Christian forums

[got tonkaed]

while i dont personally believe in this interpretation (which shouldnt be surprising as a non christian)

but i think plenty of people using the bible interpret in a way that they would advocate the creation of a state on earth, or at least would desire one.

OA just because you dont see it that way (nor do i really) doesnt mean there arent a number of people who do, take Fred Phelps for instance. Wacko views aside, he does believe there should be a state that is closer to the idea of a certain biblical interpretation. There are others who are much more moderate in view, who hold a similar kind of concept up.

[OnlyAmbrose]

while i dont personally believe in this interpretation (which shouldnt be surprising as a non christian)

but i think plenty of people using the bible interpret in a way that they would advocate the creation of a state on earth, or at least would desire one.

OA just because you dont see it that way (nor do i really) doesnt mean there arent a number of people who do, take Fred Phelps for instance. Wacko views aside, he does believe there should be a state that is closer to the idea of a certain biblical interpretation. There are others who are much more moderate in view, who hold a similar kind of concept up.

Oh I know there are nuts who are totally against the concept of separation of Church and state, and I'm just saying that their views are not biblically based. I think the Bible gives a lot of leeway to Christians in terms of their support or opposition to political systems. I'm all for secular Democracy. There are plenty of Christians who aren't, but their views on separation of Church and state are not a result Bible, but rather their own personal views on the role of government.

[Neoteny]

EDIT: Nevermind...

[Jenos Ridan]

If you take the bible literal, and I mean real fucking literal, then you'll get a very totalitarian state too.

I don't agree with that, actually. The Bible basically teaches indifference to politics, or at the very least submission to the powers that be. The "totalitarian state" idea comes mostly from the Old Testament, in which case the state was basically run by God. I wouldn't mind living in a totalitarian state run by God, but there is no such state in existence right now.

Well yeah, but the old testament is still part of the bible.

Your point? In fact, a fair amount of the OT only applies to agrarian communities (planting different seeds in different fields, not cooking a calf in cows milk, etc.)

As it is, the New Testament preaches an indifference to basically any form of political power. Basically, it says that it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, free or slave... because in the end this is a perishable earth and life. I can make a very good case for separation of Church and state from the teachings of both Jesus and Paul.

Can't argue with you there. You're right that the new testament doesn't speak any way or another about a totalitarian state. But I must say that a lot of fundamentalist's try to argue for that. And while they might be missing some teachings, they also have the point that while Jesus doesn't encourage a theocracy, he is neither opposed to it.
And I think that the fact that Jesus lived in a dictatorship might have influenced his teachings not to mess with the law. Democraticly turning to a theocracy might have not been something he would've anticipated. (In the sense that democracy didn't exist at that time.)

Glad to see that we are at least in the same neighborhood of thought.

I'm not saying christianity (or islam for that matter) neccesarily endorses one kind of government, but the fact that it doesn't also means it can support any kind of government.


And don't forget the fact that fundamentalists have a tendency to ignore anything that doesn't speak for a totalitarian government. I mean, look at huckabee...

Well, some people tend to get all hung up on a few verses but forget about the rest. Those people, however, are not Christians; they're called Hypocrites.

BTW, Islam DOES indorse totalitarianism. Read up on it and you'll see what I mean. (I'm not joking or being derisive, actually go and look it up. Read the Koran and pay close attention about the parts concerning Infidels and Dhirmititude.)

Christianity can, and does, exist under any government, whether they're "In Charge" (as if such a concept is really possible) or not.

[Neoteny]

Well, some people tend to get all hung up on a few verses but forget about the rest. Those people, however, are not Christians; they're called Hypocrites.

BTW, Islam DOES indorse totalitarianism. Read up on it and you'll see what I mean. (I'm not joking or being derisive, actually go and look it up. Read the Koran and pay close attention about the parts concerning Infidels and Dhirmititude.)

[MeDeFe]

Yeah, it's a little ironic, it would even be ironic without the second part.

[Napoleon Ier]

"moderate Nazis"

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying 'moderate communist'. It doesn't work. Yes moderate muslims exist, assuming they're all America-haters is like thinking all jews where yamacas.

Which was exactly my point...there cannot either be moderate muslims, only false "muslims".

to snorri
1/"u sed nazis so ur wrongzor11111" does not count as a valid case
for a disanalogy.
2/An ideology is not defined by people but by principles it holds.

[Napoleon Ier]

That place is sickening. Here, look at something someone posted;

[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]

I just want to track down this poor excuse of a person and punch them. One of my relatives has Down Syndrome, and it has NOTHING to do with the fact that she "committed sins in the womb." IN fact, if she needed the approval of God, she would've gotten it by now. She is the most polite girl I have ever seen. Her manners are extraordinary, and she is the nicest 14 year old girl I have ever met. Down Syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome! Get it in your head, you Christians! Hate to break it to ya, but even WIKIPEDIA has more sense than you. Science is far greater than religion, and besides!, she's as human as I, loving movies and TV shows, along with other things.

Take that, you idiots! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

I needed to rant about that. Stupid, goddamn'd Christians... I do mean possessed ones, normal Christians are very nice.

I entirely agree with you. These heretics are a disgrace...makes me want to start the inquisition again
Of course if Dancing Retard and snorri1234 had their way your friend would be killed "for her own good".

[Frigidus]

That place is sickening. Here, look at something someone posted;

[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]

I just want to track down this poor excuse of a person and punch them. One of my relatives has Down Syndrome, and it has NOTHING to do with the fact that she "committed sins in the womb." IN fact, if she needed the approval of God, she would've gotten it by now. She is the most polite girl I have ever seen. Her manners are extraordinary, and she is the nicest 14 year old girl I have ever met. Down Syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome! Get it in your head, you Christians! Hate to break it to ya, but even WIKIPEDIA has more sense than you. Science is far greater than religion, and besides!, she's as human as I, loving movies and TV shows, along with other things.

Take that, you idiots! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

I needed to rant about that. Stupid, goddamn'd Christians... I do mean possessed ones, normal Christians are very nice.

I entirely agree with you. These heretics are a disgrace...makes me want to start the inquisition again
Of course if Dancing Retard and snorri1234 had their way your friend would be killed "for her own good".

Aside from the lulz I got from being called a heretic, they're saying that they would abort a Down's Syndrome child, not everyones. That's just crazy.

[Napoleon Ier]

Read my posts before you comment on them.

[Frigidus]

Read my posts before you comment on them.

Oooooooh, misinterpreted that. You meant the Christians. Hooray jumping to conclusions!

[Napoleon Ier]

Read my posts before you comment on them.

Oooooooh, misinterpreted that. You meant the Christians. Hooray jumping to conclusions!

happens to the best of us

[Snorri1234]

Of course if Dancing Retard and snorri1234 had their way your friend would be killed "for her own good".

I'd say that is a way better reason to abort a fetus than saying it comitted sins in a past life.

But I don't actually know where I said I would abort a fetus with down-syndrome though.

[Snorri1234]

to snorri
1/"u sed nazis so ur wrongzor11111" does not count as a valid case
for a disanalogy.

Indeed it doesn't, but comparing a mere political ideology to a religion does. And certainly not when your argument is just silly to start with.

2/An ideology is not defined by people but by principles it holds.

A religion is not an ideology. The simple fact that there are many moderate christians and muslims basically means that they exist. Your argument that they aren't true christians/muslims is a basic True scotsman fallacy.

Person 1: "All Scotsmen are heavy drinkers."
Person 2: "That's not true, my uncle is a scotsman and he doesn't drink at all."
Person 1: "Ah, but he is not a true scotsman then."

Especially with something so complicated as religion, you can't just call anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs as you think they should not a true believer. When the only distinguishable factor between metaphor and law is what has been agreed upon by a bunch of learned people and a general agreement between everybody, arguing that one group isn't a true believer is just silly.

The only thing determining whether someone is a christian or muslim is the believe in god and whether they think Jesus was his son or that Jesus and Mohammad were his prophets.

[Napoleon Ier]

to snorri
1/"u sed nazis so ur wrongzor11111" does not count as a valid case
for a disanalogy.

Indeed it doesn't, but comparing a mere political ideology to a religion does. And certainly not when your argument is just silly to start with.
his prophets.

Actually you're guilty of informal fallacy through your unsound if valid argument that my own is a True scotsman fallacy. Scotsman and muslim are obviously two very different labels. Other than just call my argument "silly" you haven't rebutted. Seeing as how all you'll do is squeal "wrongzors!!!!godwinz!!111" we'll change it shall we?
A self-proclaimed communist who believes in free trade is not a true communist.
You see how your initial "true scotsman fallacy" knee-jerk reaction crumbles, so the next step is forray into metaideology.
As for your continued references to ideology and religion being references, what more to do than laugh? What more is religion than a fundamental ideological statement about the metaphysical?

[Frigidus]

to snorri
1/"u sed nazis so ur wrongzor11111" does not count as a valid case
for a disanalogy.

Indeed it doesn't, but comparing a mere political ideology to a religion does. And certainly not when your argument is just silly to start with.
his prophets.

Actually you're guilty of informal fallacy through your unsound if valid argument that my own is a True scotsman fallacy. Scotsman and muslim are obviously two very different labels. Other than just call my argument "silly" you haven't rebutted. Seeing as how all you'll do is squeal "wrongzors!!!!godwinz!!111" we'll change it shall we?
A self-proclaimed communist who believes in free trade is not a true communist.
You see how your initial "true scotsman fallacy" knee-jerk reaction crumbles, so the next step is forray into metaideology.
As for your continued references to ideology and religion being references, what more to do than laugh? What more is religion than a fundamental ideological statement about the metaphysical?

Of course neither of you has actually posted scripture from the Koran to back up your arguments...which is kind of what you're arguing about in the first place.

[Napoleon Ier]

8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the
land

47:4 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight smite at their necks

9:5 slay the unbelievers wherever you find them

[got tonkaed]

without proper textual analysis (which is a bit of a moot point cause everyone knows where eventually you will go with it)

this is no more beneficial than posting a number of other verses from any religions text, including the bible showing things that probably arent what people would identify as the core elements of their faith.

Jihad although a fundamental element, is not necessarily a physical struggle, it just as frequently can be a spirtual one.

[Napoleon Ier]

Tell that to the people Mohammad slaughtered in Jihad.

[Snorri1234]

. Scotsman and muslim are obviously two very different labels.

So are nazi and muslim.

It's not about the denominator scotsman. Obviously it's based on enthiticy in the example but that's not what it's about.

The fact is that your predicate (i.e. "support a totalitarian state") is not included in the accepted definition of the subject (muslim). Everyone but a few people argue for your definition, and you can't therefore claim your definition is more correct.
You can sit there all day arguing that the commonly accepted definition of muslim is wrong, but it won't do jack shit for you.

As for your continued references to ideology and religion being references, what more to do than laugh? What more is religion than a fundamental ideological statement about the metaphysical?

Well sure it's an ideology, but it's different from a political ideology like communism and nazism. You're applying one form of belief to another.
A communist is someone who by definition does not believe in free trade. A christian isn't someone who by definition thinks gays are bad and wearing clothes of 2 different materials is bad.

You are trying to change definitions in an argument. That's what is silly.

[Snorri1234]

Of course neither of you has actually posted scripture from the Koran to back up your arguments...which is kind of what you're arguing about in the first place.

That's not what we're arguing about. It's his definition of muslim.

[got tonkaed]

Tell that to the people Mohammad slaughtered in Jihad.

its not like you cant make the exact same argument about christians over a longer timeperiod with as many in number.

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course neither of you has actually posted scripture from the Koran to back up your arguments...which is kind of what you're arguing about in the first place.

That's not what we're arguing about. It's his definition of muslim.

Follower of Islam.

Islam (root SLM) = Submission.
Muslim (SLM) = Submitted One. (muC1C2iC3)

My studies of arabic pay off

A "Muslim" who does not believe in Jihad is no more a muslim than a "Christian" who does not believe in Prayer.

[Snorri1234]

Of course neither of you has actually posted scripture from the Koran to back up your arguments...which is kind of what you're arguing about in the first place.

That's not what we're arguing about. It's his definition of muslim.

Follower of Islam.

Islam (root SLM) = Submission.
Muslim (SLM) = Submitted One. (muC1C2iC3)

My studies of arabic pay off

A "Muslim" who does not believe in Jihad is no more a muslim than a "Christian" who does not believe in Prayer.

As tonkead already said, Jihad doesn't have to be a physical struggle. You could easily say that a jew who doesn't believe in stoning adulterers to death isn't a real jew.

You are basically saying that the only possible interpretation is a literal one, and futhermore that everyone besides you is wrong. Not wrong in the sense that they don't understand the danger of islam, but wrong in the sense that they don't know what words mean when reading them in the encyclopedia.

For shits and giggles I'm including the wikipedia entry here:
Most Muslims accept as a Muslim anyone who has publicly pronounced the Shahadah, which states, "There is none worthy of worship except God, and Muhammad is His Messenger."

Does Jihad appear anywhere in that sentence?

[got tonkaed]

lol i can make wild opinated statements as well.....

Americans who dont believe that we need to spread democracy by force as no more Americans than Venezuelans who do not believe Americans are imperalist pigs.