What does that have to do with his post and the topic of Islam building a Mosque at ground zero???

I would like to read the passage were "thousands are murdered by God," I totally missed that part.
Share that will you?

Thanks, looking forward to reading another "well thought out fact based" post describing something that doesn't exist.




RK


7 But God was displeased with this thing, and he struck Israel. 8 David said to God, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly." 9 The Lord spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, 10 "Go and say to David, "Thus says the Lord: Three things I offer you; choose one of them, so that I may do it to you.' " 11 So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, "Take your choice: 12 either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or three days of the sword of the Lord, pestilence on the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now decide what answer I shall return to the one who sent me." 13 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress; let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but let me not fall into human hands." 14 So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel; and seventy thousand persons fell in Israel. (1 Chronicles 21)


I would be interested in debating any aspects of the Old Testament with you...you start by citing specifics and we can discuss from there.

One, if not THE, biggest problems men have with the idea of God is that He is a God of wrath as well as a God of love. We like the love part...we abhor the wrath part. The fact is if you are going to believe in the God of the bible you must understand that He is also a God of wrath...that truth is precisely what Calvary is all about.

.....

Exactly, and yet you quote selections from the Koran, without context, to portray it as the religion of violence, as if that justifies discriminating against it. I understand and respect your beliefs. However, I also do not believe they hold a preferred position over any other beliefs. If New York wants to pass a zoning requirement to exclude all religious functions from lower Manhattan, they are welcome to try, but I would support those who sued for violation of their first amendment rights. However, as bad as that might be, it is nothing compared to an attempt to exclude only one religion fro the area. Islam did not bring about the destruction of 9/11. Fanatic terrorists wearing Islam as a cloak brought it about. Their actions have been condemned by people of all faiths and even those who, like me, profess no faith at all. To label 9/11 "Islamic" terrorism is to grant those acts a legitimacy they do not deserve.

dnf777
08-07-2010, 08:27 AM
Here is a valuable story, albeit a tragic one, hot off the press:

10 Christian medical aid workers (6 Americans) were killed by Muslims in Afghanistan.

Here is what the terrorist spokesman said:

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told The Associated Press in Pakistan that they killed the foreigners because they were "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity."

The truth is they were returning from an eye clinic where they had provided medical assistance to needy folks in that region.

Here is what the mission group said regarding future work:

"This tragedy negatively impacts our ability to continue serving the Afghan people as IAM has been doing since 1966," according to a statement released by the nonprofit Christian organization. "We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year."


Christian workers provide aid to people and are killed for their efforts...where are the Islamic clerics demanding justice for this action???



.

Keith,
And how many Iraqi and Afghan children have been killed and had arms and legs blown off and been blinded by western bombs? You can't even cite the multitudes of examples. War is BAD. Even just wars are bad, but are necessary. Religious wars are never necessary, nor just.

I wonder what God thinks about seeing his creations destroyed and his children burned and maimed? Oh, if its in his name, I guess he pops some microwave popcorn and sits back in cheerful glee and watch us kill each other?

this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. One thing I absolutely HATE is someone telling ME about GOD, and that they have a deep insightful understanding of God's psyche, his wrath, and love. ritcheous and holy wrath? What crap! Gimme a break!

Thomas, John, or whoever said screw organized religion and just TALK TO GOD had it spot-on right! But we can't have that....no church dominion and more "ritcheous and holy wrath, taxation, suppression of women, unpunished abuse of children! Old ladies writing checks out to the preacher or his ministries in fear of eternal damnation and burning in hell because they didn't appease their "loving" God! What a load of hooey!

I had a good long chat with God this morning, and he said most of his followers are screwed in the head, and not to listen to them! Then he told me to mow his grass, and weed his garden. When I finish that, I can have a beer and walk with the dog. He'll hold off on the rain until Tuesday.

road kill
08-07-2010, 09:22 AM
Keith,
And how many Iraqi and Afghan children have been killed and had arms and legs blown off and been blinded by western bombs? You can't even cite the multitudes of examples. War is BAD. Even just wars are bad, but are necessary. Religious wars are never necessary, nor just.

I wonder what God thinks about seeing his creations destroyed and his children burned and maimed? Oh, if its in his name, I guess he pops some microwave popcorn and sits back in cheerful glee and watch us kill each other?

this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. One thing I absolutely HATE is someone telling ME about GOD, and that they have a deep insightful understanding of God's psyche, his wrath, and love. ritcheous and holy wrath? What crap! Gimme a break!

Thomas, John, or whoever said screw organized religion and just TALK TO GOD had it spot-on right! But we can't have that....no church dominion and more "ritcheous and holy wrath, taxation, suppression of women, unpunished abuse of children! Old ladies writing checks out to the preacher or his ministries in fear of eternal damnation and burning in hell because they didn't appease their "loving" God! What a load of hooey!

I had a good long chat with God this morning, and he said most of his followers are screwed in the head, and not to listen to them! Then he told me to mow his grass, and weed his garden. When I finish that, I can have a beer and walk with the dog. He'll hold off on the rain until Tuesday.

Well then I guess it's OK Dave.........so just so you understand my "radical right wing" position, you now qualify to me as a "secular progressive."



RK

Gerry Clinchy
08-07-2010, 09:28 AM
While the Old Testament is filled with the chronicle of a wrathful God, I believe that the whole concept of the New Testament is a "new covenant". Jeff, do you have examples of God instructing violence in the New Testament? I'll admit to being a poor Biblical scholar myself.

It also occurs to me that Islam is very afraid of Christianity becoming too familiar to Islam's adherents ... it would undermine the power that Islam has in every facet of lives. I mentioned long ago on this forum, and still believe ... Islam greatly fears women gaining rights and influence. Alot might change if Islam didn't subjugate its women the way it does.

road kill
08-07-2010, 09:29 AM
7 But God was displeased with this thing, and he struck Israel. 8 David said to God, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly." 9 The Lord spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, 10 "Go and say to David, "Thus says the Lord: Three things I offer you; choose one of them, so that I may do it to you.' " 11 So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, "Take your choice: 12 either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or three days of the sword of the Lord, pestilence on the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now decide what answer I shall return to the one who sent me." 13 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress; let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but let me not fall into human hands." 14 So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel; and seventy thousand persons fell in Israel. (1 Chronicles 21)



Exactly, and yet you quote selections from the Koran, without context, to portray it as the religion of violence, as if that justifies discriminating against it. I understand and respect your beliefs. However, I also do not believe they hold a preferred position over any other beliefs. If New York wants to pass a zoning requirement to exclude all religious functions from lower Manhattan, they are welcome to try, but I would support those who sued for violation of their first amendment rights. However, as bad as that might be, it is nothing compared to an attempt to exclude only one religion fro the area. Islam did not bring about the destruction of 9/11. Fanatic terrorists wearing Islam as a cloak brought it about. Their actions have been condemned by people of all faiths and even those who, like me, profess no faith at all. To label 9/11 "Islamic" terrorism is to grant those acts a legitimacy they do not deserve.


That is out of context, you know the thing that offends you so much?

You need to read the whole story.



RK

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 10:22 AM
Keith,
And how many Iraqi and Afghan children have been killed and had arms and legs blown off and been blinded by western bombs


I'm sorry...but are the incidents you cited above the result of Christians carrying out a Christian jihad in the name of God? Let me hasten to answer that so there is no mistake here...NO!!!

However, that is exactly what the Muslims were/are doing when they specifically target Christians and Jews in the name of Allah.

The incident I cited is an act of holy war on their part (the Muslims) against people who were merely helping severely disadvantaged peoples...and we want to erect a memorial to those folks in this country? What a travesty!


.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 10:27 AM
One thing I absolutely HATE is someone telling ME about GOD, and that they have a deep insightful understanding of God's psyche, his wrath, and love. ritcheous and holy wrath? What crap! Gimme a break!



The above is a classic response to the Gospel; in fact it is rather mild.

Jesus was crucified by folks with slightly worse but similar attitudes about His Gospel...

The Gospel is promised to produce one of three results...

1) It will offend bitterly those opposed to it (see above)

2) It will be called foolishness by those who trust in human wisdom

3) It will result in salvation of those who believe it by faith

What effect does the Gospel have on you the readers of these posts??



.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 10:34 AM
While the Old Testament is filled with the chronicle of a wrathful God, I believe that the whole concept of the New Testament is a "new covenant".


True...but that New Covenant (which is sealed by the blood of Christ) is effective only for those who repent and believe by faith alone in Jesus' atoning work on the cross.

All others who reject the Gospel will face God's wrath as outlined in the book of the Revelation and will be judged by Jesus Himself.

I hope that folks will embrace the gracious offer of salvation from God now and accept the forgiveness of sin as well as the benefits of the New Covenant rather than face judgement on there own merits.

Here is what Jesus said of Himself in one passage of the New Testament:

Luke 12:49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."



.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 10:39 AM
and yet you quote selections from the Koran, without context, to portray it as the religion of violence


I cite those passages because they are the very passages that are utilzed as the foundation for the world wide violence that we see every single day in the name of Allah by Muslims...and Muslims alone.

Give me examples of where you see Christian aid workers blowing up themselves in the name of Christ...

Give me examples where Christians who respond to natural disasters go in with swords beheading any Muslims they may find...

I can give hundreds and hundreds of examples of Muslims doing those things..except for the aid work and disaster relief that is.



.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 10:40 AM
Something we can agree on!:wink:





Wow!


.

YardleyLabs
08-07-2010, 10:53 AM
That is out of context, you know the thing that offends you so much?

You need to read the whole story.



RK
How is it taken out of context? David took a census that God did not want him to take. God's punishment of David was the death of 70,000 others while David survived. What part of the story is unclear?

dnf777
08-07-2010, 11:12 AM
The above is a classic response to the Gospel; in fact it is rather mild.

Jesus was crucified by folks with slightly worse but similar attitudes about His Gospel...

The Gospel is promised to produce one of three results...

1) It will offend bitterly those opposed to it (see above)

2) It will be called foolishness by those who trust in human wisdom

3) It will result in salvation of those who believe it by faith

What effect does the Gospel have on you the readers of these posts??



.


His Gospel according to WHO? Some pervert who wrote this all up in order to garner power for his organization? Jimmy Swaggart? Rev. Haggard? Jim and Tammy Bakker? YOU?

I talk to God, and get the Gospel straight from him. Don't need you or any corrupt organization of perverts and money grubbin' evangelists to tell me.
I can tell YOU what God said, or anyone else who cares to believe in God's true Gospel.

He said sell all the opulent churches or convert them into shelters for the poor. He said to tax the rich, and provide health care to heal the sick. He said sell the Rolexes, limos, and expensive Italian suits all you preachers are so fond of, and buy food to feed my hungry sheep.

THAT IS WHAT GOD SAID TODAY, at 12:09am EDT. He also said its ok to wear camo shorts at hunt tests. Better spread the word.

road kill
08-07-2010, 11:25 AM
His Gospel according to WHO? Some pervert who wrote this all up in order to garner power for his organization? Jimmy Swaggart? Rev. Haggard? Jim and Tammy Bakker? YOU?

I talk to God, and get the Gospel straight from him. Don't need you or any corrupt organization of perverts and money grubbin' evangelists to tell me.
I can tell YOU what God said, or anyone else who cares to believe in God's true Gospel.

He said sell all the opulent churches or convert them into shelters for the poor. He said to tax the rich, and provide health care to heal the sick. He said sell the Rolexes, limos, and expensive Italian suits all you preachers are so fond of, and buy food to feed my hungry sheep.

THAT IS WHAT GOD SAID TODAY, at 12:09am EDT. He also said its ok to wear camo shorts at hunt tests. Better spread the word.

HMMMMMM.......perverts huh??





RK

dnf777
08-07-2010, 11:50 AM
HMMMMMM.......perverts huh??


RK


Yup. Perverts of the worst kind.
Since we're talking early Christianity, the original organized Christian church, we're talking Catholic. (how I was raised, BTW)

Given their "whorification" of Mary Magdelan, and exclusion of any books that would have give women anywhere near equal standing in the Church, the taxation, the alliances with corrupt kings, and I'll be kind, and not even bring up the whole pedophilia and its cover-up by the Church elders, other than this brief mention...........YES, PERVERTS!

I noticed you only highlighted the "perverts" part of my list. Can I take that to mean you agree with the worthlessness of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim BAker, and Haggard, when it comes to preaching the Word of God??

God told me I'm right on this one, so I'm not backing down.

Franco
08-07-2010, 11:50 AM
He said sell all the opulent churches or convert them into shelters for the poor. He said to tax the rich, and provide health care to heal the sick. He said sell the Rolexes, limos, and expensive Italian suits all you preachers are so fond of, and buy food to feed my hungry sheep.



Since my god wears Canali, it is OK with him if any one wants to sell me some Canali like-new siuts in 42R.;-) Will look at Brioni too.

ducknwork
08-07-2010, 12:15 PM
Yup. Perverts of the worst kind.
Since we're talking early Christianity, the original organized Christian church, we're talking Catholic. (how I was raised, BTW)

Given their "whorification" of Mary Magdelan, and exclusion of any books that would have give women anywhere near equal standing in the Church, the taxation, the alliances with corrupt kings, and I'll be kind, and not even bring up the whole pedophilia and its cover-up by the Church elders, other than this brief mention...........YES, PERVERTS!

I noticed you only highlighted the "perverts" part of my list. Can I take that to mean you agree with the worthlessness of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim BAker, and Haggard, when it comes to preaching the Word of God??

God told me I'm right on this one, so I'm not backing down.

I don't care what the organization is. If it has been around for 2000+ years and humans have been involved, their are bound to have been some mistakes made at some point. The basis of the faith is correct though. That explains your taxation, kings, and pedophilia comments, but how about expanding on the Mary thing and the exclusion thing. I must have missed those parts of the Catholic Church. Maybe I should pay more attention.:rolleyes:

dnf777
08-07-2010, 01:53 PM
but how about expanding on the Mary thing and the exclusion thing. I must have missed those parts of the Catholic Church. Maybe I should pay more attention.:rolleyes:

Don't ask me. I don't need other people who are no closer to God than I am, telling me how to worship. There's lots of books on the subject for inquiring minds who want to know......

BrianW
08-07-2010, 04:31 PM
...it is nothing compared to an attempt to exclude only one religion fro the area. Islam did not bring about the destruction of 9/11. Fanatic terrorists wearing Islam as a cloak brought it about. Their actions have been condemned by people of all faiths and even those who, like me, profess no faith at all. To label 9/11 "Islamic" terrorism is to grant those acts a legitimacy they do not deserve.

The "fanatics" who brought about the destruction of 9/11 and the like minded do not care about your condemnation Jeff, or that of any Buddists, Catholics, Protestants etc and to dismiss them as illegitimate cloak wearers :rolleyes: disregards the death and mayhem they have brought to NYC Spain, Bali etc. Fanatics are by definition marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion. If you think they care about the opinions of "peaceful Muslims" then all we need to do is watch the seemingly interminable slaughter between Shia and Sunni.

Peaceful intent or not, Park51 will become a flash point in the future. Maybe not in our lifetime but this has been a long time coming and it'll be a long time gone. Wails of "That's not what we intended!' will be cold comfort to those grieving the aftermath of a suicide bomber.


I wish common sense would prevail, and they would just build somewhere else. ...but damn, a little horse-sense would say otherwise.
And it all could be so easily avoided, that's the real tragedy. I have to agree with you there.

Keith Farmer
08-07-2010, 08:17 PM
His Gospel according to WHO?


Since Jesus was crucified for announcing the Gospel about Himself then I would assume, safely I might add, that it is His Gospel. In fact, Romans 1 says the following (underlined emphasis mine):

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; NKJV



Some pervert who wrote this all up



You will have to explain that comment further. Since the bible declares that its writings are inspired by God (literally "breathed out") you may want to reconsider how you word your accusations.



the original organized Christian church, we're talking Catholic


That is incorrect. In actuality the "original organized church" was situated in Jerusalem and headed by Peter and the other disciples. In fact, the very first church council was held in Jerusalem...and it was held over the controversy of circumcision (works-salvation...much the same as paganistic Roman Catholicism).



I talk to God, and get the Gospel straight from him



The bible declares that in these last days God has spoken by His Son Jesus the Christ. There remains no new revelation or special revelation given to individuals regarding the Christian faith. In Jude 1:3 the bible declares that this faith we have has been handed down once and for all to the saints (that would be those who have repented and believed by faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross)...here is that text (underlined emphasis mine):

Jude 1:3 "Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people." NLT

One who proposes a god fashioned in their image, apart and in opposition to the God of the bible, is participating in idolotry. Men must come to know the Creator God of the bible and leave the "times of ignorance" where such idols are created and worshipped as desired. Paul made this argument so stunningly in Acts chapter 17 while speaking to the Stoics and Epicureans at Mars Hill...the Areopagus.



Jimmy Swaggart? Rev. Haggard? Jim and Tammy Bakker?


I agree that there are numerous detractors of the faith that label themselves Christian. However, the standard is not those men you mentioned but the sinless Son of God who alone fulfilled the requirements of the law of God, gave up His life as a ransom for many, was buried, and after three days was resurrected by God. He was seen by many witnesses then ascended in exaltation to the right hand of God the Father where He sat down (indicating that the work of redemption was once and for all time completed), and finally He will return one day to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!! He alone is worthy of all praise, honor, glory, and worship.


.

JDogger
08-07-2010, 10:30 PM
Since Jesus was crucified for announcing the Gospel about Himself then I would assume, safely I might add, that it is His Gospel. In fact, Romans 1 says the following (underlined emphasis mine):

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; NKJV



You will have to explain that comment further. Since the bible declares that its writings are inspired by God (literally "breathed out") you may want to reconsider how you word your accusations.



That is incorrect. In actuality the "original organized church" was situated in Jerusalem and headed by Peter and the other disciples. In fact, the very first church council was held in Jerusalem...and it was held over the controversy of circumcision (works-salvation...much the same as paganistic Roman Catholicism).



The bible declares that in these last days God has spoken by His Son Jesus the Christ. There remains no new revelation or special revelation given to individuals regarding the Christian faith. In Jude 1:3 the bible declares that this faith we have has been handed down once and for all to the saints (that would be those who have repented and believed by faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross)...here is that text (underlined emphasis mine):

Jude 1:3 "Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people." NLT

One who proposes a god fashioned in their image, apart and in opposition to the God of the bible, is participating in idolotry. Men must come to know the Creator God of the bible and leave the "times of ignorance" where such idols are created and worshipped as desired. Paul made this argument so stunningly in Acts chapter 17 while speaking to the Stoics and Epicureans at Mars Hill...the Areopagus.



I agree that there are numerous detractors of the faith that label themselves Christian. However, the standard is not those men you mentioned but the sinless Son of God who alone fulfilled the requirements of the law of God, gave up His life as a ransom for many, was buried, and after three days was resurrected by God. He was seen by many witnesses then ascended in exaltation to the right hand of God the Father where He sat down (indicating that the work of redemption was once and for all time completed), and finally He will return one day to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!! He alone is worthy of all praise, honor, glory, and worship.


.

Well, I guess it's close enough to Sunday for a sermon. JD

paul young
08-08-2010, 04:46 AM
we can always count on a sermon from Keith!-Paul

macrylinda
08-08-2010, 05:00 AM
I figure it's easy. Either permit or outlaw all churches, Certainly the people killed in the WTC represented a very wide range of nationalities and religions, including a pretty significant number of Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians. The terrorists who caused the destruction didn't care about the religion of the victims, or their nationality, and they certainly didn't represent Islam. They represented their own insanity and hate. The fact that the KKK says it is defending Christianity doesn't make it so. Christianity does not deserved to be measured by the KKK or the Spanish Inquisition and Islam does not deserve to be measured by Osama bin Laden and his bands of evil fools.

It may also be of some significance that the Imam from NYC who was called upon after 911 as "counsel" in the aftermath of 911 later turned out to be a radical himself. This might make one suspicious of the motives of the rest of the community that this Imam represented.

Would we encourage the placing of a swastika on a historical center at Auschwitz even if the center were of a community/educational nature? If space in this "community center" is allocated specifically to Muslim prayer, it conveys to me making the area "holy ground" for Islam

YardleyLabs
08-08-2010, 05:39 AM
It may also be of some significance that the Imam from NYC who was called upon after 911 as "counsel" in the aftermath of 911 later turned out to be a radical himself. This might make one suspicious of the motives of the rest of the community that this Imam represented.

Would we encourage the placing of a swastika on a historical center at Auschwitz even if the center were of a community/educational nature? If space in this "community center" is allocated specifically to Muslim prayer, it conveys to me making the area "holy ground" for Islam
I have no idea what Imam you are talking about but it is hardly relevant to anything. I also assume that you know that the swastika and all signage that existed during WWII remains in place at Auschwitz since it was preserved as a museum. The area for the proposed construction is not part of any memorial; it is part of lower Manhattan, an area occupied by about two million people during the day and very few at night. There are probably enough Muslims among that population to fill a small town. Should we exclude them also? Blaming the world's second largest religion for what happened on 9/11 is equivalent to blaming all Europeans for what happened at Auschwitz instead of the Nazis. Bannng a group from constructing an otherwise legal facility because of their religion violates the fundamental principles on which this nation is founded.

Hew
08-08-2010, 06:13 AM
Yardley,

My earlier questions to you weren't rhetorical in nature. Perhaps you could answer them?

Again:

Would you accept a group's purchase of land next door to the National Holocaust Museum in Washington so they could erect a giant swastika to tower over the musem's entrance?

Would you be so accepting of a group purchasing land next to the Martin Luther King memorial in Atlanta so they could erect an eternally burning cross?

Would you the support a Baptist church being built upon the ruins of a bombed out abortion clinic?

YardleyLabs
08-08-2010, 06:40 AM
Yardley,

My earlier questions to you weren't rhetorical in nature. Perhaps you could answer them?

Again:

Would you accept a group's purchase of land next door to the National Holocaust Museum in Washington so they could erect a giant swastika to tower over the musem's entrance?

Would you be so accepting of a group purchasing land next to the Martin Luther King memorial in Atlanta so they could erect an eternally burning cross?

Would you the support a Baptist church being built upon the ruins of a bombed out abortion clinic?
First, there is absolutely no comparison between the things you are suggesting and what is proposed in this case. However, even ignoring that, I would not support acting in a manner based solely on a desire to restrict otherwise legal expression. There would probably be no issue at all with the Baptist church on the site of an abortion clinic. I would be surprised to find zoning that would allow a clinic but not a church. I would also never blame Baptists in general for the insanity of those who think it is God's will for them to bomb clinics or kill doctors that are providing legal medical services. The swastika tower next to the Holocaust Museum wouldn't happen because the area involved is a national landmark, unlike the area outside of the landmark area at ground zero. The equivalent would be building your swastika tower two blocks away from the museum in a manner that otherwise conformed with zoning restrictions. I would have no objection to that in the sense of trying to change or ignore laws for the sole purpose of preventing it. The perpetually burning cross near the MLK museum in Atlanta would also run into a lot of code issues -- fire safety and pollution -- that would probably preclude any such building. If we take a more reasonable alternative of the KKK building a meeting hall and community center, I would think it to be in bad taste, bit not illegal.

Once again, however, two of your examples (I'll ignore that Baptist church one since I see no issue there at all) are of hate groups deliberately trying to desecrate a memorial. There is no indication at all that the builders of the proposed center fall into a similar category. In fact, they are much more like your hypothetical Baptist church building on the former site of an abortion clinic. The clinic was not a religious institution, and the Baptists were not responsible for its destruction even if the destroyer claimed to be a Baptist acting for God.

Hew
08-08-2010, 06:50 AM
I have no idea what Imam you are talking about but it is hardly relevant to anything. I also assume that you know that the swastika and all signage that existed during WWII remains in place at Auschwitz since it was preserved as a museum. Right...as reminders of the Nazis' depravity; not as perverse victory symbols of Germany's near-extermination of Jews. I'm guessing that you would be quite upset if we erected a large sign in the middle of Ground Zero that said, "On This site, 3,000 Americans Were Murdered by Islamic Terrorists From the Middle East," wouldn't you? The area for the proposed construction is not part of any memorial; it is part of lower Manhattan, an area occupied by about two million people during the day and very few at night. There are probably enough Muslims among that population to fill a small town. Should we exclude them also? Blaming the world's second largest religion for what happened on 9/11 is equivalent to blaming all Europeans for what happened at Auschwitz instead of the Nazis. All of Europe does get some of the blame for what happened at Auschwitz since they passively allowed the groundwork for the Final Solution to be laid in front of their eyes without doing a damn thing to stop it. All of Germany does get much of the blame as they turned a blind eye to what Hitler was planning/doing and even cheered him on. Just as all of Islam should get some blame for 9/11 as they seemed (and still seem) to tolerate fanactics within their midst without complaint. At least Germany and her citizens pretend to be properly embarrassed and regretful for their part in the Holocaust. Can the same be said of Muslims wanting to build a monument to Islam within the debris field of 9/11? Bannng a group from constructing an otherwise legal facility because of their religion violates the fundamental principles on which this nation is founded.
....................

YardleyLabs
08-08-2010, 07:04 AM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=657116#post657116)
I have no idea what Imam you are talking about but it is hardly relevant to anything. I also assume that you know that the swastika and all signage that existed during WWII remains in place at Auschwitz since it was preserved as a museum. Right...as reminders of the Nazis' depravity; not as perverse victory symbols of Germany's near-extermination of Jews. I'm guessing that you would be quite upset if we erected a large sign in the middle of Ground Zero that said, "On This site, 3,000 Americans Were Murdered by Islamic Terrorists From the Middle East," wouldn't you? The area for the proposed construction is not part of any memorial; it is part of lower Manhattan, an area occupied by about two million people during the day and very few at night. There are probably enough Muslims among that population to fill a small town. Should we exclude them also? Blaming the world's second largest religion for what happened on 9/11 is equivalent to blaming all Europeans for what happened at Auschwitz instead of the Nazis. All of Europe does get some of the blame for what happened at Auschwitz since they passively allowed the groundwork for the Final Solution to be laid in front of their eyes without doing a damn thing to stop it. All of Germany does get much of the blame as they turned a blind eye to what Hitler was planning/doing and even cheered him on. Just as all of Islam should get some blame for 9/11 as they seemed (and still seem) to tolerate fanactics within their midst without complaint. At least Germany and her citizens pretend to be properly embarrassed and regretful for their part in the Holocaust. Can the same be said of Muslims wanting to build a monument to Islam within the debris field of 9/11? Bannng a group from constructing an otherwise legal facility because of their religion violates the fundamental principles on which this nation is founded.
.
I think your suggested sign in the middle of ground zero might not capture the spiritual qualities we want in such a memorial, but I would have no intrinsic objection. I also agree that the generalized acceptance of antisemitism and fascism throughout Europe in the 1930's (also in American BTW) contributed to the ability of the Nazis to do what they did. In the same manner, I believe that all right to lifers share some responsibility for the terrorist murders and activities of those who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors through their contributions to the extremist rhetoric. None of that would exclude the forms of blanket discrimination being proposed by opponents of the Manhattan building. We choose to be a nation of laws and that is a choice we need to reaffirm everytime bigotry raises its head.

Hew
08-08-2010, 07:05 AM
First, there is absolutely no comparison between the things you are suggesting and what is proposed in this case. However, even ignoring that, I would not support acting in a manner based solely on a desire to restrict otherwise legal expression. There would probably be no issue at all with the Baptist church on the site of an abortion clinic. I would be surprised to find zoning that would allow a clinic but not a church. I would also never blame Baptists in general for the insanity of those who think it is God's will for them to bomb clinics or kill doctors that are providing legal medical services. The swastika tower next to the Holocaust Museum wouldn't happen because the area involved is a national landmark, unlike the area outside of the landmark area at ground zero. The equivalent would be building your swastika tower two blocks away from the museum in a manner that otherwise conformed with zoning restrictions. I would have no objection to that in the sense of trying to change or ignore laws for the sole purpose of preventing it. The perpetually burning cross near the MLK museum in Atlanta would also run into a lot of code issues -- fire safety and pollution -- that would probably preclude any such building. If we take a more reasonable alternative of the KKK building a meeting hall and community center, I would think it to be in bad taste, bit not illegal. Fair enough. At least you're consistent. Although, as you point out, those examples aren't likely to materialize so your convictions aren't likely to be tested. The mosque at Ground Zero is in the process of happening.

Once again, however, two of your examples (I'll ignore that Baptist church one since I see no issue there at all) are of hate groups deliberately trying to desecrate a memorial. There is no indication at all that the builders of the proposed center fall into a similar category. Not since they changed the name of the project. :rolleyes: It was previously named after the Islamic seat of power for their conquered Christian lands. In fact, they are much more like your hypothetical Baptist church building on the former site of an abortion clinic. The clinic was not a religious institution, and the Baptists were not responsible for its destruction even if the destroyer claimed to be a Baptist acting for God................

YardleyLabs
08-08-2010, 07:15 AM
...The mosque at Ground Zero is in the process of happening....
Just to be clear, the mosque near ground zero. If it were at ground zero there would be no issue.

dnf777
08-08-2010, 07:30 AM
Since Jesus was crucified for announcing the Gospel about Himself then I would assume, safely I might add, that it is His Gospel. In fact, Romans 1 says the following (underlined emphasis mine):

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. 5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; NKJV






That is incorrect. In actuality the "original organized church" was situated in Jerusalem and headed by Peter and the other disciples. In fact, the very first church council was held in Jerusalem...and it was held over the controversy of circumcision (works-salvation...much the same as paganistic Roman Catholicism).



The bible declares that in these last days God has spoken by His Son Jesus the Christ. There remains no new revelation or special revelation given to individuals regarding the Christian faith. In Jude 1:3 the bible declares that this faith we have has been handed down once and for all to the saints (that would be those who have repented and believed by faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross)...here is that text (underlined emphasis mine):

Jude 1:3 "Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people." NLT

One who proposes a god fashioned in their image, apart and in opposition to the God of the bible, is participating in idolotry. Men must come to know the Creator God of the bible and leave the "times of ignorance" where such idols are created and worshipped as desired. Paul made this argument so stunningly in Acts chapter 17 while speaking to the Stoics and Epicureans at Mars Hill...the Areopagus.



I agree that there are numerous detractors of the faith that label themselves Christian. However, the standard is not those men you mentioned but the sinless Son of God who alone fulfilled the requirements of the law of God, gave up His life as a ransom for many, was buried, and after three days was resurrected by God. He was seen by many witnesses then ascended in exaltation to the right hand of God the Father where He sat down (indicating that the work of redemption was once and for all time completed), and finally He will return one day to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!! He alone is worthy of all praise, honor, glory, and worship.


.
Keith,
I don't deny there are good things in organized religion. My problem is when People tell me how I should worship. You are full of impressive quotations and citations, but they all stem from MEN who wrote this stuff. Sure, they can say it was inspired by God......well so can I. In fact, he wanted me to write this.....or else I wouldn't have written it. See? We get into an argument that is unwinnable by either side. I respect you can admit that those scoundrels I mentioned are detractors, but keep in mind, there have been self-serving scoundrels throughout the history of man. Had these guys not been caught, their "teachings" would quite possible endure long after they're gone. Could alot of the churches teachings be of similar men from the past?

Once again, all I need to have a personal relation with God.....is me and God. And he told me so, so if you argue with me, you're a non-believer! ;)

(just kidding, but that's what I'm up against here.)

Have a beautiful Sunday....God is smiling upon us, and granted us this miraculous day to enjoy in his glory. I ain't gonna blow it sitting inside!
[COLOR=black]You will have to explain that comment further.

dnf777
08-08-2010, 07:37 AM
[QUOTE=Keith Farmer;657009] Since the bible declares that its writings are inspired by God (literally "breathed out") you may want to reconsider how you word your accusations.[/COLOR]

Just because someone says they've been inspired by God, does not automatically make their actions and deeds just. Not by a far cry. Remember the lady that drove her kids into the lake because God told her? Almost all acts of radical Islamic terror are preceded by the cry "Allah Akhbar!", pointing to an inspiration by God. Maximum security prison blocks are populated with men who were "inspired by God". I believe the same tele-evangalists who you admitted were detractors all claim to be inspired by God, and that YOU should be too.....inspired to send money to them!

So I have reconsidered my statement, and stand behind it stronger than ever. I in no way impugned God, or his will. Only man's warped, self-serving version of it! People get filthy rich off those who never question what others say about God. They depend on NO critical thinking or self-reliance when it comes to religion.

Hew
08-08-2010, 10:20 AM
Just to be clear, the mosque near ground zero. If it were at ground zero there would be no issue.
Perhaps I'm missing your point, but your argument that we're a nation based on laws is somehow affected by the proximity of the mosque to literal ground zero?

YardleyLabs
08-08-2010, 10:26 AM
Perhaps I'm missing your point, but your argument that we're a nation based on laws is somehow affected by the proximity of the mosque to literal ground zero?
Ground zero is a landmark by law. Things near it are not. When you designate a landmark, draw the lines where you will. Pay for the land and control its use. Accept that you don't control what lies beyond any more than I can prevent my neighbor from painting his house purple with pink polka dots.

ducknwork
08-08-2010, 10:29 AM
Don't ask me. I don't need other people who are no closer to God than I am, telling me how to worship. There's lots of books on the subject for inquiring minds who want to know......

You have got to be kidding me. You make ridiculous claims about 'whorification' of Mary Magdelene and exclusion of parts of the Bible and when called out on it, you can't back it up? Sorry bud, but that's not gonna fly here. You either need to come up with some basis for your statements, or retract them. I shouldn't have to look in books to come up with some reason to back up what you said. That's YOUR job.

What's up with you lately anyway? I have tried on numerous occasions now to get you to explain what you are talking about (on 2 different threads) and you won't ( or CAN'T) do it. You can just say things like you have said and run away when someone wants clarification.

YardleyLabs
08-08-2010, 10:50 AM
You have got to be kidding me. You make ridiculous claims about 'whorification' of Mary Magdelene and exclusion of parts of the Bible and when called out on it, you can't back it up? Sorry bud, but that's not gonna fly here. You either need to come up with some basis for your statements, or retract them. I shouldn't have to look in books to come up with some reason to back up what you said. That's YOUR job.

What's up with you lately anyway? I have tried on numerous occasions now to get you to explain what you are talking about (on 2 different threads) and you won't ( or CAN'T) do it. You can just say things like you have said and run away when someone wants clarification.
I won't speak for Dave and lack the knowledge to discuss Mary Magdelene. However, there were many gospels and only some that ultimately became part of the New Testament for whatever reasons. Among those are the Gospel of Mary which presents Mary as a leading apostle, and the Gospel of Thomas.

dnf777
08-08-2010, 11:04 AM
What's up with you lately anyway? I have tried on numerous occasions now to get you to explain what you are talking about (on 2 different threads) and you won't ( or CAN'T) do it. You can just say things like you have said and run away when someone wants clarification.

The traditional Roman Catholic feast day dedicated to St. Mary Magdalene celebrated her position as a penitent. The Magdalene became a symbol of repentance for the vanities of the world to various sects. In 1969, the Catholic Church allegedly admitted what critics had been saying for centuries: Magdalene's standard image as a reformed prostitute is not supported by the text of the Bible. They reportedly have revised the Roman Missal and the Roman Calendar, and now neither of those documents mention Mary Magdalene as a repentant sinner of ill repute.[29] St. Mary Magdalene was the patron of Magdalen College, Oxford, and Magdalene College, Cambridge (both colleges pronounce her name as "maudlin"). In contrast, her name was also used for the Magdalen Asylum, institutions for "fallen women".
[edit]



Its really easy to find material nowadays. That's a wiki experpt for starters.
I thought it was common knowledge that the church regarder her as a prostitute for centuries, only in the late 1960s did the Vatican offer a retraction or apology. You can look it up. I'm not your research crew, but I posted the above to get you started.

Not so ridiculous now, is it? Thank you.

ps...I'm the farthest thing from a Biblical scholar you can get, and even I knew that!

Gerry Clinchy
08-08-2010, 11:37 AM
Makes you wonder if the reason that Mary Magdalen was sometimes mentioned as a repentant prostitute had anything to do with the way the church of Constantine might have wanted to keep women in a lower status level ... and it kind of ticked them off that Jesus might have given her an equal status to the other apostles?

Franco
08-08-2010, 11:44 AM
It was at the Council of Nicea that bishops and the Roman Emperor got together an decided which gospels should be included in the new bible. Both the Gospel Of Mary Magdalen and the Gospel of Thomas were omitted because one gave power to women and the other did not serve the power of th church nor the emporer.

Though both Thomas' and Mary's gospels were older and closer to the time of the Rabbi Jesus circa 150AD, the Council of Nicea opted for for more modern gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (written 400AD). These gospels better suited the powers at the time because they made for subserviant acception of the populace.

Just too much politics in creating the bible to make it believable and written 100's of years after the Rabbi's death so, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote gospels that pertained to what they thought at the time and strayed from reality.

Goose
08-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Keith,
And how many Iraqi and Afghan children have been killed and had arms and legs blown off and been blinded by western bombs? You can't even cite the multitudes of examples. War is BAD. Even just wars are bad, but are necessary. Religious wars are never necessary, nor just.

I wonder what God thinks about seeing his creations destroyed and his children burned and maimed? Oh, if its in his name, I guess he pops some microwave popcorn and sits back in cheerful glee and watch us kill each other?

this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. One thing I absolutely HATE is someone telling ME about GOD, and that they have a deep insightful understanding of God's psyche, his wrath, and love. ritcheous and holy wrath? What crap! Gimme a break!

Thomas, John, or whoever said screw organized religion and just TALK TO GOD had it spot-on right! But we can't have that....no church dominion and more "ritcheous and holy wrath, taxation, suppression of women, unpunished abuse of children! Old ladies writing checks out to the preacher or his ministries in fear of eternal damnation and burning in hell because they didn't appease their "loving" God! What a load of hooey!

I had a good long chat with God this morning, and he said most of his followers are screwed in the head, and not to listen to them! Then he told me to mow his grass, and weed his garden. When I finish that, I can have a beer and walk with the dog. He'll hold off on the rain until Tuesday.

Dude! Whatever you do don't ever stop posting on POTUS Place! This is a gem...one of your best ever!!! I think if I had to wade through all of your 3,400 posts I couldn't find one any better (well, maybe the one about the keynesians) Chats with God and we're all screwed in the head. Drinking beer with your dog and microwave popcorn. Did he tell you that we're all retarded, too? That's great! Hey, the Texas Lotto's next Wednesday. I'll split it with you! Let me know.

The POTUS Place Twaddle Meter peaks whenever you're online but that's ok. Don't ever go on vacation again and please don't ever stop posting gems like this one. It's 'ritcheous', dude.

We live in Cuba now.

waller1
08-08-2010, 03:33 PM
not too fond of muslims, call it being narrow minded, call it what you want to but i have been there and looked into their eyes there truly is a hatred for westerners

depittydawg
08-08-2010, 03:55 PM
It was at the Council of Nicea that bishops and the Roman Emperor got together an decided which gospels should be included in the new bible. Both the Gospel Of Mary Magdalen and the Gospel of Thomas were omitted because one gave power to women and the other did not serve the power of th church nor the emporer.

Though both Thomas' and Mary's gospels were older and closer to the time of the Rabbi Jesus circa 150AD, the Council of Nicea opted for for more modern gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (written 400AD). These gospels better suited the powers at the time because they made for subserviant acception of the populace.

Just too much politics in creating the bible to make it believable and written 100's of years after the Rabbi's death so, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote gospels that pertained to what they thought at the time and strayed from reality.

The books of Mathew Mark Luke and John are all pretty well documented to have been written before the end of the 1st Century AD. I've often wondered at the early Church history and the creation of the bible. Lots of room for conjecture and speculation.

dnf777
08-08-2010, 06:18 PM
Dude! Whatever you do don't ever stop posting on POTUS Place! This is a gem...one of your best ever!!! I think if I had to wade through all of your 3,400 posts I couldn't find one any better (well, maybe the one about the keynesians) Chats with God and we're all screwed in the head. Drinking beer with your dog and microwave popcorn. Did he tell you that we're all retarded, too? That's great! Hey, the Texas Lotto's next Wednesday. I'll split it with you! Let me know.

The POTUS Place Twaddle Meter peaks whenever you're online but that's ok. Don't ever go on vacation again and please don't ever stop posting gems like this one. It's 'ritcheous', dude.

We live in Cuba now.


Thanks for supporting my position! My posts are no more, or no less "ritcheous" than anyone else in the world who says they talk to God! Prisons and bars are full of them. I don't gamble, neither does God, so you better just buy more lottery tickets to improve your chances. (and I don't need God to point out who's retarded) ;)

Duck: have you had a chance to read up on Mary M? I hope you've discovered that the claims aren't so ridiculous. As several others have pointed out, what was included and excluded in the New Testament seem to have been cherry picked to protect and promote the central power of the Church, eh?

dnf777
08-08-2010, 06:19 PM
Makes you wonder if the reason that Mary Magdalen was sometimes mentioned as a repentant prostitute had anything to do with the way the church of Constantine might have wanted to keep women in a lower status level ... and it kind of ticked them off that Jesus might have given her an equal status to the other apostles?



Bingo! (in the true Catholic sense of the word)

road kill
08-09-2010, 12:18 PM
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.

Again, an interesting perspective in lieu of the fact that to you he doesn't exist.

So....let's see here.....you are blaming the MURDER of thousands on something that you profess doesn't exist??


ROFLMAO!!!!!!

You funny!!!!!!:D



RK

ducknwork
08-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Kinda like atheists getting offended by the mere mention of God. How do you get offended by something that you say isn't there?:confused:

Franco
08-09-2010, 01:40 PM
Again, an interesting perspective in lieu of the fact that to you he doesn't exist.

So....let's see here.....you are blaming the MURDER of thousands on something that you profess doesn't exist??


ROFLMAO!!!!!!

You funny!!!!!!:D



RK

RK, are you saying that Muslims and Christians alike have not killed millions of innocent people in the name of thier god?

Franco
08-09-2010, 01:42 PM
Kinda like atheists getting offended by the mere mention of God. How do you get offended by something that you say isn't there?:confused:

I don't care who folks pray to just as long as my space in not invaded with thier superstition.

Franco
08-09-2010, 02:34 PM
I think they were neck'n'neck in the butchery department hundreds of years ago. I think the important question is, Which one seems like the bigger threat here and now? I've never seen a video of an 11 year old christian fundamentalist cut the head off anybody with a 12" knife, while other christian children cheer him on. And I'm sorry I ever watched enough of that video to see a muslim kid do it. Even though I shut it down as soon as I saw the first cut, it made a serious impression on me. And how about that poor girl missing her nose and ears, that's here for reconstructive surgery. Peaceful and loving isn't it??
Walt

What about the doctor that was shot at point blank while attending chruch last summer? Lets don't forget about the Abortion clinic bombings as well.

No doubt today that Muslims are making Christians look like rank amateurs in the murder department but neither one owns Peaceful.

dnf777
08-09-2010, 02:39 PM
I think they were neck'n'neck in the butchery department hundreds of years ago. I think the important question is, Which one seems like the bigger threat here and now? I've never seen a video of an 11 year old christian fundamentalist cut the head off anybody with a 12" knife, while other christian children cheer him on. And I'm sorry I ever watched enough of that video to see a muslim kid do it. Even though I shut it down as soon as I saw the first cut, it made a serious impression on me. And how about that poor girl missing her nose and ears, that's here for reconstructive surgery. Peaceful and loving isn't it??
Walt

Too bad nobody in Church had a video camera, or you could have seen the doc being shot in the head as he was ushering by a fundamental Christian.

Don't forget the FLDS sect in Utah. They're fundamental Christians. They don't necessarily kill, but they do force 12 year old girls into polygamist marriages.

road kill
08-09-2010, 05:14 PM
RK, are you saying that Muslims and Christians alike have not killed millions of innocent people in the name of thier god?
No.
I am asking how you can blame God for murdering thousands and not acknowledge his existence.




RK

YardleyLabs
08-09-2010, 05:23 PM
No.
I am asking how you can blame God for murdering thousands and not acknowledge his existence.




RK
When I noted the "wrathful" aspect of the Biblical God (including a quote concerning 70,000 deaths in response to your suggestion that no such passage existed) , I was simply countering Keith's efforts to cast Islam as somehow uniquely bloody based on quotes that he posted about killings in the Koran. As one who does not believe in God, it would be hard for me to blame God for deaths. However, blaming those followers of religions who use their own notions of God to justify killings is a different matter entirely.

road kill
08-09-2010, 05:25 PM
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.

Well then if you didn't post this, who did???;-)




RK

YardleyLabs
08-09-2010, 05:50 PM
Well then if you didn't post this, who did???;-)

RK
Some day you're going to learn to read in whole sentences instead of just looking for words that you can extract for your own purposes. My comment was directed at what is said in the Bible, not at what may or may not have happened. You seem to have difficulty absorbing that I am an atheist, but still attend church and read books that many consider to be holy. I don't reject the "scriptures" any more than I reject Plato or Homer. All contain truths. That is not the same as saying that they are true.

"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when....."

road kill
08-09-2010, 05:59 PM
Some day you're going to learn to read in whole sentences instead of just looking for words that you can extract for your own purposes. My comment was directed at what is said in the Bible, not at what may or may not have happened. You seem to have difficulty absorbing that I am an atheist, but still attend church and read books that many consider to be holy. I don't reject the "scriptures" any more than I reject Plato or Homer. All contain truths. That is not the same as saying that they are true.

"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when....."



Uh Huh!!!

In the mean time, I am watching the Pennsylvania two step!!:D


Hilarious..........

You extract certain verses from the Bible to suit your argument and bristle when presented with your own words.

"Some day you're going to learn to read in whole sentences instead of just looking for words that you can extract for your own purposes. My comment was directed at what is said in the Bible,"


The thing is, I am beginning to realize you don't see it.

You have stated here that you don't beleive in God, but take a verse out of context and blame him for murder.

Does he exist or not?



RK

JDogger
08-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Well...since we're off on tangents, I thought I'd through in a letter I got on another list I frequent. JD

"Well, my poor over-heated brain has been subjected to yet another
insult. I was wading through the comments to an article written in
response to Newt Gingrich's diatribe against that Islamic center
proposed for the Ground Zero neighborhood by some grad student from
Yale http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
in a futile attempt to get a feel for the roots of all the excitement.
Somewhere deep in the bowels of this compendium of rants somebody
dropped the word 'postmodernism'. OK, I thinks – new word. Wikipedia,
here I come. This is what I found:
"Postmodernism is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by
the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative. It
emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in
particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male
versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial
versus colonial. Postmodernism has influenced many cultural fields,
including literary criticism, sociology, linguistics, architecture,
visual arts, and music." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism).
Now I'm not particularly surprised by the rise of such foolishness in
the world and even less by its very obvious adoption by certain
political factions, but rather by the fact that 'postmodernism' has
gained philosophical traction in the world. How can anyone with a
shred of integrity get up on their hind legs and claim that their
argument, based in the 'valid' philosophy of postmodernism, is correct
because they can shout louder or longer than you can!?
There is, I guess, a certain amount of recent historical precedent for
this kind of reasoning. If I may paraphrase Josef Goebbels 'I don't
care what kind of government you work for, if you tell a lie often
enough and loud enough it becomes Truth'. You'd think that that
history would be sufficient to discredit the whole notion. But then
consider: The owners of most of the wealth on our planet,
corporations, have now been granted personhood (via the 'legal' nicety
of accepting a note applied to an old ruling by a court reporter as
actually being part (and now, parcel) of that ruling) by our Supreme
Court. That means that corporations are now protected by the First
Amendment to our Constitution. Since money equals speech in our
current culture, and since corporations, for the most part, are devoid
of any shred of integrity, we are, in the vernacular, F***ed.
Postmodernism rules.''

Its past my bedtime. My head hurts.

Thank you L' spaz d'Argent.

JD

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 05:20 AM
Uh Huh!!!

In the mean time, I am watching the Pennsylvania two step!!:D


Hilarious..........

You extract certain verses from the Bible to suit your argument and bristle when presented with your own words.

"Some day you're going to learn to read in whole sentences instead of just looking for words that you can extract for your own purposes. My comment was directed at what is said in the Bible,"


The thing is, I am beginning to realize you don't see it.

You have stated here that you don't beleive in God, but take a verse out of context and blame him for murder.

Does he exist or not?



RK
There was no two-step, simply a straightforward sentence that you choose not to read. If I say the Bible says something, that does not imply that I believe (or disbelieve) what is said. I do not believe there is a god. However, the reality is that it is not a subject to I think about much since, for me, the existence of nonexistence of a god is basically irrelevant. You stated before that I took the quote concerning 70,000 deaths out of context. I do not believe I did and asked you to explain it. As is normal, for you, instead of an explanation, you simply repeat your accusation. Put it into context for me.


7 But God was displeased with this thing, and he struck Israel. 8 David said to God, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly." 9 The Lord spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, 10 "Go and say to David, "Thus says the Lord: Three things I offer you; choose one of them, so that I may do it to you.' " 11 So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, "Take your choice: 12 either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or three days of the sword of the Lord, pestilence on the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now decide what answer I shall return to the one who sent me." 13 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress; let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but let me not fall into human hands." 14 So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel; and seventy thousand persons fell in Israel. (1 Chronicles 21)

road kill
08-10-2010, 07:09 AM
There was no two-step, simply a straightforward sentence that you choose not to read. If I say the Bible says something, that does not imply that I believe (or disbelieve) what is said. I do not believe there is a god. However, the reality is that it is not a subject to I think about much since, for me, the existence of nonexistence of a god is basically irrelevant. You stated before that I took the quote concerning 70,000 deaths out of context. I do not believe I did and asked you to explain it. As is normal, for you, instead of an explanation, you simply repeat your accusation. Put it into context for me.



"Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."


Which statement do you really beleive???





RK

Gerry Clinchy
08-10-2010, 07:18 AM
In fairness to Yardley, whether he believes in God or not, does not change the history of what believers may do in the name of the God they believe in.

In trying to make a point about Christian belief, it would be appropriate to quote the Bible which is, according to Christian belief, a record of their faith's history.

However, it would appear that after the "new covenant" that begin with the New Testament, things changed. One could wonder why God would have made such a change in His approach ... the wrathful aspect of God was replaced with emphasis on a loving God. I would not expect God to change ... but human perception/interpretation of what God would require of them could surely change.

The Old Testament was probably also committed to writing long after its events occurred, (wouldn't expect that Adam & Eve had pen and paper) and those events were committed to written record in a way that the later writers could relate to the events that occurred. Not being knowledgeable about Islam, was there a similar change in Islam over time? It seems that faith remained rooted in a militaristic vision, but I will defer to one who is more educated in Islam than I am.

It would also appear that the Japanese, prior to WW II, had placed a miltaristic imprint over their basic religion.

road kill
08-10-2010, 07:30 AM
In fairness to Yardley, whether he believes in God or not, does not change the history of what believers may do in the name of the God they believe in.

In trying to make a point about Christian belief, it would be appropriate to quote the Bible which is, according to Christian belief, a record of their faith's history.

However, it would appear that after the "new covenant" that begin with the New Testament, things changed. One could wonder why God would have made such a change in His approach ... the wrathful aspect of God was replaced with emphasis on a loving God. I would not expect God to change ... but human perception/interpretation of what God would require of them could surely change.

The Old Testament was probably also committed to writing long after its events occurred, (wouldn't expect that Adam & Eve had pen and paper) and those events were committed to written record in a way that the later writers could relate to the events that occurred. Not being knowledgeable about Islam, was there a similar change in Islam over time? It seems that faith remained rooted in a militaristic vision, but I will defer to one who is more educated in Islam than I am.

It would also appear that the Japanese, prior to WW II, had placed a miltaristic imprint over their basic religion.


Read his quote.
He stated "god murdered thousands."
He stated "I don't beleive there is a God."

Reconcile those to statements.
You can't.

Be as fair as you want to Yardley, poor boy, but he isn't being fair to God.

You can pretend you don't get what I am saying, but I know you do.



RK

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 08:14 AM
Read his quote.
He stated "god murdered thousands."
He stated "I don't beleive there is a God."

Reconcile those to statements.
You can't.

Be as fair as you want to Yardley, poor boy, but he isn't being fair to God.

You can pretend you don't get what I am saying, but I know you do.



RK
Don't be an idiot. Read my quote. It is very clear.

"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by Godor by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."

To parse this in the manner of a school teacher, the the sentence references instances where the Bible describes thousands being murdered "by Godor by those acting on orders of God." At no point do I say that there is a god or that any god was responsible for 70,000 deaths. I simply quoted the Bible.

There are only a few possibilities here:

You are deliberately distorting my statement for fun and pleasure
You are functionally illiterate
You are so eager to make your point no matter what, that you are physically incapable of seeing the evidence before your eyes.I suspect the answer is #1. However, I haven't ruled out #2.

You state, "You can pretend you don't get what I am saying, but I know you do." I also suspect that you understand what I actually said but that gross distortion is simply more fun. After all, without distortion and misrepresentation, you might actually have to put forth logical arguments of your own.

road kill
08-10-2010, 08:23 AM
Don't be an idiot. Read my quote. It is very clear.

"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by Godor by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."

To parse this in the manner of a school teacher, the the sentence references instances where the Bible describes thousands being murdered "by Godor by those acting on orders of God." At no point do I say that there is a god or that any god was responsible for 70,000 deaths. I simply quoted the Bible.

There are only a few possibilities here:

You are deliberately distorting my statement for fun and pleasure
You are functionally illiterate
You are so eager to make your point no matter what, that you are physically incapable of seeing the evidence before your eyes.I suspect the answer is #1. However, I haven't ruled out #2.

You state, "You can pretend you don't get what I am saying, but I know you do." I also suspect that you understand what I actually said but that gross distortion is simply more fun. After all, without distortion and misrepresentation, you might actually have to put forth logical arguments of your own.

Idiot?
Nice, did you think that up or did you get a 5th grader to help?

Trust me, I do understand exactly what you said, that's what bugs you.

Like I said, the Pennsylvania 2 step!



RK

Gerry Clinchy
08-10-2010, 08:25 AM
Read his quote.
He stated "god murdered thousands."
He stated "I don't beleive there is a God."

Reconcile those to statements.
You can't.

Be as fair as you want to Yardley, poor boy, but he isn't being fair to God.

You can pretend you don't get what I am saying, but I know you do.

RK

My interpretation of it would be "If you believe in the God and the Bible, then you believe that when it says God murdered thousands, you also believe that part."

The fact that Yardley doesn't believe in God does not apply to what is done by those who do believe in the words of the Bible.

It doesn't matter whether Islam is valid to me ... if those who practice Islam believe they are directed to kill those who do not practice Islam ... and proceed to do so, I can still evaluate that behavior and their basis for their belief and behavior. Doesn't matter if I believe their God exists or not.

I'm not sure if I'm clearly expressing the thought or not.

road kill
08-10-2010, 08:25 AM
BTW-there is a God, he "murdered" no one!


stan b

dnf777
08-10-2010, 09:04 AM
My interpretation of it would be "If you believe in the God and the Bible, then you believe that when it says God murdered thousands, you also believe that part."

The fact that Yardley doesn't believe in God does not apply to what is done by those who do believe in the words of the Bible.

.


that's how I saw it too, Gerry.


If Yardley said that children believe Rudolph has a red nose, that is a true statement....and in no way implies that Jeff believes in Santa or Rudolph. I don't see what the confusion and conflict is?

RK, the ball is in your court. Since we both believe in God, can you answer for me, did God indeed kill 70,000 people, or is the Bible incorrect and flawed?

BTW, I know RK is functionally literate, and can see things before him, so I vote for "yanking Jeff's chain"! As my grandfather would say, 'he's a real fart-smeller......uh, I mean smart feller...' :D

kjrice
08-10-2010, 10:53 AM
If there needs to be a 13 story mosque built in the city, then that area is the WRONG spot! Bloomberg is a db.

ducknwork
08-10-2010, 10:55 AM
If there needs to be a 13 story mosque built in the city, then that area is the WRONG spot! Bloomberg is a db.

How dare you try to get back on the original topic!!;-)

road kill
08-10-2010, 11:40 AM
that's how I saw it too, Gerry.


If Yardley said that children believe Rudolph has a red nose, that is a true statement....and in no way implies that Jeff believes in Santa or Rudolph. I don't see what the confusion and conflict is?

RK, the ball is in your court. Since we both believe in God, can you answer for me, did God indeed kill 70,000 people, or is the Bible incorrect and flawed?

BTW, I know RK is functionally literate, and can see things before him, so I vote for "yanking Jeff's chain"! As my grandfather would say, 'he's a real fart-smeller......uh, I mean smart feller...' :D
Had he said that we would agree.

He said "God murdered thousands."

But he also said "I don't beleive there is a God."

And that makes Yardley call me an idiot.
And DNF comes ridin' to the rescue.:D

Fact is Dave, I am 100% certain you see the conflict in those statements.

So, you attack my God and say he is a murderer, after claiming he doesn't exist and expect me to let it slide because it's a lame argument and I'm an "idiot" and "illiterate?"

Well, I have enough faith to stand up to this as I see it.







RK

road kill
08-10-2010, 11:42 AM
BTW--There is a God, he murdered no one!!



RK

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 01:02 PM
Had he said that we would agree.

He said "The Bible says that God was responsible for 70,000 deaths."

But he also said "I don't beleive there is a God."

And that makes Yardley call me an idiot.
And DNF comes ridin' to the rescue.:D

Fact is Dave, I am 100% certain you see the conflict in those statements.

So, you attack my God and say he is a murderer, after claiming he doesn't exist and expect me to let it slide because it's a lame argument and I'm an "idiot" and "illiterate?"

Well, I have enough faith to stand up to this as I see it.







RK
Fixed it for you. If you are going to attribute words to me, do it accurately. If you still find those statements to be in conflict, point it out, but don't change the words to manufacture a conflict that is not present. That is called lying.

road kill
08-10-2010, 01:31 PM
Fixed it for you. If you are going to attribute words to me, do it accurately. If you still find those statements to be in conflict, point it out, but don't change the words to manufacture a conflict that is not present. That is called lying.
Oh, now I am a liar!

You posted "God murdered thousands."
Nowhere in the Bible does it state such an absurdity.
You made that up to suit your needs.

You might try stateing that you meant men murdered in Gods name and we would agree.
But you can't.

In regard to changing ones words, you did that to my post, I don't need to change your positions, you do that enough as it is!

If you try a little harder, you can get past the name calling and post altering.........I think.

RK

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-10-2010, 01:42 PM
;-)Yardley...

You did say that thousands were murdered by God.

"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by Godor by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."

1. "...different times in the Bible..."

To those of us WITH faith...the Bible is the written WORD OF GOD. But you stand fast in that you do not believe in God, so you shoudnt try to use God as a base for your arguement...If God do not exisist then he never murdered nor did he order the murder of those people and it really doesnt matter or it didnt happen through your eyes.

2. "...or thousands are murdered by God OR by those acting on orders of God.

You see that little two letter word that is bolded..."OR" just by using that little word it does not relieve you of the implications of the previous statement. You stated that GOD murdered those people, period end of story and to further compound your statement you followed it by saying that people acted on orders...well that is saying God is responsible as well, thus God killed those people (see Charles Manson)

Problem is as I see it and as RK see's it you are arguing a contradiction...

now just like RK,

Grab your partner, and step to the line...it seems to be Two Step Time!!!;-);-)

NCA

dnf777
08-10-2010, 01:58 PM
Had he said that we would agree.

He said "God murdered thousands."

But he also said "I don't beleive there is a God."

And that makes Yardley call me an idiot.
And DNF comes ridin' to the rescue.:D

Fact is Dave, I am 100% certain you see the conflict in those statements.

So, you attack my God and say he is a murderer, after claiming he doesn't exist and expect me to let it slide because it's a lame argument and I'm an "idiot" and "illiterate?"

Well, I have enough faith to stand up to this as I see it.




RK


So the Bible is wrong?

He's my God too, and nobody attacked him. At least I didn't. If he killed 70,000 people, I'm sure they deserved it!

I'm not defending Jeff, he doesn't need my help, but what he said was as clear as the nose on your face. He merely pointed out what the Bible said God did, which was kill 70k. He didn't say HE believed God, or that God did anything.....just what the Bible said.

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 02:05 PM
Oh, now I am a liar!

You posted "God murdered thousands."
Nowhere in the Bible does it state such an absurdity.
You made that up to suit your needs.

You might try stateing that you meant men murdered in Gods name and we would agree.
But you can't.

In regard to changing ones words, you did that to my post, I don't need to change your positions, you do that enough as it is!

If you try a little harder, you can get past the name calling and post altering.........I think.

RK
I've given you the exact quote and source in the Bible repeatedly. It is not ambiguous and you continue to pretend it doesn't exist. You have said I took the words out of context, but you cannot post the text that would provide the "context" you believe is more appropriate. I corrected your distortion of my statement when I "fixed" your post (making it obvious what text was changed) -- you conveniently deleted the fix from your quote with no indication of the deletion.

Show where my Biblical quote is a distortion.
Show me where I said "God murdered thousands," as distinct from saying that the Bible says God killed or had others kill thousands, without extracting words of of a sentence fragment.your statement that
Indicate how you reconcile your statement that "there is a God, he "murdered" no one!" with the quotation I provided from Chronicles, or even with the destruction caused by the flood (Were Noah and his family the only people living when God is said to have sent the flood?).You are flailing like a fish on the line, but so far have produced nothing but misquotes, personal attacks, and a total lack of any response beyond adamant denial without explanation for anything that you wish didn't exist.

The reality is, as Keith noted, that the God of the Old Testament is a wrathful God. His punishments for those who disobeyed his commands were profound and deadly. He rained the plagues down on Egypt. He flooded the earth, saving only those on Noah's Ark. He brought death and destruction to Sodom and Gomorrah. And he brought a pestilence down on the people of Israel causing 70,000 deaths as a punishment of David for having conducted a census against the will of God. (These are all stories as related by the Bible, not stories that I believe as written.). Death was invoked against non-believers. Death was invoked as a punishment for disobedience by believers. And sometimes death was ordered simply to test the obedience of believers. I am not saying that these are things that happened. I am saying that these are things written in the Bible.

troy schwab
08-10-2010, 03:13 PM
Really...... how many pages of this crap....... WOW, get a room.....LOL

road kill
08-10-2010, 03:40 PM
So the Bible is wrong?

He's my God too, and nobody attacked him. At least I didn't. If he killed 70,000 people, I'm sure they deserved it!

I'm not defending Jeff, he doesn't need my help, but what he said was as clear as the nose on your face. He merely pointed out what the Bible said God did, which was kill 70k. He didn't say HE believed God, or that God did anything.....just what the Bible said.

Didn't say the Bible was wrong "little yardley," I said Big Yardley was wrong.

And he is, nowhere does it say God commttied murder.
Big Yardley made that up.




RK

road kill
08-10-2010, 03:43 PM
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.

Right there is Big Yardley's post, lil' yardley.

Read it.

That is a quote from the Bible>??

Nooooo, that is something Big Yardley made up to embellish his weak point and degrade God.




RK

dnf777
08-10-2010, 05:45 PM
Didn't say the Bible was wrong "little yardley," I said Big Yardley was wrong.

And he is, nowhere does it say God commttied murder.
Big Yardley made that up.




RK

Lets not get into what he said she said. I know what Yardley said, and I know what you said. Its all there.

Why don't we ask an expert, (where's Keith Farmer on this?) does the Bible tell of God's wrath upon 70,000 Isrealites? Sodom and his buddy? What sayeth thou?

road kill
08-10-2010, 05:53 PM
Lets not get into what he said she said. I know what Yardley said, and I know what you said. Its all there.

Why don't we ask an expert, (where's Keith Farmer on this?) does the Bible tell of God's wrath upon 70,000 Isrealites? Sodom and his buddy? What sayeth thou?

Little Yardley, Big Yardley's word was "murder!!"

Pretend you don't see it and lose my respect altogether.

It's right there in HIS post.

Yep, "I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."
__________________

Maybe if you guys called me a couple more names it will go away.

Or, Big Yardley can admit that nowhere in the Bible does it say God murdered anyone.
(though we all know his Hubrus won't let him)

I am offended by his statement.
I will stand alone against it if I must, but my belief will not yield to a fabricated false statement.





RK

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 06:00 PM
I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament.


....

I would like to read the passage were "thousands are murdered by God," I totally missed that part.
Share that will you?

Thanks, looking forward to reading another "well thought out fact based" post describing something that doesn't exist.

RK



7 But God was displeased with this thing, and he struck Israel. 8 David said to God, "I have sinned greatly in that I have done this thing. But now, I pray you, take away the guilt of your servant; for I have done very foolishly." 9 The Lord spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, 10 "Go and say to David, "Thus says the Lord: Three things I offer you; choose one of them, so that I may do it to you.' " 11 So Gad came to David and said to him, "Thus says the Lord, "Take your choice: 12 either three years of famine; or three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or three days of the sword of the Lord, pestilence on the land, and the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.' Now decide what answer I shall return to the one who sent me." 13 Then David said to Gad, "I am in great distress; let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but let me not fall into human hands." 14 So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel; and seventy thousand persons fell in Israel. (1 Chronicles 21)

.....


That is out of context, you know the thing that offends you so much?

You need to read the whole story.



RK


How is it taken out of context? David took a census that God did not want him to take. God's punishment of David was the death of 70,000 others while David survived. What part of the story is unclear?

I think the quotes sum up the sequence fairly. Still waiting for your explanation of how the quote from Chronicles was taken out of context.

road kill
08-10-2010, 06:03 PM
Especially this part;

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."


And you call me a liar?

This is reprehensible and offensive.
I think you are used to changing the topic or bullying your way through, won't work with me.



RK

dnf777
08-10-2010, 06:06 PM
Little Yardley, Big Yardley's word was "murder!!"

Pretend you don't see it and lose my respect altogether.

It's right there in HIS post.

Yep, "I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."
__________________

Maybe if you guys called me a couple more names it will go away.

Or, Big Yardley can admit that nowhere in the Bible does it say God murdered anyone.
(though we all know his Hubrus won't let him)

I am offended by his statement.
I will stand alone against it if I must, but my belief will not yield to a fabricated false statement.


RK


So this is all about if killing=murder?
I know what jeff said, you've reprinted it more times that Rosie O'Donnel has popped a bon-bon.

Okay, so to appease you, I admitted Jeff said that the bible said god "murdered" 70,000 israelites.

Do you deny the Bible says that?

Waiting for an answer.......but otherwise done with this nonsense.

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 06:10 PM
Especially this part;

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs
"I can't believe, Keith, that you seriously want to get into all the different times in the Bible when young girls are captured and distributed to the victorious soldiers, or thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God. There is nothing pacifistic about the Old Testament."


And you call me a liar?

This is reprehensible and offensive.
I think you are used to changing the topic or bullying your way through, won't work with me.



RK
No Stan, you are reprehensible. The sentence clearly states " all the different times in the Bible when ... thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God." [I only showed the part relevant to what you challenged]. I think my quote from Chronicles clearly represents an example of what I said was in the Bible. Are you saying the quote is a fraud?

By the way, I said that continuously misquoting me or taking words out of context was lying and that you seem to be determined to keep doing it.

road kill
08-10-2010, 06:15 PM
No Stan, you are reprehensible. The sentence clearly states " all the different times in the Bible when ... thousands are murdered by God or by those acting on orders of God." [I only showed the part relevant to what you challenged]. I think my quote from Chronicles clearly represents an example of what I said was in the Bible. Are you saying the quote is a fraud?

By the way, I said that continuously misquoting me or taking words out of context was lying and that you seem to be determined to keep doing it.

More name calling, outstanding, well thought out!!

You just are NOT man enough to admit your offensive error in choice of words.
(again, your hubrus won't ket you)

I expect nothing else.
I know what you are.



RK

YardleyLabs
08-10-2010, 06:33 PM
More name calling, outstanding, well thought out!!

You just are NOT man enough to admit your offensive error in choice of words.
(again, your hubrus won't ket you)

I expect nothing else.
I know what you are.



RK
So this is all about PC speak??? You think it's OK for God to send a pestilence that kills 70,000 Israelites to punish David for something he alone ordered, but it's not OK to characterize that as "murder". Would it be murder if Obama did it?

If that is all you are worried about, consider the word changed. The Bible is full of situations in which God either killed or ordered others to kill massive numbers of people. We won't call it murder because murder is a crime and there were no laws prohibiting killing by God.

Feel better?

dnf777
08-10-2010, 07:43 PM
After reading all these posts regarding religion and God (not one in the same!), and receiving several bitter PMs from those I consider friends, I have come to the same conclusion that I did many, many years ago:

It is best kept to one's self, and not discussed in public.

I apologize if I offended anyone or anyone's sense of religion or God. We are all entitled to our views of God.......or lack thereof. ;)

the last thing I will say on this subject, is THIS is all the proof I need of a God:


http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/dnf777/IMG_0319.jpg

Clay Rogers
08-11-2010, 10:58 AM
DNF, that is an awesome pic. Pretty much sums it up. Wish someone would lock this thread. Just wasted 30 minutes of my life I won't get back.

dnf777
08-11-2010, 11:20 AM
Thanks Hunter,

I think he was actually whispering in her ear, "I'm gonna clobber you as soon as Dad takes this picture!"

But hey, I caught the right moment!

Gerry Clinchy
08-11-2010, 06:57 PM
http://www.bluecollarcorner.com/blog/?p=750

Construction worker in NY are proposing that they refuse to work on the mosque if it is built on the currently proposed site.

I heard about this first on the Michael Medved radio show today. The fellow who started this, added that if the group was sensitive to the feelings being expressed, if the mosque group would move to another site, he and all the others who sign the pledge would put their best efforts into building that mosque.

Additionally, the former governor of NY personally offered to help the mosque group to find a suitable alternative site.

I think that this issue really isn't about lack of freedom of religion ... it is one of courtesy and consideration.

This group, it appears, previously had a "deal" on another site, but the financing fell through. Then, apparently, it was someone in a NYC political capacity that arranged for the present site. There was some discussion as to whether it was appropriate for that individual to implement this deal for this group. Sorry, I did not get the name or position of that party.

dnf777
08-11-2010, 07:50 PM
In addition to being the right thing to do, moving the construction to a more sensical place would be a tremendous PR move for Muslim-Americans. I think it would be a win-win.

dnf777
08-12-2010, 04:41 AM
[QUOTE][/QI talk to God, and get the Gospel straight from him. Don't need you or any corrupt organization of perverts and money grubbin' evangelists to tell me.
I can tell YOU what God said, or anyone else who cares to believe in God's true Gospel.
UOTE]
The words of the bible are straight from him
It sounds like your your own God .

Not at all Pete. Sounds like folks have to believe in YOUR interpretation of the Bible, or they get accused of making up their own. You worship your way, I'll worship mine. None is more correct that the other.

dnf777
08-12-2010, 04:44 AM
Jeff
you do know what an Idiom is don't you.
Pete

Again, of course you can worship however you want, and believe whatever want or don't want, but I would just like to point out that whenever something in the Bible fits your beliefs, you pound fists and state it is the word of God and to be taken literally........when something in the Bible does NOT fit your ideals, you call it an "idiom". Very convenient.

road kill
08-12-2010, 06:08 AM
It's always good to hear what the Bible and God really mean from people who don't beleive in either!!:rolleyes:



RK

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 06:11 AM
Again, of course you can worship however you want, and believe whatever want or don't want, but I would just like to point out that whenever something in the Bible fits your beliefs, you pound fists and state it is the word of God and to be taken literally........when something in the Bible does NOT fit your ideals, you call it an "idiom". Very convenient.

You seem to be somewhat wishy washy on it yourself. I would venture to say that most people, myself included at times, pick and choose what part of the Bible they are going to believe in. If it doesn't fit your life, oh well, I guess you don't have to worry about that part. If it's easy to fit into your lifestyle, well, I guess we'll accept it. That is a big part of why there are so many different religions. The word of God is meant one way and you either strive to live by all of it, or don't bother picking and choosing what you deem necessary. All of it is necessary or God wouldn't have said it. The word of God does not change. People's interpretations change, and people change the word of God to try to make it easier to live by in our society. Human society and the word of God doesn't mix. They are contradictory to one another. You can't live according to the flesh and still live a life in tune to God's will.

+ We must daily walk in the Spirit of Life and not in the flesh. Romans 8:1

+ By walking in the Spirit, righteousness might be fulfilled in me, as we reject the flesh and embrace the Spirit of God. Romans 8:4

+ Our mind would be set upon things of the Spirit, pursuing the Spirit and not the flesh. Romans 8:5

+ A carnal mind = death, is enmity against God, God cannot be found in us, we cannot please God. Romans 8:6-8

+ A Spiritual mind = Life, peace, we are with God, God is found within us, we please God. Romans 8:6-8

+ We must not live in the flesh, which is certain death, rather live in the Spirit of Christ Jesus, which is Life through His righteousness. Romans 8:10, 13

+ Once we accept the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ to dwell within our mortal body, we are no longer in debt to the flesh, nor should we continue to live in the flesh. Eternal death is the completion of continued living in the flesh; eternal Life is the completion of living in the Spirit of God. Romans 8:11-14

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-12-2010, 09:14 AM
It's always good to here what the Bible and God really mean from people who don't beleive in either!!:rolleyes:



RK


You seem to be somewhat wishy washy on it yourself. I would venture to say that most people, myself included at times, pick and choose what part of the Bible they are going to believe in. If it doesn't fit your life, oh well, I guess you don't have to worry about that part. If it's easy to fit into your lifestyle, well, I guess we'll accept it. That is a big part of why there are so many different religions. The word of God is meant one way and you either strive to live by all of it, or don't bother picking and choosing what you deem necessary. All of it is necessary or God wouldn't have said it. The word of God does not change. People's interpretations change, and people change the word of God to try to make it easier to live by in our society. Human society and the word of God doesn't mix. They are contradictory to one another. You can't live according to the flesh and still live a life in tune to God's will.

+ We must daily walk in the Spirit of Life and not in the flesh. Romans 8:1

+ By walking in the Spirit, righteousness might be fulfilled in me, as we reject the flesh and embrace the Spirit of God. Romans 8:4

+ Our mind would be set upon things of the Spirit, pursuing the Spirit and not the flesh. Romans 8:5

+ A carnal mind = death, is enmity against God, God cannot be found in us, we cannot please God. Romans 8:6-8

+ A Spiritual mind = Life, peace, we are with God, God is found within us, we please God. Romans 8:6-8

+ We must not live in the flesh, which is certain death, rather live in the Spirit of Christ Jesus, which is Life through His righteousness. Romans 8:10, 13

+ Once we accept the same Spirit that raised Jesus Christ to dwell within our mortal body, we are no longer in debt to the flesh, nor should we continue to live in the flesh. Eternal death is the completion of continued living in the flesh; eternal Life is the completion of living in the Spirit of God. Romans 8:11-14

RK, Duck...

SPOT ON!!!!!!!!!!! ohh how true....

I dont believe Chevy's are better, but here let me tell you how they are, regards,

NCA

dnf777
08-12-2010, 09:27 AM
Ok, I admit....I'm wrong!

YOU GUYS are the end-all authority on all things GOD. I will blindly follow YOUR interpretations of the Bible, and what God says to YOU, and YOU alone.

How silly of me to think I could pray and talk to God without your guidance.



"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy RTF crowd"!

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 10:57 AM
YOU GUYS are the end-all authority on all things GOD.

Not hardly, and I dread the thought of being accused of such.

God is the end-all authority on all things God. His words are their for all to see. It's up to each individual to follow them or not. Religion makes it easier (for lack of better terms) to follow Him. A group of people banding together in His name can do a lot more good than one person acting on his own. A group of people can hold each other accountable to the Word much more effectively than one person only looking out for himself. (20)

The trick is finding a religion that has accurate beliefs based on the Bible. i.e.--abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, divorce/remarriage is wrong, sex outside marriage is wrong, etc...Churches should not comform to society in order to gain more members. People don't like hearing they are wrong or living wrong, but the job of a Priest, Pastor or other man of God is to preach and live the WORD OF GOD, not the watered down word of God that says being gay is okay so that you don't offend your members.(15-17)

Matthew 18:15-20
15 If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.
16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."

road kill
08-12-2010, 12:43 PM
Ok, I admit....I'm wrong!

YOU GUYS are the end-all authority on all things GOD. I will blindly follow YOUR interpretations of the Bible, and what God says to YOU, and YOU alone.

How silly of me to think I could pray and talk to God without your guidance.



"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy RTF crowd"!

The only person I see criticizeing the way others interact with God is.....YOU!!:shock:


RK

YardleyLabs
08-12-2010, 12:57 PM
Not hardly, and I dread the thought of being accused of such.

God is the end-all authority on all things God. His words are their for all to see. It's up to each individual to follow them or not. Religion makes it easier (for lack of better terms) to follow Him. A group of people banding together in His name can do a lot more good than one person acting on his own. A group of people can hold each other accountable to the Word much more effectively than one person only looking out for himself. (20)

The trick is finding a religion that has accurate beliefs based on the Bible. i.e.--abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, divorce/remarriage is wrong, sex outside marriage is wrong, etc...Churches should not comform to society in order to gain more members. People don't like hearing they are wrong or living wrong, but the job of a Priest, Pastor or other man of God is to preach and live the WORD OF GOD, not the watered down word of God that says being gay is okay so that you don't offend your members.(15-17)

Matthew 18:15-20
15 If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.
16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."
I find the two verses you did not highlight to be particularly interesting. How do you interpret these?

18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

That sounds almost like a call to ecumenicism.

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 01:20 PM
I find the two verses you did not highlight to be particularly interesting. How do you interpret these?

18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

That sounds almost like a call to ecumenicism.

18 speaks about forgiveness of sins in regards to the situation discussed in 15-17. If a 'member of the church' truly repents and asks for forgiveness for their sin, or refuses to do so, that is when verse 18 comes into play.

To me, 19 emphasizes, once again, the importance of a church 'family', or 'body', simply put, a group of people who are members of the church and the necessity of them praying together.

There is no reason that I didn't highlight those, other than the fact that they don't pertain to the point I was trying to make.....just in case you might be trying to get a point across by saying that...

dnf777
08-12-2010, 01:26 PM
The only person I see criticizeing the way others interact with God is.....YOU!!:shock:


RK

Ah forget it. I deleted my other reply.

The only criticizm I have of how people worship, is when they try to tell me how to worship, or when they manipulate the Bible in order to bring hatred or damnation against other fellow man. (you know, literal verses idiomatic translations....depending on what fits your agenda) I understood what God was about without resorting to words like "idiomatic"!

These discussions really fall into the useless category for the most part.

YardleyLabs
08-12-2010, 01:52 PM
18 speaks about forgiveness of sins in regards to the situation discussed in 15-17. If a 'member of the church' truly repents and asks for forgiveness for their sin, or refuses to do so, that is when verse 18 comes into play.

To me, 19 emphasizes, once again, the importance of a church 'family', or 'body', simply put, a group of people who are members of the church and the necessity of them praying together.

There is no reason that I didn't highlight those, other than the fact that they don't pertain to the point I was trying to make.....just in case you might be trying to get a point across by saying that...
No, I was actually just asking a question. Your interpretation assumes that the verses only apply to members of the "church". I haven't looked at the entire section but will take your word for it.

road kill
08-12-2010, 02:15 PM
Ah forget it. I deleted my other reply.

The only criticizm I have of how people worship, is when they try to tell me how to worship, or when they manipulate the Bible in order to bring hatred or damnation against other fellow man. (you know, literal verses idiomatic translations....depending on what fits your agenda) I understood what God was about without resorting to words like "idiomatic"!

These discussions really fall into the useless category for the most part.

Oh, I see, like Yardley was trying to do earlier.
Of course that wouldn't count, would it??:rolleyes:




RK

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 02:31 PM
No, I was actually just asking a question. Your interpretation assumes that the verses only apply to members of the "church". I haven't looked at the entire section but will take your word for it.

By members of the 'church', I mean the Body of Christ, which would include all who believe in Him and try to follow Him.

If you(not you personally) don't believe in Him, then the forgiveness and heaven and hell wouldn't really be of concern to you.

dnf777
08-12-2010, 02:56 PM
Oh, I see, like Yardley was trying to do earlier.
Of course that wouldn't count, would it??:rolleyes:




RK

You can take that up with Yardley if you like. I'm sticking to what I said.

road kill
08-12-2010, 03:25 PM
You can take that up with Yardley if you like. I'm sticking to what I said.

I see, so your only issue is when someone from the right does this, but if a secular progressive does it he gets a pass.

Pretty sad Dave, this position (or lack of) cost you.

Take a stand, I'll back you 100%, but be consistent.



RK

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-12-2010, 04:18 PM
Not hardly, and I dread the thought of being accused of such.

God is the end-all authority on all things God. His words are their for all to see. It's up to each individual to follow them or not. Religion makes it easier (for lack of better terms) to follow Him. A group of people banding together in His name can do a lot more good than one person acting on his own. A group of people can hold each other accountable to the Word much more effectively than one person only looking out for himself. (20)
The trick is finding a religion that has accurate beliefs based on the Bible. i.e.--abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, divorce/remarriage is wrong, sex outside marriage is wrong, etc...Churches should not comform to society in order to gain more members. People don't like hearing they are wrong or living wrong, but the job of a Priest, Pastor or other man of God is to preach and live the WORD OF GOD, not the watered down word of God that says being gay is okay so that you don't offend your members.(15-17)
Matthew 18:15-20
15 If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.
16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."

Ohhh so interesting, I just had this conversation at work with 3 co-workers and Chapter and Versus was exactly the same....(about 2 weeks ago)

Very valid points...

We (too many) "Christians" have begun to try and make God fit our needs, wants, beliefs, ideas, our words...It is us as Christians that are to try and make ourselves fit Gods words....there is not be be a "common ground" between God's words and man. There is no dilution of the or messaging of the Word....

Was, Is, and Always will be, regards

NCA

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 08:05 PM
It is us as Christians that are to try and make ourselves fit Gods words....

NCA

Can't agree more. Kinda like the whole Anne Rice thing. I was just reading about that today. What a joke. All of a sudden, she doesn't want to be labeled 'Christian' because apparently, Christians are now against gay marriage! Whouda thunkit?!

YardleyLabs
08-12-2010, 08:09 PM
Can't agree more. Kinda like the whole Anne Rice thing. I was just reading about that today. What a joke. All of a sudden, she doesn't want to be labeled 'Christian' because apparently, Christians are now against gay marriage! Whouda thunkit?!
Why is it that being anti-homosexual is a core principle of Christianity. but ownership of slaves, which is also permitted in the Bible, and orthodox traditions concerning sexual relations and menstruation are not. Do some sections of the bible count more than others? Who decides which ones count? And what about pork......

dnf777
08-12-2010, 08:10 PM
Can't agree more. Kinda like the whole Anne Rice thing. I was just reading about that today. What a joke. All of a sudden, she doesn't want to be labeled 'Christian' because apparently, Christians are now against gay marriage! Whouda thunkit?!

I think it was a little more involved than that! She just came to the realization.....not that Christianity suddenly changed. She realized, that to her, it was anti-woman, anti-gay marriage, and anti-democratic.

She is entitled to her opinion, isn't she? I know it goes against the RTF Council of Religious Elders, but its still her right I believe. Perhaps we should burn her at the stake for daring to disagree?

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 08:12 PM
I knew that would revive this nearly dead thread.:cool:

dnf777
08-12-2010, 08:16 PM
Why is it that being anti-homosexual is a core principle of Christianity. but ownership of slaves, which is also permitted in the Bible, and orthodox traditions concerning sexual relations and menstruation are not. Do some sections of the bible count more than others? Who decides which ones count? And what about pork......

There Yardley goes again! Now he says God wants him to own gay, sexy, menstruating orthodox slaves!! Have you no shame?! :rolleyes:

And what about porking them?? ;-)

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-12-2010, 08:39 PM
Why is it that being anti-homosexual is a core principle of Christianity. but ownership of slaves, which is also permitted in the Bible, and orthodox traditions concerning sexual relations and menstruation are not. Do some sections of the bible count more than others? Who decides which ones count? And what about pork......

Ours is not to question WHY, ours it but to DO and die.....

But to take a shot at your "Questioning"

If I remember correctly...GOD said...

Pharraoh, "Let my people go"

God said...

"If a man lies with a man..."

God said...

"do not defile the bed, do not approach a woman and seek her nakedness while in the time of her impurity....."

These last to things are an abonination in the eyes of the Lord...and like the begining says....Ours is not to QUESTION WHY....

NCA


NCA

YardleyLabs
08-12-2010, 08:44 PM
Ours is not to question WHY, ours it but to DO and die.....


NCA
That worked out really well for the Charge of the Light Brigade.....:rolleyes: I've always been happy that I helped train my kids to question everything.

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-12-2010, 08:48 PM
That worked out really well for the Charge of the Light Brigade.....:rolleyes: I've always been happy that I helped train my kids to question everything.

Then I will pray for your Children....

NCA

dnf777
08-12-2010, 08:57 PM
Norcal,
What do you think about Jehova's Witness who would let their children die for lack of a blood transfusion because they think God told them not to? They're following a "not to question" mindset too.

ducknwork
08-12-2010, 09:11 PM
That worked out really well for the Charge of the Light Brigade.....:rolleyes: I've always been happy that I helped train my kids to question everything.

The thing is, if we do question, we are not so close minded and skeptical that we can't find our answers still come from God.

Honest question...I asked my wife her opinion of this same thing tonight.

Do atheists ever consider that they might be wrong about the nonexistence of God and get worried they might actually go to hell? You have been an atheist since birth. Have you ever investigated the possibility of you becoming a Christian? Or did you not question the way you were raised and therefore stayed that way forever?

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-12-2010, 09:23 PM
Norcal,
What do you think about Jehova's Witness who would let their children die for lack of a blood transfusion because they think God told them not to? They're following a "not to question" mindset too.

My understanding is this...Jehova's witnesses use the verse in Acts to base their claim...

...but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood....(Acts 15)

But that verse does not speak of blood tranfussions, it speaks to the EATING AND DRINKING OF BLOOD.

Also, I believe that doctrine and belief and not backed by ONE verse, but rather a building block of verses each backing the other..

In Liviticus is says...This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall EAT neither fat nor blood.

The Lord said, through James (in Acts) that we should write to the gentiles and ask them to ABSTAIN from these actions...Idols sacrificing animals, strangling them and then eating and drinking of there blood.

It does not say...to abstain from blood transfussions from ANIMALS nor from HUMANS...(but I would rather not get into taking a blood transfussion from an animal...;-);-))

NCA

dnf777
08-12-2010, 10:29 PM
My understanding is this...Jehova's witnesses use the verse in Acts to base their claim...

...but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood....(Acts 15)

But that verse does not speak of blood tranfussions, it speaks to the EATING AND DRINKING OF BLOOD.

Also, I believe that doctrine and belief and not backed by ONE verse, but rather a building block of verses each backing the other..

In Liviticus is says...This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall EAT neither fat nor blood.

The Lord said, through James (in Acts) that we should write to the gentiles and ask them to ABSTAIN from these actions...Idols sacrificing animals, strangling them and then eating and drinking of there blood.

It does not say...to abstain from blood transfussions from ANIMALS nor from HUMANS...(but I would rather not get into taking a blood transfussion from an animal...;-);-))

NCA

Yeah, I've heard that too. I haven't yet heard a valid, logical, Biblical based argument for watching a loved one die, when a simple, common procedure could save them. Thank God, yes God, that courts stepped in and over-rode this practice for children. If their Bible says they can't eat fat, why the hell do I see them at McDonalds?? Are they just buying McSalads with no dressing? :D

Odd thing is, they won't take blood for a donor who gave of themselves so that someone else might live (a very noble gift) but will readily accept a liver or heart transplant.........or even worse, take insulin or estrogen that comes from a dead pig or horse! (Premarin == "pregnant mare urine"

Nor_Cal_Angler
08-12-2010, 10:42 PM
Yeah, I've heard that too. I haven't yet heard a valid, logical, Biblical based argument for watching a loved one die, when a simple, common procedure could save them. Thank God, yes God, that courts stepped in and over-rode this practice for children. If their Bible says they can't eat fat, why the hell do I see them at McDonalds?? Are they just buying McSalads with no dressing? :D

Odd thing is, they won't take blood for a donor who gave of themselves so that someone else might live (a very noble gift) but will readily accept a liver or heart transplant.........or even worse, take insulin or estrogen that comes from a dead pig or horse! (Premarin == "pregnant mare urine"

That is for them to explain on the (their) day of atonement.....

NCA

YardleyLabs
08-13-2010, 05:44 AM
The thing is, if we do question, we are not so close minded and skeptical that we can't find our answers still come from God.

Honest question...I asked my wife her opinion of this same thing tonight.

Do atheists ever consider that they might be wrong about the nonexistence of God and get worried they might actually go to hell? You have been an atheist since birth. Have you ever investigated the possibility of you becoming a Christian? Or did you not question the way you were raised and therefore stayed that way forever?
Obviously, I can't speak of atheists as a group. Many were raised in a religion and decided subsequently to reject the teachings of that religion and become atheists. For many of these, the decision was difficult and their beliefs may therefore be more absolute.

I have simply never believed in God. I attended a church regularly that welcomed everyone: atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, etc. As part of our religious training, we attended churches from every denomination anywhere nearby (It was East Tennessee, so the flavors were limited), and we studied religious texts from all the major religions. I decided that I was an atheist before I got out of kindergarten. My parents were both raised as Methodists and converted to Unitarianism in the 1940's. My father was an atheist until his death, but was a founding member of his church and remained very active in it for over 50 years up to the day of his death. My mother loved to attend churches of different types (Lutherans were her favorite, but any church/religion would do), but was never very religiously committed. She believed in an amorphous God.

For me, it is simply not something I think about very much outside of discussions like these. From a philosophical perspective, I find the notion of a jealous God logically and emotionally repugnant. Why would any God create so many religions and then condemn the overwhelming majority of all humans to damnation for believing in the "wrong" one?

I view the Bible in the same way as I view other spiritual texts that have been written over the millennia of human existence. I believe it is inspired by humans seeking order in the world. Similar themes are found in almost all spiritual documents from all religions. I do not see any of them as being divinely endorsed as right or wrong. I certainly see no reason to think that Christianity is more "right" than Judaism , Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Paganism, or any other religion.

For my entire life I have been surrounded by people who were/are believers in things greater than themselves. That greater notion may be God, or it may simply be Justice. I prefer to socialize with and work with people who are altruistic, compassionate, ethical, hard working, and seeking to be better people -- what I view as the essential components of a moral life. As a direct consequence, a very large percentage of those I view as friends are very religious. However, their religions come from every corner of the world.

Atheism is not my answer on how to live a good life. It is simply a small part of my own belief structure. I view it as different from but not better than theism in whatever form. Do I think I'm right? Yes. Do I think it matters? No. I believe that the decision to live a moral life transcends religion. It is a personal responsibility of each of us.

ducknwork
08-13-2010, 06:18 AM
Just a couple things regarding your post...

What made you decide at 5 years old that there was no God? As an adult, you have never questioned the decision that you made as a child and considered there may be a God? And if you did question, how did you come to the determination that you were correct? Is it as simple as not having enough faith to believe in something that you can't see and is greater than yourself, or is it something else?

God did not create multiple religions. God created one religion. Throughout time, man decided they didn't like things that the church taught (which, BTW, is God's teachings) and created their own little brand of religion that would allow them to remarry after divorce, or told them it's okay to have an abortion, or a same sex partner. Religions that don't teach what God truly is and try to conform to society--now THAT is an abomination.

Do you believe in any afterlife at all?

Joe S.
08-13-2010, 06:51 PM
What a disgusting affront to American sensibilities.

Here's an ad that NBC and CBS have already said they won't air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjGJPPRD3u0

And here's some commentary on the proposed mosque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4&feature=related This guy is a lib Englishman. I've been watching his videos for some time as he's usually pretty funny; but he's always thought-provoking.

Ok, let me get this straight: We are a country founded on religious freedom and we don't want another religion to build a religious building near Ground Zero because people who bastardized the religion it represents did despicable, horrific, terrible, nasty things to us in the name of that religion.

Did I get that right?

Looking Before I Leap Regards,

Joe S.

Franco
08-13-2010, 07:15 PM
Ok, let me get this straight: We are a country founded on religious freedom and we don't want another religion to build a religious building near Ground Zero because people who bastardized the religion it represents did despicable, horrific, terrible, nasty things to us in the name of that religion.

Did I get that right?

Looking Before I Leap Regards,

Joe S.

Years from now, when they are deficating on The Constitution and forcing thier own laws, it is naive attitudes like yours that make us a weak minded nation. We should have never let this cancer (people) in and we will pay the price for it if we don't get a grip on it soon!

YardleyLabs
08-13-2010, 07:33 PM
Just a couple things regarding your post...

What made you decide at 5 years old that there was no God? As an adult, you have never questioned the decision that you made as a child and considered there may be a God? And if you did question, how did you come to the determination that you were correct? Is it as simple as not having enough faith to believe in something that you can't see and is greater than yourself, or is it something else?

God did not create multiple religions. God created one religion. Throughout time, man decided they didn't like things that the church taught (which, BTW, is God's teachings) and created their own little brand of religion that would allow them to remarry after divorce, or told them it's okay to have an abortion, or a same sex partner. Religions that don't teach what God truly is and try to conform to society--now THAT is an abomination.

Do you believe in any afterlife at all?

1. At the age of five, having grown up in an overwhelmingly Baptist area where neighbors were trying to save my soul on a daily basis. I asked my mother what people meant when they talked about God. She gave a balanced description, geared for a fairly bright five year old, of the different things people believed. I said that it made no sense to me and that I didn't believe it. I have engaged in religious discussions throughout my life and have attended religious services in a wide variety of religions. At no point has the existence of God ever made any sense to me. It is not that I go around thinking "I don't believe in God" or that I feel any need to try to convince others that he doesn't exist. It simply makes no more sense to me than the thought that I might start falling off the earth because gravity has disappeared. Most religious people that I know look at beauty -- such as the photo posted by Dave -- or look at the orderliness of science, and see the hand of God in all of it. I look at all those things and I see beauty and a mathematical rationality that I love. I don't associate them with any "higher" power; I associate them with the everyday miracle of our Universe. I cannot postulate the existence of a supreme being as the creator of all that we see without then asking myself "What created the creator?" All that we do with a notion of a creator is to push the mystery back one generation. The nature of the mystery is unchanged.

2. Historical evidence suggests that religions evolved right along with humans. Much of Judaism traces back to earlier religions and Christianity traces back to Judaism. Islam, in turn, traces back to Christianity and Judaism. People existed and worshiped long before the tribes of Israel existed. If a God created all of that, he also created all of the religions that developed along the way.

3. The only afterlife I believe in are the ripples left behind by the way I have lived my life -- my contributions to my children, the puppies I have bred and sent out into other people's lives, the photographs I have taken over time, the people to whom I gave jobs that changed the direction of their lives, the kids I have worked with over time as they faced difficulties that they should never have had to face. The things that have paid me the most money have been those that generated the fewest long lasting ripples. Where Christians argue that faith and the grace of God are the source of salvation, I believe that only actions count, because those are the source of our ripples.

Franco
08-13-2010, 08:07 PM
God did not create multiple religions. God created one religion.



Man's imagination created many gods. We have artifacts of various gods that date back 30,000 years. The concept of several gods, then one god was a concept that ancient man could wrap his head around.

For the last two thousand years, two gods have survived to dominate most of the world, Christ and Allah. Buddha is not considered a god by his billion plus followers as much as they consider him a teacher. Teaching them on how they should live.

How did the universe, earth and man come to being? Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Take a moment and think about how long of time that truly is. How old is the universe? The only thing we know for certain is that the universe is much older than earth. My belief is that when we talk in terms of billions and billions of years, we can say that the universe has always exsisted.

Gerry Clinchy
08-13-2010, 08:21 PM
Joe,

I think it is more complex than that. I believe that Americans will always stand up for freedom of religion. For such a melting pot, however, a sensitivity to each other is part of the blend. So, while there is no legal prohibition of the mosque being built where it is proposed, the sensitivity of the fact that the atrocity was proclaimed to be in the name of Islam is undeniable. Even the supposedly moderate Imam of this proposed congregation has implied that there is some responsibility of the US for the fact that these terrorists acted as they did.

Say what one may about whether the US should be in Iraq or A'stan or not ... the action there is not being justified in the name of Christianity (or any other religion).

Indeed, the large difference between Islam and the West is that Islam does not draw a line between religion, government and daily life.

One might even ask why would Muslims wish to erect a monument there as a constant reminder of such infamous corruption of their reglion ... if one does, indeed, believe it was an insult to Islam's peaceful nature.

Perhaps it is appropriate that no religious group should be allowed to dominate that area ... as the inhumanity of the act really is more universal than any specific religion.

YardleyLabs
08-13-2010, 08:23 PM
Back up the cart there Jeff. Jealous is a figure of speech. Its mans way of giving human emotions to a spirit which has no emotions. so that man can understand the heart of God. The figure might be condensencio in the Greek.I can't remember. Its giving human characteristics to God.


God kicked Lucifer out of the heavens because lucifer wanted the worship.God created spirits being and humans so he can not only receive glory but so he can have a family to walk and talk with. After all he did form ,make and create the things around us. Pretty awesome stuff worthy of awe. Its a shame he gave us free will,,,or we still would be running necked chasin pretty little fillies around the garden. Its mans nature to F---up. because of free will. The fact that the second Adam didn't F---up is amazing. If Ole JC surcummed to the devils temptations we would be screw forever and in an unredeemable state.
God did not create religion. man did. Fricken plain and simple. God is one and God has one word or will. So now its our job to figure it out . The religious leaders often are not spoken of very highly in the bible. Cant say that I blame God. many of them resemble the religious leaders of today

Pete
Pete,

I definitely prefer your interpretations to ducknworth's. Obviously, however, you and I still disagree on the divinity of the scriptures. I agree that religion was created by man. I was actually using the term "jealous" in the broader context of caring if or how humans worshiped God. In my mind, if there were a God (which I admittedly do not believe) it would be a God who would marvel at all the different ways that humans and other entities used the fruits of creation, and would take special joy from those who respected and sought to understand the workings of that creation.

Gerry Clinchy
08-13-2010, 08:27 PM
In my mind, if there were a God (which I admittedly do not believe) it would be a God who would marvel at all the different ways that humans and other entities used the fruits of creation, and would take special joy from those who respected and sought to understand the workings of that creation.

And who is to say that such is not the case?

YardleyLabs
08-13-2010, 08:34 PM
And who is to say that such is not the case?
Not I. I can speak to my beliefs concerning God, but would never pretend to have any insight on what might actually be the truth. But then I don't think anyone else can know what is true ether except as a matter of faith (i.e. belief).

dnf777
08-13-2010, 08:55 PM
Dave

Do you think God approves of homosexuality and even more bizarre,, gay marriage.? If you do I would be so delighted and entertained watching you twist the words around

next you can explain how necrophilia is such a Godly behavior.
I know I know,,,you think in your head that God enjoys that behavior in his creation so therefore it must be right.

To me I finally realized that Martians are in charge of our government.

Therefor they are:)

Pete

I don't worry whether God approves of homosexuality or gay marriage, since I'm not involved in either. If pressed for an answer, I would only say that the God I believe in would approve of anyone who has goodness in their heart, is charitable, and does unto others as they would unto themselves.

As for necrophilia--what the sam hell are you talking about?? you're so far into left field, you ought to feel the warning track under your feet any moment now! Please, oh please explain this one! I can't wait!

ducknwork
08-13-2010, 09:19 PM
Pete,

I definitely prefer your interpretations to ducknworth's. Obviously, however, you and I still disagree on the divinity of the scriptures. I agree that religion was created by man. I was actually using the term "jealous" in the broader context of caring if or how humans worshiped God. In my mind, if there were a God (which I admittedly do not believe) it would be a God who would marvel at all the different ways that humans and other entities used the fruits of creation, and would take special joy from those who respected and sought to understand the workings of that creation.

Who is that? And what do you not agree with him about?

Franco
08-13-2010, 11:30 PM
Mans basic spiritual problem is that he doesn't believe the book has integrity.

You'll never see it, if for one you don't believe it and you never study it.

its not a book you can read from cover to cover and just get it. The book is mathematically accurate and has been written over a couple thousands of years by different people. Many men have devoted there lives to tracing word from books of antiquities they have researched ancient cultures . These all add to our understanding.

The answers to our countries problems lies in that book and there not hard to find. we will continue to flounder until someone decides to apply them in our government. it hasn't a dam thing to do with religion. God is a non religious entity .Also God looks on a persons heart. So we don't have to be right about him all the time. but we do have to be meek to his word and believe to the best of our ability. We as a nation are becoming our own Gods.

If people say they believe in God but never open the book then I wonder what they mean. it would be like me saying I believe in the Lardy method for dog training,,but you don't know anything he does and you do everything the opposite from what he does. Crazy man

Pete

Our Founding Fathers, the ones most influnetial; Jefferson, Adams and Paine all recognized the good lessons taught by the Rabbi Jesus. They just didn't believe in his divinity as they were Deist. Just as the Buddhist believe in thier teacher, they never considered him devine. Holy man yes, god...no.

zeus3925
08-14-2010, 01:07 AM
Years from now, when they are deficating on The Constitution and forcing thier own laws, it is naive attitudes like yours that make us a weak minded nation. We should have never let this cancer (people) in and we will pay the price for it if we don't get a grip on it soon!

Let me get this straight: You wish to suspend the the First Amendment right of freedom of worship so these people you describe as a "cancer" won't "defecate" on the Constitution? Aren't you in effect also trashing the Constitution when you say to hell with the First, to hell with the Constitution when it comes to Islam?

If the Constitution is ignored for any of us, then it becomes worthless--another scrap of paper with some nice penmanship.

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 05:12 AM
Let me get this straight: You wish to suspend the the First Amendment right of freedom of worship so these people you describe as a "cancer" won't "defecate" on the Constitution? Aren't you in effect also trashing the Constitution when you say to hell with the First, to hell with the Constitution when it comes to Islam?

If the Constitution is ignored for any of us, then it becomes worthless--another scrap of paper with some nice penmanship.
It is an on-going paradox that for freedom to work it must give freedom to those who want to take our freedom away. However, our Constitution only offers freedom of expression, not freedom of action. Allowing someone to propose a law does not carry with it any obligation to support that law. However, curtailing expressions of belief for fear that we might somehow be "infected" is the quickest road to end freedom altogether. The definitions of unacceptable speech and expression will simply grow broader and broader. The same is true for expressions of religion (or non-religion). The minute you allow one to be curtailed -- no matter how strong your justification -- all are threatened.

dnf777
08-14-2010, 05:38 AM
Mans basic spiritual problem is that he doesn't believe the book has integrity.

You'll never see it, if for one you don't believe it and you never study it.

its not a book you can read from cover to cover and just get it. The book is mathematically accurate and has been written over a couple thousands of years by different people. Many men have devoted there lives to tracing word from books of antiquities they have researched ancient cultures . These all add to our understanding.

The answers to our countries problems lies in that book and there not hard to find. we will continue to flounder until someone decides to apply them in our government. it hasn't a dam thing to do with religion. God is a non religious entity .Also God looks on a persons heart. So we don't have to be right about him all the time. but we do have to be meek to his word and believe to the best of our ability. We as a nation are becoming our own Gods.

If people say they believe in God but never open the book then I wonder what they mean. it would be like me saying I believe in the Lardy method for dog training,,but you don't know anything he does and you do everything the opposite from what he does. Crazy man

Pete


Careful there Pete, isn't Lardy-worship a form of idolatry? Although I do agree, he is nearly a god when it comes to retrievers! (note, I spelled god with a small "g") ;)

Pete, you are assuming facts that are pulled out of your air. I have read and studied the Bible, (and forgotten much of it) and read the Koran, as I had about 600 hours of idle time in Saudi Arabia, and it was like the Gideon Bible all over the place. I found it interesting, and very similar to the old Testament. I thought it was violent, until I went back and read portions of the Old Testament, and realized it was just the literary style of the times.

Your argument that we should simply apply the Bible to our government (besides being in start violation of our charter, the Constitution) has been tried many times, and doesn't work. Why aren't we all still Puritans, wearing little buckle-band hats and saying "ye" and "thou" and having women with scarlett letters branded on them to this day, if applying the Bible to government works so well? There have been many Christian theocracies throughout history, and the Vatican is the only one who has come close to succeeding. (with lots of help from the secular world, I might add) And besides, I'm sure I'm about to hear that Catholocism isn't a true form of Christianity anyway, right?

Franco
08-14-2010, 08:05 AM
Let me get this straight: You wish to suspend the the First Amendment right of freedom of worship so these people you describe as a "cancer" won't "defecate" on the Constitution? Aren't you in effect also trashing the Constitution when you say to hell with the First, to hell with the Constitution when it comes to Islam?

If the Constitution is ignored for any of us, then it becomes worthless--another scrap of paper with some nice penmanship.

When it comes to the threat Islam represents to our Constitution, YES!

These people have fled thier sheet-hole countries, coming to USA to bask in the freedoms provived by the loss of millions of American soldiers and marines, a great nation built freedom of mind, yet they want thier old country laws. They have no intention of assimilating into the American way of life because they want to change us. In fact, they hate everything about us but love living here.

It is for our own protection and future that we need to face this problem and not ignore it.

I am not a Christian nor a Jew but I do believe in our Judeo-Christian heritage and to change that would make us another 3rd world country with a 5th century mentality.

Joe S.
08-14-2010, 08:41 AM
Years from now, when they are deficating on The Constitution and forcing thier own laws, it is naive attitudes like yours that make us a weak minded nation. We should have never let this cancer (people) in and we will pay the price for it if we don't get a grip on it soon!

Morning Franco,

Hope you are doing well.

I've been called lots of things in life, many of them on this board, some even by the likes of the people we are discussing. I do think that "naive" is new ground. Congratulations.

We are a country of laws. The laws of our country provide for equal treatment for all people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin of those people. If we choose to abandon those principles as a nation, then don't we become that which we are trying to prevent?

I believe that to suggest the U.S. will become a nation of Shari Law if the mosque is allowed to be built near ground zero is histrionics.

Be Well,

Joe

road kill
08-14-2010, 08:47 AM
Morning Franco,

Hope you are doing well.

I've been called lots of things in life, many of them on this board, some even by the likes of the people we are discussing. I do think that "naive" is new ground. Congratulations.

We are a country of laws. The laws of our country provide for equal treatment for all people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin of those people. If we choose to abandon those principles as a nation, then don't we become that which we are trying to prevent?

I believe that to suggest the U.S. will become a nation of Shari Law if the mosque is allowed to be built near ground zero is histrionics.

Be Well,

Joe

Every journey starts with 1 step.


RK

Joe S.
08-14-2010, 09:04 AM
Joe,

I think it is more complex than that. I believe that Americans will always stand up for freedom of religion. For such a melting pot, however, a sensitivity to each other is part of the blend. So, while there is no legal prohibition of the mosque being built where it is proposed, the sensitivity of the fact that the atrocity was proclaimed to be in the name of Islam is undeniable. Even the supposedly moderate Imam of this proposed congregation has implied that there is some responsibility of the US for the fact that these terrorists acted as they did.

Say what one may about whether the US should be in Iraq or A'stan or not ... the action there is not being justified in the name of Christianity (or any other religion).

Indeed, the large difference between Islam and the West is that Islam does not draw a line between religion, government and daily life.

One might even ask why would Muslims wish to erect a monument there as a constant reminder of such infamous corruption of their reglion ... if one does, indeed, believe it was an insult to Islam's peaceful nature.

Perhaps it is appropriate that no religious group should be allowed to dominate that area ... as the inhumanity of the act really is more universal than any specific religion.

Hi Gerry,

I agree with you, it may well be far more complex than the way I broke it down.

You make several excellent points...there is, or should be, a consideration to the connectedness that joins us all...a sensitivity to each other that would enable us to live together is a relatively clam and peaceful fashion. Sadly, we have evolved as a world-people to a place where the only way a win is possible is if someone else loses. To foster a continuous win-lose process is to ensure we all lose in the end.

One of the many things I've learned about myself over the last 18 months or so is that even when I felt MOST justified in acting the way choose, if I was able to look at my actions from the perspective of the other person(s), not judge them good or bad - right or wrong - just observe them, I was able to see some portion of my actions that could have been viewed as offensive to that person FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. The nut being that had I done that in moment, MAYBE I would have excluded the offensive act or found another way to get my point across. My suggestion here is not that my country caused 9/11, it is that our actions MAY HAVE enabled an environment in other countries that allowed people to bastardize a religious principle which resulted in 9/11. We aren't an island. They aren't an island. We are trying to pick sides in a round room...

True religious principles, Western or Eastern, as I understand them, make no distinction between political life and daily life. It is the bastardization of those principles, Western or Eastern, that have forced the distinction. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...examples abound.

Mostly, my personal thoughts are in 100% agreement with your closing paragraph...9/11 was too horrific to allow any religion to dominate the area.

Kind Regards,

Joe

Franco
08-14-2010, 09:07 AM
Morning Franco,

Hope you are doing well.

I've been called lots of things in life, many of them on this board, some even by the likes of the people we are discussing. I do think that "naive" is new ground. Congratulations.

We are a country of laws. The laws of our country provide for equal treatment for all people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin of those people. If we choose to abandon those principles as a nation, then don't we become that which we are trying to prevent?

I believe that to suggest the is histrionicsU.S. will become a nation of Shari Law if the mosque is allowed to be built near ground zero.

Be Well,

Joe

And, Cancer begins in one cell before it spreads.

But, we are way past the first cell stage. They are doing a great job of recruiting in our Federal prisons.

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 09:17 AM
Possibly the most intelligent remark I've heard from John Q Muslim: (commenting on President Obama's remarks)


Mohamed Haroun, an intern at a mechanical engineering firm, told the Washington Post, “What he should have said was: ‘This is a community decision. Constitutionally, they have the right to do it, but it’s a community decision and we should see what the local community wants to do.’”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38702141/ns/politics-white_house

In the case of 9-11, I do believe that the "community" is larger than NYC alone. Just as JFK said when visiting Berlin, "Ich bin ein Berliner," on 9-11 we all became New Yorkers.

Should we not expect "tolerance" of Muslims as we do of other religious groups.

One of the opponents of the mosque mentioned that with 100 mosques in NYC, this is really not an issue of freedom of religion/worship. That freedom is secure in NYC for Muslims, and other groups.

It's really about symbolism and tolerance for the pain of a large wound that will take a long time to heal. Ground Zero, itself, is not yet "rebuilt", but it is likely that if the mosque is built it will be complete before Ground Zero has even been "healed". It has mentioned that the building (where the proposed mosque is to be built), is already being used for Muslim prayer gatherings. No big deal seems to have been made of the free exercise of religion ... but erecting a towering mosque is different, I think.

With many mosques in NYC already, this could be a cultural center, without the sectarian aspect. If that is what had been proposed, I doubt that there would be any controversy ... and I might even expect that the "community" would have viewed it as truly an outstretched hand of compassion and effort to put forth the peaceful nature of Islam. Why would anyone want to stir up this level of controversy in the interest of reconcilation?

No matter what the official name will be, I might expect that this building (if it is built) will forever be known as "The Ground Zero Mosque."

Joe S.
08-14-2010, 09:18 AM
It is an on-going paradox that for freedom to work it must give freedom to those who want to take our freedom away. However, our Constitution only offers freedom of expression, not freedom of action. Allowing someone to propose a law does not carry with it any obligation to support that law. However, curtailing expressions of belief for fear that we might somehow be "infected" is the quickest road to end freedom altogether. The definitions of unacceptable speech and expression will simply grow broader and broader. The same is true for expressions of religion (or non-religion). The minute you allow one to be curtailed -- no matter how strong your justification -- all are threatened.

Right on, right on, righty right on...

Truth Be Told Regards,

Joe S.

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 09:35 AM
True religious principles, Western or Eastern, as I understand them, make no distinction between political life and daily life. It is the bastardization of those principles, Western or Eastern, that have forced the distinction. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...examples abound.


I can certainly agree ... and in those Muslim countries that are theocracies we can clearly see how freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the first individual liberties to succumb to such bastardization. Our country's founders, whatever their religious orientation (or lack thereof!) had seen first-hand in Europe why there should be separation of church and state.

I can certainly relate to your own experience with having failed to take heed of another's perspective when acting in a certain way!

Yardley:

The same is true for expressions of religion (or non-religion). The minute you allow one to be curtailed -- no matter how strong your justification -- all are threatened.

I would submit that this issue is not really about curtailing the practice of Islam, but simply asking the same level of tolerance (sensitivity) from Muslims, as is expected of Christians or Jews (et al). It is not about "legality", it is about compassion.

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 10:15 AM
I can certainly agree ... and in those Muslim countries that are theocracies we can clearly see how freedom of religion and freedom of speech are the first individual liberties to succumb to such bastardization. Our country's founders, whatever their religious orientation (or lack thereof!) had seen first-hand in Europe why there should be separation of church and state.

I can certainly relate to your own experience with having failed to take heed of another's perspective when acting in a certain way!

Yardley:


I would submit that this issue is not really about curtailing the practice of Islam, but simply asking the same level of tolerance (sensitivity) from Muslims, as is expected of Christians or Jews (et al). It is not about "legality", it is about compassion.
A request is not accompanied with legal restriction. My view is that the proposed site is clearly outside of the area of ground zero. The site is not visible from ground zero and ground zero is not visible from the proposed site. In fact, given the location of the proposed site, relatively few people going to ground zero would ever even see the proposed cultural center. Those complaining about it, are the same ones complaining about a mosque in Staten Island, a mosque in Murfreesboro TN, a mosque in Michigan, and a mosque in California. If we truly believe that there is some "zone" within which mosques should not be permitted, then suggest a modification to zoning to exclude all religious construction in that area regardless of faith. What is good for one is good for all. There is already a mosque four blocks away from ground zero. It was there before the WTC was constructed. Should that be torn down? There were Muslims killed among the 3000 dead in the WTC. Should their ashes be somehow identified and exhumed to prevent corruption of the "Christian" ashes? What about the Hindu and Jewish ashes.

9/11 was not an Islamic victory. It was a terrorist victory. And every time we subvert our own ideals in response to that attack, we give the terrorists another of the victories they crave.

Julie R.
08-14-2010, 10:38 AM
It is an on-going paradox that for freedom to work it must give freedom to those who want to take our freedom away. However, our Constitution only offers freedom of expression, not freedom of action. Allowing someone to propose a law does not carry with it any obligation to support that law. However, curtailing expressions of belief for fear that we might somehow be "infected" is the quickest road to end freedom altogether. The definitions of unacceptable speech and expression will simply grow broader and broader. The same is true for expressions of religion (or non-religion). The minute you allow one to be curtailed -- no matter how strong your justification -- all are threatened.

Right on, right on, righty right on...

Truth Be Told Regards,

Joe S.

Hi Joe,
glad to see you back!
But I would beg to differ with you and Yardley, if not in theory than in approach.
While there may be some attached to this effort to erect a shrine to Islam on Ground Zero, who truly seek the noble aims you both espouse, I suspect the greater number of proponents are snickering at the apparent ease by which they're using U.S. freedoms to promote their agendas.

This country is not ready for a mosque, or Islamic center, or any other idolatry on the festering wound that is Ground Zero. Until those who truly desire to promote Islam as a religion of tolerance and peace can convince John Q. Public that Moslims are not a majority kill-all-infidels variety we hear about daily, there is no room for their idolatry on Ground Zero. I don't favor any religious freedom being curtailed, but I'm strongly in favor of using or making any other laws available to us to prevent this structure from ever getting a building permit. Be they zoning, planning, or otherwise.

If Moslims are successful in getting their community center or shrine or mosque or whatever they call it built there, there may be some who truly think it will help U.S.-Islamic relations. But they will be in the minority: the large majority will laugh as hard as they did watching the leader of the free world bowing to accept the dookie chain from the Saudi king.

Arguments in favor of the structure being built because of our First Amendment freedoms are as tired and out of place as those that loudly trumpet how this country was built on immigration so we should let them all in, anchor babies and more. Times are different; we no longer have limitless resources as when the 14th was enacted. Similarly, when religious freedom was codified in this country no one recruited killers and sociopaths over the internet, in prisons and in caves and tents around the world.

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 10:55 AM
A request is not accompanied with legal restriction.

Although NYC could have made some zoning restriction on any new religious buildings within a certain distance of ground zero ... they did NOT do so.

So my statement was that this is NOT about legality (or infringement on freedom of religion).

Changes in zoning usually grandfather those uses which existed prior to the change in zoning.

However, you mention that there is another mosque within 4 blocks of ground zero. New info to me ... which makes me wonder why another mosque is needed within 2 blocks of ground zero. Is the Muslim population of that general area so large as two need another mosque? Is the existing mosque too small to accommodate the worshipers? I might have thought that the Muslim population was relatively small within that limited area (note the word "relatively").

Ken Newcomb
08-14-2010, 11:05 AM
I liked the idea the guy on "Red Eye" had Greg Whateverhisnameis to open a gay bar across the street from the mosque called "You Mecca Me Hot"

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 11:28 AM
Although NYC could have made some zoning restriction on any new religious buildings within a certain distance of ground zero ... they did NOT do so.

So my statement was that this is NOT about legality (or infringement on freedom of religion).

Changes in zoning usually grandfather those uses which existed prior to the change in zoning.

However, you mention that there is another mosque within 4 blocks of ground zero. New info to me ... which makes me wonder why another mosque is needed within 2 blocks of ground zero. Is the Muslim population of that general area so large as two need another mosque? Is the existing mosque too small to accommodate the worshipers? I might have thought that the Muslim population was relatively small within that limited area (note the word "relatively").
The Muslim population in New York is actually very large and growing. Many work in the financial district which would be served by the proposed center. The existing mosque in the area has been there for 40 years and is relatively small.

However, once again, why would the tests for an Islamic center be any different from the tests we would apply to another religion? This is only a religious issue when we start applying standards to one that are not applied to the other.

All the arguments against the center seem to begin with the assumption that 9/11 was an Islamic crime (Does that mean that our bombing of Baghdad was a Christian crime?). Were I a moderate Muslim, it would be important to reject that notion. 9/11 was a crime of terrorists. In claiming jihadist justification, those terrorists violated the spirit of Islam. I would want to make that clear. I cannot do so by withdrawing. That implies acceptance of the link that the terrorists claim and the bigots claim.

road kill
08-14-2010, 11:47 AM
And, Cancer begins in one cell before it spreads.

But, we are way past the first cell stage. They are doing a great job of recruiting in our Federal GOVERNMENT.

Fixed!!:D


RK

depittydawg
08-14-2010, 12:12 PM
right on target

Pete

Another issue I can't support the politically incompetent President on. But on the moral and legal arguments he is correct.These words sound a tone of fear. Such generalities lead to bad decisions, bad behavior, and seriously bad policy.

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 01:12 PM
The Muslim population in New York is actually very large and growing. Many work in the financial district which would be served by the proposed center. The existing mosque in the area has been there for 40 years and is relatively small.

However, once again, why would the tests for an Islamic center be any different from the tests we would apply to another religion? This is only a religious issue when we start applying standards to one that are not applied to the other.

Well, that sort of answers my question. There may well be a need for a larger worship center in that particular area.

I would not propose any size guidelines per se. One thing that has occurred here in PA (as you may know, Jeff, from the local media coverage), many Catholic churches were closed since they did not have the congregation population to support them all. It was about finances. To support any religious congregation requires sufficient population to bear the expenses of construction and maintenance. The source of $100 million to build this project is not quite clear yet.


Were I a moderate Muslim, it would be important to reject that notion. 9/11 was a crime of terrorists. In claiming jihadist justification, those terrorists violated the spirit of Islam. I would want to make that clear. I cannot do so by withdrawing. That implies acceptance of the link that the terrorists claim and the bigots claim.

Since you admittedly do not believe in God, it might be harder for you to fully understand the motivations of those who believe fervently in God. I would find it more convincing to hear such arguments from someone who could relate intimately to the topic. That was why I found the Muslim's comment especially of interest (as quoted on the other thread). I wish that individual had been questioned further by the reporter.

Another oddity ... we seem quick to indict the US for the insensitivities that would "enable" the violence of Islamic extremists. With that line of reasoning, then the same could be applied in the converse. However, I don't think there is anything to be gained by playing that game. That easily leads down the slippery slope of blaming Nazi barbarism on the Jews, the Poles, or the Russians.


I cannot do so by withdrawing. That implies acceptance of the link that the terrorists claim and the bigots claim.

Given the history of Islam building great mosques on the site of their victories, it also doesn't make sense to force the issue of a building a mosque on the proposed site when it is so controversial as to make its motives suspect to the community. Certainly there are other ways to make the distinctions clear. This one sure doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 01:14 PM
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/image.php?u=22845&dateline=1280776691 (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/member.php?u=22845)

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Norfolk, Nebraska
Posts: 715


I liked the idea the guy on "Red Eye" had Greg Whateverhisnameis to open a gay bar across the street from the mosque called "You Mecca Me Hot"


OMG, Julie! Where is your "post of the day" award?

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 04:01 PM
Well, that sort of answers my question. There may well be a need for a larger worship center in that particular area.

I would not propose any size guidelines per se. One thing that has occurred here in PA (as you may know, Jeff, from the local media coverage), many Catholic churches were closed since they did not have the congregation population to support them all. It was about finances. To support any religious congregation requires sufficient population to bear the expenses of construction and maintenance. The source of $100 million to build this project is not quite clear yet.



Since you admittedly do not believe in God, it might be harder for you to fully understand the motivations of those who believe fervently in God. I would find it more convincing to hear such arguments from someone who could relate intimately to the topic. That was why I found the Muslim's comment especially of interest (as quoted on the other thread). I wish that individual had been questioned further by the reporter.

Another oddity ... we seem quick to indict the US for the insensitivities that would "enable" the violence of Islamic extremists. With that line of reasoning, then the same could be applied in the converse. However, I don't think there is anything to be gained by playing that game. That easily leads down the slippery slope of blaming Nazi barbarism on the Jews, the Poles, or the Russians.



Given the history of Islam building great mosques on the site of their victories, it also doesn't make sense to force the issue of a building a mosque on the proposed site when it is so controversial as to make its motives suspect to the community. Certainly there are other ways to make the distinctions clear. This one sure doesn't seem to be doing the trick.
There are demonstrations going on all over the country opposing almost every effort to build a mosque. Mosques that has existed peacefully for decades now require state police to be assigned on almost full time duty to protect against vandalism and worse. I see the protests about the cultural center in Manhattan as nothing more than another excuse to exercise the same types of anti-Muslim prejudice that greet efforts where there is no ground zero to protect. Maybe it's time for a trade. The Catholic Church could give the group S. Patrick's Cathedral as a new cultural center on 5th Avenue and St. Pat's could move to Park Place.

When you say it doesn't make sense, my question is make sense to whom? It seems to have made sense to the NYC planning board and to the duly elected Mayor of NYC and to the Governor of the state. Why should it have to make sense to a Senator from Kentucky and a Republican leadership that has never shown anything but hostility to all things New York? The reality is that there will be no controversy by the time the center opens because it will disappear in the depths of Manhattan architecture.

road kill
08-14-2010, 04:21 PM
There are demonstrations going on all over the country opposing almost every effort to build a mosque. Link please??Mosques that has existed peacefully for decades now require state police to be assigned on almost full time duty to protect against vandalism and worse. I see the protests about the cultural center in Manhattan as nothing more than another excuse to exercise the same types of anti-Muslim prejudice that greet efforts where there is no ground zero to protect. Maybe it's time for a trade. The Catholic Church could give the group S. Patrick's Cathedral as a new cultural center on 5th Avenue and St. Pat's could move to Park Place.

When you say it doesn't make sense, my question is make sense to whom? It seems to have made sense to the NYC planning board and to the duly elected Mayor of NYC and to the Governor of the state. Why should it have to make sense to a Senator from Kentucky and a Republican leadership that has never shown anything but hostility to all things New York? The reality is that there will be no controversy by the time the center opens because it will disappear in the depths of Manhattan architecture.

Again, lots of words, off topic.
This is a bout a Mosque in Ground Zero proximity, you are the only one mentioning Mosques elsewhere.

The terrorists (man-made disasterists) attacked America, not NYC.
Glad to have been able to help you grasp this.;-)


RK

zeus3925
08-14-2010, 05:47 PM
When it comes to the threat Islam represents to our Constitution, YES!

These people have fled thier sheet-hole countries, coming to USA to bask in the freedoms provived by the loss of millions of American soldiers and marines, a great nation built freedom of mind, yet they want thier old country laws. They have no intention of assimilating into the American way of life because they want to change us. In fact, they hate everything about us but love living here.

It is for our own protection and future that we need to face this problem and not ignore it.



Again how many Muslims do you know? Yet, you seem to know what THEY want.

Franco, frankly I am a bit concerned about you. In other posts you have advocated taking up arms against OUR country. Here, you advocate scrapping the Constitution because you believe Muslims constitute a threat equivalent to the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Are you really an American?? When are you going to pass out arm bands and yellow crescents??

Gerry Clinchy
08-14-2010, 05:51 PM
There are demonstrations going on all over the country opposing almost every effort to build a mosque. Mosques that has existed peacefully for decades now require state police to be assigned on almost full time duty to protect against vandalism and worse.

I, for one, am not debating those other circumstances. This particular discussion involves a very unique circumtance.


When you say it doesn't make sense, my question is make sense to whom? It seems to have made sense to the NYC planning board and to the duly elected Mayor of NYC and to the Governor of the state.

The planning board should have (and did) act according to law. The mayor and governor expressed opinions beyond what the legalities that were the reponsibility of the planning board.

The planning board had no choice but to follow the law that bound them. The mayor and governor might be well advised to at least consider the opinions of their constituents ... rather than strongly imply that their constituents are of inferior capability in the formulation of their individual opinions.

Can we be any clearer on this ... the group is legally permitted to build their house of worship. What is at the crux of this issue is whether they should exhibit the same tolerance of others' feelings as the tolerance they are demanding (it sure hasn't sounded like a "request") is what is causing the furor.

If there are others in other places who are not supportive of freedom of worship for all religions, that does not necessarily mean that someone opposing the ground zero mosque is supportive of those other cause.

Joe S.
08-14-2010, 05:53 PM
Hi Joe,
glad to see you back!
But I would beg to differ with you and Yardley, if not in theory than in approach.
While there may be some attached to this effort to erect a shrine to Islam on Ground Zero, who truly seek the noble aims you both espouse, I suspect the greater number of proponents are snickering at the apparent ease by which they're using U.S. freedoms to promote their agendas.

This country is not ready for a mosque, or Islamic center, or any other idolatry on the festering wound that is Ground Zero. Until those who truly desire to promote Islam as a religion of tolerance and peace can convince John Q. Public that Moslims are not a majority kill-all-infidels variety we hear about daily, there is no room for their idolatry on Ground Zero. I don't favor any religious freedom being curtailed, but I'm strongly in favor of using or making any other laws available to us to prevent this structure from ever getting a building permit. Be they zoning, planning, or otherwise.

If Moslims are successful in getting their community center or shrine or mosque or whatever they call it built there, there may be some who truly think it will help U.S.-Islamic relations. But they will be in the minority: the large majority will laugh as hard as they did watching the leader of the free world bowing to accept the dookie chain from the Saudi king.

Arguments in favor of the structure being built because of our First Amendment freedoms are as tired and out of place as those that loudly trumpet how this country was built on immigration so we should let them all in, anchor babies and more. Times are different; we no longer have limitless resources as when the 14th was enacted. Similarly, when religious freedom was codified in this country no one recruited killers and sociopaths over the internet, in prisons and in caves and tents around the world.

Hi Julie,

Thanks for the nice words. Nice to be back, mostly. LOL!!! I've got some time on my hands as school doesn't start again until the 23rd so I thought I'd check in and see what was what!

You had me agreeing with you about the country not being ready for a center near GZ right up until you threw in the world idolatry. (Good button pushing, btw...LOL!) Now we both know that its only idolatry when viewed from a Christian perspective (we won't talk about that whole "judge not..." thing, ok?).

It is a community issue and the community needs to sort it out. It would be wonderful if the Muslim community was able to see the pain it would cause others in the area based on the actions of those that bastardized their religion. It would be wonderful if the community could express the request that it not be built based on the pain it bring to the community at large and not base it on a hate for the religion as a whole. Sadly, its not always a wonderful world we live in, huh?

I don't expect either to happen. Its sad it has to sink to ever deepening levels of vilification to make points on an issue.

Anyway, take care and be well!

Miss Your Smile Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
08-14-2010, 06:15 PM
Again, lots of words, off topic.
This is a bout a Mosque in Ground Zero proximity, you are the only one mentioning Mosques elsewhere.

The terrorists (man-made disasterists) attacked America, not NYC.
Glad to have been able to help you grasp this.;-)


RK
In response to your request for links:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=mosque-a-la-california-controversy-over-another-symbol-of-islam-2010-08-12

http://www.wsmv.com/video/23946619/index.html

http://www.news4jax.com/news/24148793/detail.html

http://www.realcourage.org/2010/05/wisconsin-reports-on-mosque-protests/

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mosque-20100718,0,2447625.story

For more general examples of anti-Muslim bigotry (This is a county level tea party organization. Its anti mosque demonstrations were advertised on the national tea party web site at http://www.teapartypatriots.org/) : http://www.wethepeople-swrc.com/mosque.php

hotel4dogs
08-15-2010, 07:03 AM
this is going to sway a bit OT, but one of the issues people have had with mosques being built (there are a couple of fairly large ones not terribly far from here) is that the organized religion then buys up a lot of houses in the area, which they then rent to their members.
Because they are all 501(c)3 organizations, the people who live in the houses pay no real estate taxes.
In an area where our average real estate tax bill is over 10K, this really annoys those of us who pay (more than) our fair share.

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 07:28 AM
Tax free status only applies to religious properties used for the purposes of the church. It does not apply to general rental properties. Those must pay real estate taxes and the income from rental is taxable as well. In Brooklyn, it was not unusual for Hasidic (ultra orthodox Jewish) communities to purchase houses on the corners of blocks that they hoped would ultimately be occupied by members of the community. From their perspective (as explained to me by the person responsible for the program for the Lubavitcher Hasidim) was both to stabilize the blocks and to control the character of future development. As he said, "Each block is defined by its corners. As the corners go, all the other buildings will follow." These properties did not leave the tax rolls unless they were used for religious purposes.

hotel4dogs
08-15-2010, 09:47 AM
That was not the case here in the collar counties of IL. Any property owned by the religious organization could be given tax free status simply by holding a "religious meeting" there on an infrequent basis. If the parents educated the children in religion it could be given tax free status. It caused quite a furor a few years ago when it was exposed.
In all honesty, I don't know if the loophole has since been closed. One can only hope.



Tax free status only applies to religious properties used for the purposes of the church. It does not apply to general rental properties. Those must pay real estate taxes and the income from rental is taxable as well. In Brooklyn, it was not unusual for Hasidic (ultra orthodox Jewish) communities to purchase houses on the corners of blocks that they hoped would ultimately be occupied by members of the community. From their perspective (as explained to me by the person responsible for the program for the Lubavitcher Hasidim) was both to stabilize the blocks and to control the character of future development. As he said, "Each block is defined by its corners. As the corners go, all the other buildings will follow." These properties did not leave the tax rolls unless they were used for religious purposes.

hotel4dogs
08-15-2010, 09:48 AM
The reason I didn't say is because I'm not certain and I didn't want to incorrectly accuse. There was more than one religious group involved when it was exposed here a few years ago, but it was the "middle-eastern" religions.



You don't say if it's the Mosque buying up real estate or the other religions. Is that a common practice?
Where I grew up the Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Methodist church's had one house on the same property as the church, and there was never an attempt to buy up real estate in the area, that I know of.
I'd be interested in knowing what groups are getting away with doing this.
Walt

hotel4dogs
08-15-2010, 09:55 AM
for some reason I can't edit to add this my other post, sorry, have to do it as a separate post.
The way it was done here was the religious group bought the property and then allowed members to live there, allegedly, for free.
The members instead gave (tax deductible) donations to the religious group.
Brilliant.

Gerry Clinchy
08-15-2010, 11:19 AM
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/obama-backs-off-ny-mosque-remarks-3701835?ref=rss

Obama presented an "addenda"

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there," Obama told reporters while visiting the US Gulf Coast.

Seems that in New Zealand, they still refer to the original name "Cordoba House"

At a White House event, Obama seemed to offer his support for the construction of Cordoba House


and


Earlier this month a New York City agency cleared the way for construction of Cordoba House.

Hew
08-15-2010, 03:36 PM
Obama realizes he stepped on his own willy yesterday and now tries the John Kerry Two Step:



“In this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” Obama told reporters accompanying him and first lady Michelle Obama on a trip to the Gulf Coast.


Sorry, Obama, but as President you don't get to vote, "present." You brought it up and interjected yourself into the discussion yesterday. Wag your finger, tell us you want to be perfectly clear, and then act like a President is supposed to act and let us know what you think about a mosque being built in the debris field of 9-11...even if it isn't what 70% of the country doesn't want to hear.

kjrice
08-15-2010, 04:25 PM
It will get bombed.

Just like there are many freedoms we enjoy, it doesn't mean there is freedom to enjoy it wherever you want. Putting a mosque there is intentional and will cause more problems than it is worth. There are other suitable areas in the city to build a 13 friggin story mosque. Let's get past all the frosting and get straight to common sense.

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 04:58 PM
Obama realizes he stepped on his own willy yesterday and now tries the John Kerry Two Step:



Sorry, Obama, but as President you don't get to vote, "present." You brought it up and interjected yourself into the discussion yesterday. Wag your finger, tell us you want to be perfectly clear, and then act like a President is supposed to act and let us know what you think about a mosque being built in the debris field of 9-11...even if it isn't what 70% of the country doesn't want to hear.
There you go, exaggerating again. All of lower Manhattan was covered by debris from the collapse. Was that what you meant? If so, fine. Your exaggerated notion of hallowed ground encompasses an area with a daytime population of more than 2 million. If you mean the area in which buildings were demolished , however, you are wrong. That area cannot be seen from 51 Park Place and 51 Park Place cannot be seen from that area. Instead, what will be displaced by the proposed project is an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory warehouse, that was deemed by local authorities to have zero historic value. That block is a pretty trashy block. It was a trashy block 30 years ago, and has not improved over time.

gman0046
08-15-2010, 05:02 PM
Yardley, whats the deal? Are you an American or a muslim? You've posted almost 6,000 times and have always sided with muslims, Obongocare, illegal aliens, Taliban, Pakistani's, Black Panthers, terrorists, etc. You are in the minority on every subject on this board. Why don't you just "get it" ?

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 05:12 PM
Yardley, whats the deal? Are you an American or a muslim? You've posted almost 6,000 times and have always sided with muslims, Obongocare, illegal aliens, Taliban, Pakistani's, Black Panthers, terrorists, etc. You are in the minority on every subject on this board. Why don't you just "get it" ?
By "get it", it sounds like you are suggesting that I should adopt your attitude, which would go much better with a white robe and hood (witness your post on rag heads). I've "gotten" prejudice for most of my life. However, my notions of tolerance do not include remaining silent while people like you spew hatred. Our forefathers came to this country to escape religious bigotry, not extend it. They embedded that commitment into our Constitution. Who are you to declare that support of our Constitution's guarantees is somehow un-American? What is un-American is challenging another person's patriotism when you won't even identify yourself.

Julie R.
08-15-2010, 05:39 PM
I liked the idea the guy on "Red Eye" had Greg Whateverhisnameis to open a gay bar across the street from the mosque called "You Mecca Me Hot"

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/Best.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/Best.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/Best.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/Best.gif
OMG, Julie! Where is your "post of the day" award?

Gerry if you hadn't quoted that post of Ken's I might never have noticed it.

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/abigrofl.gif http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/Smilies/yourock.gif

And, in thinking about this and talking about it with several friends including two who are rather more liberal than me, we decided that, it would indeed be wrong to disallow this structure from being built near GZ but, in keeping with other religions and industries that helped make this country the way it is, we decided it should be built in the center of a block flanked by 14-story synagogues or Jewish community centers and within scent of a pork processing factory, with plenty of bars and perhaps a NAMBLA center adjacent. After all according to Yardley isn't it already a trashy block?

gman0046
08-15-2010, 05:47 PM
Yardley, you made a decision to join a minority group that has caused you to be discriminated against. Whats your problem?