F
freedomm
Guest
Dear cestusdei:
Do you think people really care what an individual Catholic, like you, believe and do, as opposed to what Catholic Church’s “infallible” Pope did?
Are you an offical rep. of ex-Pope?
- Status
Do you think people really care what an individual Catholic, like you, believe and do, as opposed to what Catholic Church’s “infallible” Pope did?
Are you an offical rep. of ex-Pope?
C
cestusdei
Guest
pro, if they kill Abdul maybe we should burn the book that tells them to do such murderous things.
P
pro_universal
Guest
That’s exactly the kind of Nazi spirit that the Pope wants you to free yourself of.
Maybe we should burn copies of the Talmud too, since it got Jesus killed and brands him a liar! How about desecrating stars of david wherever we see them?
“I’ll respect the talmud when Jews stop calling Jesus a liar”
See where this kind of “if they do it to us, we should do it to them” thinking leads us?
C
cestusdei
Guest
I would burn Mein Kampf with no qualms. You are more concerned about the quran then about Abdul. That’s Nazi-like.
P
pro_universal
Guest
It doesn’t matter if you would burn Mein Kampf, because you’re rewriting a new version anyway. The new version by you says “Muslim” instead of “Jew.” And it even calls for a final solution…nuclear weapons on muslim holy sites.
Honestly, how can you call yourself a follower of Jesus when you publically admit that you support killing millions of people in reprisal strikes?
C
cestusdei
Guest
We lived with it throughout the cold war because the threat was the only thing that stopped the communists. It may be the only thing that will stop Osama. You never have given an alternative. I would love to hear it. Let me guess: surrender? send flowers? hide? convert to Islam? Please tell us.
You cry over a theoritical scenerio. BUT when a real live man named ABDUL, a Christian, is facing death what do you do? Excuse his killers and pretend nothing is wrong. And of course change the subject. You could care less about innocent lives. It’s all theory and ideology to you. Abdul doesn’t count in your mind. But he is real and this is reality. The man could likely be killed soon. Your response is to call ME a nazi and not the real killers. Typical liberal.
You cry over a theoritical scenerio. BUT when a real live man named ABDUL, a Christian, is facing death what do you do? Excuse his killers and pretend nothing is wrong. And of course change the subject. You could care less about innocent lives. It’s all theory and ideology to you. Abdul doesn’t count in your mind. But he is real and this is reality. The man could likely be killed soon. Your response is to call ME a nazi and not the real killers. Typical liberal.
P
pro_universal
Guest
Here’s an alternative: Faith that Jesus’s command to be peaceful is the truth, so we should adhere to it no matter what.
Aren’t you a priest who knows this?
You are trying to misdirect the point. I am calling you out here on your decidedly anti-Christian claim that using nuclear weapons is acceptable, and you start talking about Reagan policy towards the communists. Last I checked, Reagan wasn’t Jesus and “we need to beat them!” isn’t a valid basis for Christian thought.
Your continued whining about how there’s no alternative to nuclear weapons threats (a fact I dispute anyway) does not change the fact that, whether it’s the only method or not to win the “war on terror”, it’s forbidden by Jesus. If the choice is between dying or violating a sacred command of the Bible (thou shalt not kill), as a Priest, what do you advise your Parishioners to choose?
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear cestusdei:
Would you like to burn the Torah also which is ofcourse essential part of any version of the Catholic Bible, which contains this verse:
Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buried the same day: for he is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree: and thou shalt not defile thy land, which the Lord thy God shall give thee in possession.
Then would you like to burn “Saint” Saul/Paul’s books of the New Testament too because he in his mind thinks the above verse/idea refers to Jesus Christ which “proves” that Jesus was accursed of God. [God forbid]
How can a person accursed of God be **‘a man of approved of God’ ** too at the same time? What a mockery “Saint” Saul/Paul did about Jesus’ supposed death !!
Then would you like to burn “Saint” Saul/Paul’s books of the New Testament too because he in his mind thinks the above verse/idea refers to Jesus Christ which “proves” that Jesus was accursed of God. [God forbid]
How can a person accursed of God be **‘a man of approved of God’ ** too at the same time? What a mockery “Saint” Saul/Paul did about Jesus’ supposed death !!
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear LilyM:
Kissing anything does not necessarily mean worshipping. Kissing could be a symbol of respect or love or a certain tradition that has nothing to do with the act of worshipping.
Some people in the East kiss hands of their elders; does this necessarily mean they worship their elders?
E
exoflare
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
freedomm - we agree on something for once. I was being sarcastic in fact.
F
freedomm
Guest
exoflare said:
Dear exoflare:
In what sense my understanding of OT’s verse {Deuteronomy 21:23}is shallow, when I don’t even believe that Prophet Jesus Christ (PBUH) was crucified nor killed, let alone becoming accursed of God after dying on the cross/tree?
I have every reason to believe, even from your scriptures, that God saved him from such barbaric, unjust, unloving death and humiliation because God is Most Mercifull and He could not have let die His one of the mightest Messengers. May Allah’s peace and blessings on Prophet Jesus Christ.
In fact it is your “Saint” Saul/Paul - an early persecutor of Jesus followers - who teaches you all those shallow things from gospel of his own. Little wonder why this “Saint” Saul/Paul is considered the actuall founder of existing Christianty and not Jesus Christ.
Read the following from Dead Sea Scrolls Deception:
[Robert] Eisenman suggests that James may have been aware of the true situation and that Paul may well have been ‘set up’. Had he refused the ritual of purification, he would have declared himself openly in defience of the Law. By acceding to the ritual, he became, even more than before, the ‘Liar’ of the ‘Habakkuk Commentry’.
Whatever the course of action he chose, he would have damned himself - which may have been precisely what James intended. (2)
In any case, and despite his exculpatory self-purification, Paul continues to inspire enmity in those ‘zealous for the Law’ - who, a few days later, attack him in the Temple. ‘This’, they proclaim, **‘is the man who preaches to everyone everywhere . . . . against the Law’ ** (Acts 21:28). The ensuing riot is no minor disturbance:
This roused the whole city: people came running from all sides; they seized Paul and dragged him out pof the Temple, and the gates were closed behind them. They would have killed him if a report had not reached the tribune of the cohort that there was rioting all over Jerusalem. (Acts 21:30-31)
The cohort is called out - no fewer than six hundred men - and Paul, in the nick of time, is rescued, presumably to prevent civil upheaval on an even frater scale. Why else would the cohort bother to save the life of one heterodox Hew who’d incurred the wrath of his fellows? The sheer scale of the tumult attests to the kind of currency, influence and power the so-called ‘early Church’ must have excercised in Jerusalem at the time - among Jews ! Clearly, we are dealing with a movement within Judaism itself, which commands loyalty from much of the city’s populace.
Having rescued him from the incensed mob, the Romans arrest Paul - who, before he is marched off to prison, asks permission to make a self-exonerating speech. Inexplicably, the Romans acquiesce to his request, even though the speech serves only to further infalme the mob.
Paul is then carried off for torture and interrogation. As was asked previously, interrogation about what? Why torture and interrogate a man who has offended his co-religionists on fine points of orthodoxy and ritual observance? There is only one explanation for the Romans taking such interest - that Paul is suspected of being privy to information of a political and/ or miliatry nature.
The only serious political and/ or miliatry adversaries confronting the Romans were the adherents of the nationalistic movement - the ‘Zealots’ of popular tradition. And Paul, the evangelist of the ‘early Church’, was under threat from those ‘zealous for the Law’ -forty or more of them in number - who were plotting to kill him, vowing not to eat or drink until they had done so. Saved from this fate by his hitherto unmentioned nephew, he is bundled, under escort, out of Jerusalem to Caesarea, where he invokes his right as a Roman citizen to make a personal appeal to the emperor. While in Caesarea, he hobnobs in congenial and intimate fashion with the Roman procurator, Antonius Felix. Eisenman has emphasised that he is also intimate with the procurator’s brother-in-law, Herod agrippa II, and with the king’s sister - later the mostress of Titus. the Roman commander who will destroy Jerusalem and eventually become emperor. (3)
(2) Eisenman to authors of The Dead Sea Scrolls, 24 August 1990
Whatever the course of action he chose, he would have damned himself - which may have been precisely what James intended. (2)
In any case, and despite his exculpatory self-purification, Paul continues to inspire enmity in those ‘zealous for the Law’ - who, a few days later, attack him in the Temple. ‘This’, they proclaim, **‘is the man who preaches to everyone everywhere . . . . against the Law’ ** (Acts 21:28). The ensuing riot is no minor disturbance:
This roused the whole city: people came running from all sides; they seized Paul and dragged him out pof the Temple, and the gates were closed behind them. They would have killed him if a report had not reached the tribune of the cohort that there was rioting all over Jerusalem. (Acts 21:30-31)
The cohort is called out - no fewer than six hundred men - and Paul, in the nick of time, is rescued, presumably to prevent civil upheaval on an even frater scale. Why else would the cohort bother to save the life of one heterodox Hew who’d incurred the wrath of his fellows? The sheer scale of the tumult attests to the kind of currency, influence and power the so-called ‘early Church’ must have excercised in Jerusalem at the time - among Jews ! Clearly, we are dealing with a movement within Judaism itself, which commands loyalty from much of the city’s populace.
Having rescued him from the incensed mob, the Romans arrest Paul - who, before he is marched off to prison, asks permission to make a self-exonerating speech. Inexplicably, the Romans acquiesce to his request, even though the speech serves only to further infalme the mob.
Paul is then carried off for torture and interrogation. As was asked previously, interrogation about what? Why torture and interrogate a man who has offended his co-religionists on fine points of orthodoxy and ritual observance? There is only one explanation for the Romans taking such interest - that Paul is suspected of being privy to information of a political and/ or miliatry nature.
The only serious political and/ or miliatry adversaries confronting the Romans were the adherents of the nationalistic movement - the ‘Zealots’ of popular tradition. And Paul, the evangelist of the ‘early Church’, was under threat from those ‘zealous for the Law’ -forty or more of them in number - who were plotting to kill him, vowing not to eat or drink until they had done so. Saved from this fate by his hitherto unmentioned nephew, he is bundled, under escort, out of Jerusalem to Caesarea, where he invokes his right as a Roman citizen to make a personal appeal to the emperor. While in Caesarea, he hobnobs in congenial and intimate fashion with the Roman procurator, Antonius Felix. Eisenman has emphasised that he is also intimate with the procurator’s brother-in-law, Herod agrippa II, and with the king’s sister - later the mostress of Titus. the Roman commander who will destroy Jerusalem and eventually become emperor. (3)
(2) Eisenman to authors of The Dead Sea Scrolls, 24 August 1990
(3) Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, p.16, n.39; p.59, n.39
L
LilyM
Guest
Freedomm, God let EVERY SINGLE ONE of his messengers die - including the supposedly greatest of them all - Mohammed. Didn’t he die of poisoning? Isn’t that a horrible and barbaric death as well? Why are you still hung up about the fact that we believe Jesus cared enough about mankind to die for our sake.
And why are you still peddling falsehoods about Paul? He was accepted by every one of the other apostles as an equal, as Acts of the Apostles and their letters (which are preserved alongside his) show. They wouldn’t have done so if he was perverting the message passed on from Christ.
Now tell me, since you haven’t explained it, why did your allah confuse all the followers of Christ by letting it APPEAR that Jesus died when it was really either someone else or he was crucified but didn’t really die? This makes less sense than anything that Christians claim.
Is allah a deceiver? Is allah an entrapper of people into false belief? Is allah a liar and conman? I find it impossible to interpret Islamic beliefs about the death of Isa in any other way than that your allah is indeed all of these things.
And why are you still peddling falsehoods about Paul? He was accepted by every one of the other apostles as an equal, as Acts of the Apostles and their letters (which are preserved alongside his) show. They wouldn’t have done so if he was perverting the message passed on from Christ.
Now tell me, since you haven’t explained it, why did your allah confuse all the followers of Christ by letting it APPEAR that Jesus died when it was really either someone else or he was crucified but didn’t really die? This makes less sense than anything that Christians claim.
Is allah a deceiver? Is allah an entrapper of people into false belief? Is allah a liar and conman? I find it impossible to interpret Islamic beliefs about the death of Isa in any other way than that your allah is indeed all of these things.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Correct, after all, allah IS called the “biggest deceiver” in quran…read by thread called : “it appeared to them doctrine” and u’ll see where this appeared to them doctrine came.
And hey Freedom, still with Paul when your quran says it is the truth?
and all the bla bla about Paul, you find all he taught in the other gospels …death and crucifixion are in all gospels for example. As for the law, it was already explained…if you were unable to refute a thread made for YOU, tthen save your breath coz it’s hypocrticial…
I
inJESUS
Guest
Correct, after all, allah IS called the “biggest deceiver” in quran…read by thread called : “it appeared to them doctrine” and u’ll see where this appeared to them doctrine came.
And hey Freedom, still with Paul when your quran says it is the truth?
and all the bla bla about Paul, you find all he taught in the other gospels …death and crucifixion are in all gospels for example. As for the law, it was already explained…if you were unable to refute a thread made for YOU, tthen save your breath coz it’s hypocrite.
E
exoflare
Guest
Enough Paul for now, let’s quote some Peter…And hey Freedom, still with Paul when your quran says it is the truth?
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to thier own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. [2 Pt 3:15-16]
S
Shadowcry
Guest
Lol I shouldn’t have said anything at the beginning now look lol.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Dear Pro;
Your response and the response of Shadowcry is nothing but a bunch of double-speak. This is not about muslims doing something bad versus christians doing something bad. This is about how Islamic Sharia Law condemns to death a person who chooses to leave Islam for another faith.
Do you agree or disagree with this Sharia law? Yes or No.
Do you think a death sentence for Ahmed Rachman is a just punishment for his decision to convert to christianity? Yes or No.
Do you think it is God’s will that muslims should kill anyone who willingly leaves the faith of Islam? Yes or No.
Muslims who believe in human rights - including the right to a free conscience and right to practice when it comes to matters of faith
should stand up and denounce this action by the Afghanistani government. Their silence makes them and their faith complicit in the act in my opinion.
C
cestusdei
Guest
Today they are beginning to say Abdul is “crazy”. If he is insane then he cannot be executed. He refused to reconvert to Islam which the judge said is a “religion of tolerance”. I had to laugh at that. Apparently they are looking for a way out of the mess. Imagine if we decided to call people who convert to Islam “crazy”. They would have a fit.
I have a better way out. Call me crazy, but it’s FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
I have a better way out. Call me crazy, but it’s FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
S
Shadowcry
Guest
But you do bash Islam so by your logic it’s followers are crazy.
- Status