 |
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf
I ment exceptions as in very few Christians think like that today. Why do you keep bringing up all these old Christian nuts? How is it relevant?
I think I'll just quote Dissident :
|
Because you don't bring up any modern Muslims like for instance my friend Shirin, who doesn't wear a veil, or a burqa, or an aba, has her own job, her own car and doesn't espouse the violent overthrow of the United States or Great Britain.
It's very easy to say all Muslims are like this, or like that, but not actually provide any evidence.
I bring up the ancient and mediaeval Christians to show how little the thinking of some modern day Christians has changed with respect to the status of women.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have been brought up in a tolerant Lutheran Scandinavian country.
You only have to see what some of those modern day Christianistas have to say about homosexuality for instance, to see how very much in touch with the spirits of Tertullian and St. Jerome they are.
And I don't mean that in a complimentary way, either.
How many Muslims do you know personally, Gangerolf?
How many countries with an Arab or Islamic culture have you visited, just out of curiousity?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CyberShy

|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999 time: 06:35
|
|
A
The laws of the Bible are given to the Jews about 3000 years ago. It was the constitutional law for them. It was a very very civilized law for those days.
The bible doesn't put this law on todays society. Pete even says in the bible that we should obey todays laws.
The laws of the bible are not given to todays christians.
That there are christians who claim so doesn't mean this is what the bible teaches.
If someone disagrees: tell me in this thread were in the Bible the christians are commanded to keep the laws of Moses?
Acts 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
Galations 5:13-14
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
in short: the laws of the Old Testament are given to the jews who lived 3000 years ago. Not to us.
NEITHER does the Bible tell the christians to force others to live to these laws. Neither by converting them nor by killing them or pushing them by force.
B
A christian who's a murder because he hates someone isn't a murder because he's a christian.
There have been and still are millions of murders who are christians. They do not murder because they're christians, they murder despite they're christians. The Bible says that christians are not better then non-christians. We are murderers as well 
If an anti-abortion terrorist kills abortion-doctors, he's mainly murdering because he's against abortion.
Not because he's a christian. Of course his anti-abortion idea comes from his christian background. But the Bible doesn't tell people to kill abortion-doctors.
The Bible even says to not kill at all but love the other men.
There have been millions of christians, mainly in the past, who have killed in name of christianity though. 
Unfortunately indeed. I'm really sorry for that.
But it is clear to everyone who reads the bible that they did not have any biblical right to do so.
They didn't follow the teachings of the bible when they murdered those people.
People who don't do what the bible tells them to do can hardly be named christians. Even if they call themselves christians.
You can't compare christianity for that reason with the islam.
The islam does call for jihad. There are different interpertations on what jihad means. but a large ammount of the muslims does support the terrorists in these days.
People were cheering, even here in Holland, on 9/11.
I am aware that the majority of the muslims, for sure in western countries, is against these terrorists.
But no-one can deny that a lare piece of the muslims worldwide does support terrorism.
Only someone with an anti-christian background can seriously try to compare christianity and christians with muslims on this.
And sadly the group of these people is growing.
Oh well, that's what the bible already predicted 2000 years ago.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
Vince:
There is no leadership in the sunni muslim ummah (community of believers). the Caliphate was ended by Kamal Ataturk in 1922 so there is no leadership. The Sunnis have always been a congregationalist and individualistic faith so there is no priesthood in Sunni Islam... the closest thing to a religious leader are the mullahs, but these are just learned men who primarily teach religious schools and lead prayers at the mosque (though any muslim can lead prayers so the mullahs aren't exactly priests)
the most learned and respected of the mullahs are called imams. These are not to be confused with the Shiite imams which are messianic religious leaders. The Shiites also have Ayatollahs that are essentially prophets (though according to dogma, the last prophet, of course, was Mohammed)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
I understand all that. Hard to call it an organized religion if everyone can do what they want within loose guidelines. The root of the problem (and the solution) may lay with whatever binds them together.
I thought it was heresy to say there are prophets after Mohammed. Wouldn't that make Shites apostate and therefore under a death sentence according to the Koran? Sounds like Islam has been plagued with problems since its inception.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
well yeah... to the Sunnis, the shiites are apostates and heretics. vice versa if you ask the shiites.
but yeah SUNNI islam is a very individualistic religion with a loose ummah. the daily ritual of prayers is done on an individual basis and there is only group religious activity on friday mosque (though this isnt mandatory) and on pilgrimages. The idea is that nothing should come between an individual and God, not even a priest so Sunni islam is priestless. It's likely many founders of protestant churches took a page from Islam when they were organizing their churches.
Until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Caliphate had both religious and secular power but it was always tenious ever since Maiwaya (son of the long-term rival of Mohammed) and Ali (Mohammed's son in law) fought over the caliphate... the result was schisms which caused the Sunni/Shiite/Ismaili divide but also caused there to be a number of caliphs (caliph of baghdad, caliph of damascus, of egypt, of spain, and so on). What should have been a powerful leader controlling both religious and political affairs became a figure head to emirs and sultans.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
i think spink is just mad that muslims prohibit the drinking of alcohol... that's your real beef with islam, isn't it, spink?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer
It's likely many founders of protestant churches took a page from Islam when they were organizing their churches. |
I've sometimes noticed the similarities too.
I'm pretty good on the historical aspects of Islam. On the great schism I'd have to say the Shite claim to the caliphate was more valid.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
more valid? having all the caliphs be descendents of Mohammed as opposed to the Sunni way of electing the caliph? The Shiite way of choosing the caliph, their mysticism, and their mythology of the 12 imams, make the Shiites a regressive force in Islam
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vince278
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer
more valid? having all the caliphs be descendents of Mohammed as opposed to the Sunni way of electing the caliph? The Shiite way of choosing the caliph, their mysticism, and their mythology of the 12 imams, make the Shiites a regressive force in Islam |
Descendent caliphs was how it started. Pre- and post- schism Shiites were more or less like the rest at the time and then (from a Sunni point of view) degenerated into something more cult-like. Hard to say what would have happened if there was no schism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
no descendent caliphs was not how it started... Abu Bekr, the first caliph, was Mohammed's father-in-law... his hand-picked successor, Umar, was not even related at all to Mohammed's line. Umar arranged for a group of six men to choose his successor, Uthman, who was of the rival family of Mohammed's, the Umayyads. Uthman was assassinated by supportors of Mohammed's son-in-law, Ali. (the start of the sunni/shiite split) At this point there was no clear Caliph.
In retailiation for the murder of Uthman, the Umayyads, led by Muawiya, killed Ali and Muawiya, having the loyalty of the largest army, couped the caliphate. He was succeeded by his son, Yazid, who was opposed by followers of the dead Ali and followers of ibn Zubayr, a distant relative of Abu Bekr. Yazid was killed and ibn Zubayr's short-lived empire caused the Umayyad caliphate to temporarily collapse... it just gets crazy after that 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|