Da Vinci Code provokes protests ahead of premiere

[scandium]

Da Vinci Code provokes protests ahead of premiere

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=182827878&p=y8z8z8584

Christian groups as far away as South Korea, Thailand and India protested against the movie The Da Vinci Code ahead of tomorrow’s premiere at the Cannes Film Festival.

They were planning boycotts, a hunger strike and attempts to block or shorten screenings.

And here I thought only Islam did such things. :roll:

[Ducimus]

And here I thought only Islam did such things. :roll:

Jury's still out on that one. Lets see if they get violent and start riots and such like muslims do.

[scandium]

And here I thought only Islam did such things. :roll:

Jury's still out on that one. Lets see if they get violent and start riots and such like muslims do.

Or like christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics?

[CB..]

the bible actually mentions (i seem to remember) that angels were tempted out of heaven to sleep with human females---what happened to their bloodline ? i think that's a more interesting story me self--

[Ducimus]

Good point. But id argue thats not the mainstream biblethumper. In otherwords, how many Muslims were rioting over some (trivial) cartoons vs how many bible thumpers bomb abortion clinics? I'd argue that Islamic violence is more mainstream.

[CB..]

yup we lost the battle against fundamentalist religion (and quite a few other types of folks aswell) when we decided that a guy with a petrol bomb has more rights than a guy with some coloured pens-- yup we lost the war right then and there-- game over--

[Ducimus]

Your meaing evades me.


To reiterate one of my thoughts.. if your going to riot, at pick something a bit more meaningful then a couple cartoons. Cartoons!!! At least with something like abortion, you dont neccessarly have to condon the action done, but at least the zeal behind it is a bit more comprehendable by comparision. This isnt to insinuate that the object that is on the recieving end of these riots has more rights then the other.


Now, personnally the instant i heard about this movie i knew there was going to be protests, (all over the US) and to me, thats enteraining! :-j Primarly beause when people shove Jesus down your throat so often at every opportunity its quite fun to see these people get their panties in a twist .

[kiwi_2005]

Samoa has banned this movie :o

Its seems some ppl take a hollywood flick to seriously :-j

[scandium]

Good point. But id argue thats not the mainstream biblethumper. In otherwords, how many Muslims were rioting over some (trivial) cartoons vs how many bible thumpers bomb abortion clinics? I'd argue that Islamic violence is more mainstream.

True, you have a point here. Recall though that it wasn't that long ago when christianity was every bit as backward (when scientific inquiry can and was judged blasphemous and its practioners condemned to death for it; the various "witch trials", etc). My point is only that Christianity is merely a little more evolved, yet being itself a religious doctrine not so different from Islam, shares many of its theocratic/authoritarian tendencies. Because it is more "wordly" now these tendencies are expressed differently (in a more "civilized" manner), but they remain all the same.

While the hooplah over this fictional movie is just as silly as the cartoon protests, the christian fundamental lobby does exert real influence on serious matters of policy that effect everyday life: things like religious based opposition to abortion and contraceptive use (where christian fundamentalist opposition to condom usage and distribution in African countries results, ultimately, in thousands of deaths to AIDS), the HPV/cervical cancer vaccine, and to stem cell research setting back who knows how long how many possible cures, all have real consequences to people somewhere everyday. However these stories are less sensational than a Muslim getting stoned for adultery in some 3rd world hellhole that most people have never even heard of, let alone been to.

[Ducimus]

Recall though that it wasn't that long ago when christianity was every bit as backward (when scientific inquiry can and was judged blasphemous and its practioners condemned to death for it; the various "witch trials", etc). My point is only that Christianity is merely a little more evolved,

I agree, id never argue against that. The only difference between christiantly and islam is a few hundred years of evolution, but otherwise they are essnetually the same. Try telling that to the devote though! Ohhh thats entertainment. But i degress, this difference is a key difference. How often do you hear about a christian zealot hijacking airplanes, bombing buildings, or the like?

Then again In some odd ways modern christiantly is worse then islam because it's advocates are very manipulative and find new and intresting ways to force others to live by their beleifs. Sometimes im not sure which is worse, but in the end, if i had to put up with, and live with either of these groups, id pick the one that wont blow me up or decapitate me simply beause i dont agree with them.

[DeepSix]

The problem with Da Vinci Code is the same problem as with Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and that recent book by... I think it was "Frey?" The one about addiction? They're all novels purporting to be true stories.

[Ducimus]

While i ahvent seen the movie, ive seen some of Davinci code in a little more detail on the history channel, and well, if you ask me, its alot like some masionic conspiricy theory......


http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/pics/signs.jpg
http://biphome.spray.se/wallius/private/believe.jpg

[scandium]

The problem with Da Vinci Code is the same problem as with Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and that recent book by... I think it was "Frey?" The one about addiction? They're all novels purporting to be true stories.

This is not true. The novel is just that - a novel. It is written by a novelist who writes fiction and who has made no attempt to portray it as anything other than that.

Like most stories, outside of science fiction, he weaves the story around actual events (in this case historical/biblical ones) which he in turn takes some creative license with. In this way the move is no different from the rash of historically set films that Hollywood has been releasing lately (such as "Troy"), in which artistic license (or "historical revision" if the movie made any pretense at being anything other than a work of fiction, which The Da Vinci Code does not) is used throughout.

One of the things the zealots want added to the movie, in fact, is a notice shown at the beginning of the movie announcing that it is fiction - as if it needs it (when was the last time you watched a movie, any movie, with such a notice at the beginning of it?).

So the problem is not that the novel pretends to be non-fiction (at least no more than any other novel does), but that there is fear among the christian fundamentalists that their congregations might be naive enough to see it and not realize it is only a movie... and that they might (oh no!) even have their sacred beliefs challenged.

[TLAM Strike]

...if you ask me, its alot like some masionic conspiricy theory...... Conspiracy! There really are two Masons in Kafiristan trying to slowly take over the world. Conspiracy my ass...
http://img1.imageshack.us/img1/7360/king2ys.jpg

:-j

[Onkel Neal]

Not a very good novel, imo. Read it, found it pretty typical. If it was different subject matter, I can't see how it could have gotten published.

[Rockstar]

...if you ask me, its alot like some masionic conspiricy theory...... Conspiracy! There really are two Masons in Kafiristan trying to slowly take over the world. Conspiracy my ass...
http://img1.imageshack.us/img1/7360/king2ys.jpg

:-j

that movie is one my favorites!


We're not gods, we're Englishmen!

[Iceman]

the bible actually mentions (i seem to remember) that angels were tempted out of heaven to sleep with human females---what happened to their bloodline ? i think that's a more interesting story me self--

The bloodlines of such were wiped out in 40 days and nights of rain....Only one line survived.

Genesis 6
[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
[3] And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
[4] There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
[8] But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

It is almost funny reading the compairsions to Christianiaty and Islam....I think many people tend to "Lump" all Baptists,Catholics,Mormons,Protastants, into the category of Christian....The word Christian I thought meant a follower of Christ....In the Bible it speaks of no other religion or any religion for that matter....it speaks of Jew and Gentile.It speaks of the bloodlines of Abraham who is the father of faith

Genisis 17
[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee


[19] And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
[20] And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
[21] But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year


Muslims come from the seed of Ishmael and the Jews who were given the promise thru Isaac also screwed up by not listening to God and following His instructions so the Kingdom went out unto the Gentiles....until the "End of Times"...when the eyes of the Jews will be re-opened....the muslim is in the same boat as the Gentile as is the JEW....Christ did away with all JEW,Gentile,Muslim,Black,white,green,yellow and paid the price with his own blood and bought the human race for himself.

Christians true followers of Christs teachings know all these things must come to pass as the end of times draws near...it is nothing to fear like it has not been told about....the conflict at the moment is the Jew and the Muslim fighting over things that they have no control over really anyways...they're eyes are closed...they're spiritual eyes...

Galatians 4
[22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
[23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
[25] For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
[26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
[27] For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
[28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
[29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
[30] Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
[31] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Those who will live, will live by faith.Faith in what Jesus did so there is no boasting of works.The scriptures are encrypted that those of the flesh will not understand but those who have the key will hear and understand.

Peace

[The Avon Lady]

the bible actually mentions (i seem to remember) that angels were tempted out of heaven to sleep with human females---what happened to their bloodline ? i think that's a more interesting story me self--

The bloodlines of such were wiped out in 40 days and nights of rain....Only one line survived.

Genesis 6
[1] And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
[2] That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Another classic early Christian mistranslation.

Original Hebrew interpretation:

1. And it came to pass when man commenced to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them.

2. That the sons of the nobles saw the daughters of man when they were beautifying themselves, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose.

On this, Rashi (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/rashi.html), the most standardized commentary on the Torah, compiles the following existing explanations:

the sons of the nobles
Heb. בָּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (bnei elohim), the sons of the princes (Targumim) and the judges (Medrash Gen. Rabbah 26:5). Another explanation: בָּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים (bnei elohim) are the princes who go as messengers of the Omnipresent. They too mingled with them (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 22). Every אֱלֹהִים (elohim) in Scripture is an expression of authority, and the following proves it (Exod. 4:16):“And you shall be to him as a lord (לֵאלֹהִים - le'lohim)” ; (ibid. 7:1):“See, I have made you a lord (אֶלֹהִים - elohim).”

[The Avon Lady]

And here I thought only Islam did such things. :roll:

Jury's still out on that one. Lets see if they get violent and start riots and such like muslims do.
Or like christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics?
Or like non-denominational eco-terrorists (http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/23/eco-terrorism-101/).

Where are Christians commanded to kill abortionists? Site the scriptures. What Church groups advocate this, sighting religious legal doctrine?

Now ask yourself what do Islamic texts, legal fatwahs and schools of scholarship say regarding blasphemers and those that insult Islam and/or its prophet?

These 2 things are not alike. Some day you might just catch on. Here's a refresher (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm) for you.

[scandium]

Or like non-denominational eco-terrorists (http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/23/eco-terrorism-101/).

I'm not sure what your point here is with the link to paid right- wing shill Michelle Malkin. That she doesn't like Al Gore and makes a living publishing diatribes against anything perceived as "left-wing"? Never would have guessed that.

Where are Christians commanded to kill abortionists?
Site the scriptures. What Church groups advocate this, sighting religious legal doctrine?

Not sure what your point is here. Are you denying christian extremists have ever blown up an abortion clinic? In any case I had my fill of the scriptures going to Catholic school and won't be debating any theology here with you or anyone else. You don't have to be a biblical scholar though to have noted such instances over the years; you simply have to had to have picked up a newspaper (this is also where most of us prefer to read about current events as it tends to be more up-to-date than the scriptures).

Now ask yourself what do Islamic texts, legal fatwahs and schools of scholarship say regarding blasphemers and those that insult Islam and/or its prophet?

These 2 things are not alike. Some day you might just catch on. Here's a refresher (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm) for you.

The only thing I see here is that you (and others here) happily trash Islam at the drop of a hat while giving christianity a free pass. Which is fine, but please spare me the history re-write as one doesn't need to be a theologist to keep abreast of current events.

[scandium]

Not a very good novel, imo. Read it, found it pretty typical. If it was different subject matter, I can't see how it could have gotten published.

The reviews of it weren't very kind either, which surprises me as its not often Tom Hanks puts out a dog. I haven't seen it or read the novel, but I just finished reading another one by him (Deception Point) that was pretty awful. The writing wasn't bad - okay dialogue, good pacing and narrative - but the main character kept having near-death encounters over, and over again (and escaping virtually unscathed). To give you a sample of what I mean (spoilers):

She gets shot by an ice bullet (do these even exist?) but her and 2 out of 3 of her companions still, despite being unarmed, escape the Special Forces asassination squad of 3 "trained killers";

however they do fall off the glacier - only to survive because the drop was only 10 feet;

but then the ice shelf they land on breaks off (assisted by the detonation of a flash-bang grenade lobbed into the crevice by one of the evil-doers) and the 3 plummet along with it into the arctic ocean several hundred feet below;

they survive the fall only to die of hypothermia;

only they don't because one of them had tapped an SOS onto the floating icepan which was heard by the sonar operator on a nuclear sub that just happened to be nearby;

then later that day they are attacked by the same hit-team and the main character is shot in the arm by the machine-gun turret of the helicopter gunship they are piloting, along with another who is shot in the leg and both end up in the heavily hammer-head shark infested water (they are off the coast of NJ now);

the main character happens to have been in an unpowered one-man submersible with a stuck hatch and its slowly sinking; her and the other characer survive (she is saved by the third character) who are all picked up by a Coast Guard helicopter that just happened to be in the area just as seemed certain our heroic threesome would perish in the water (again);

the 3-man hit squad, which has to be the most inept ever to wear a Special Forces uniform, are all killed during their attack by our previously cornered and unarmed heroic threesom.

The End (and no, I didn't make any of that up).

[Skybird]

Jesus' message does not command his followers to kill people that were not of bis opinion, or to make them submit and treat them discriminative. He - as he is described in the bible - also did not do that himself. Muhammad did, and the Quran holds plents of quotes where it is calling for killing done by Muslims against infidels, where as the killing is forbidden (self-defense against Islam is forbidden!?) for the infidel, and if they do it, it is so much more an evil act than if a Muslim does it, for whom it is an opportunity to gain praise and honour. Where Chrstian religion leaves it to God to decide on life and death, Islam decides on the basis of Muhammad's will and does the killing itself in the place of Allah.

I have no sympathy for fundamentalists in principle, but Christians fundamentalists are a group within modern christianity, wheres as Islam is a fumdamental relgion in itself. It compares to Chrsitinaity as if the Christian religion never moved beyond the old testament. But it did, and here we are, but they still lag behind over a thousand years and have prevented and killed any developement that could have led to new scriptures or reforming minds giving them something like Islam'S pendant of new testament or Jesus. Islam is the origin of it'S own standstill and theological stagnation. It must solve that itself, we cannot and should not rry to do it in it's place. Will cost us only our heads. Our ancestors had a bloody time to raise Chrstianity beyond the old testament'S content, and Islam mjst suffer that same painful birtzh, or it will become the doom of all mankind and civilisation - the great destroyer, but no constructor. I do not see it has the potential to acchieve that objective, unfortunately, and that makes Islam to a problem for all non-Muslim mankind.

I also do not feel christian fundamentalists on a crusade to make europe submit and delete my home culture and force me to become one of them, or penalize me if I do not join. I also do not see them rage through the streets like a horde of raby monkeys that often and on that scale as it is the case in Islam.

I find it idiotic to compare Muhammad to Jesus, or Islam to Chrsitianity on the basis of Jesus and the new testament. That's like comparing Jesus or Siddharta to Hitler or Stalin.

Problem is, scandium, Christians being violent are so in violation to Jesus explicit message. Comparable with regard to Buddhist. But Muslims being violent are not violating their relgion, but they follow explciit rules of their religion. It is ridiculous to compare Christianity to Islam on a theological level. Both are worlds apart.

As to the movie, they said in TV it has seen the most successful (financially) start there ever was after three days, don'T remember if it was meant on an international or national level, second only to one other film. Anyway, I always considered it to be possible that the biblic Jesus does not match the historical correct figure. I would not be surprised to learn that he liked women or maybe had a child, and I also would not be shocked. I do not believe in the miracles the bibles describes, for me they are metaphors. That Jesus maybe was a family man, and maybe someone else in his place was crucified, does not weaken the value of his words in the sermon on the mountain, and in so many other examples where he preached. In the end we all are just humans, in good and in worse, and some people's life is dominated by life and love, others by killing and aggression. That is true for you and for me, and for Jesus and Siddharta as well, and even for Muhammad. Some of us are just more wise and positive towards life than others.

[The Avon Lady]

Or like non-denominational eco-terrorists (http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/23/eco-terrorism-101/).
I'm not sure what your point here is with the link to paid right- wing shill Michelle Malkin.
LOL! Someone is paid and they become a shill. Oh, they're right-wing, so it's OK.
That she doesn't like Al Gore and makes a living publishing diatribes against anything perceived as "left-wing"? Never would have guessed that.
If you would like to point out her follies, go ahead, though I suggest another thread for it.

And my point was that numerous people exist with all sorts of beliefs but that doesn't mean they have established foundations backing them up.
Where are Christians commanded to kill abortionists?
Site the scriptures. What Church groups advocate this, sighting religious legal doctrine?
Not sure what your point is here. Are you denying christian extremists have ever blown up an abortion clinic?
Nope.
In any case I had my fill of the scriptures going to Catholic school and won't be debating any theology here with you or anyone else. You don't have to be a biblical scholar though to have noted such instances over the years; you simply have to had to have picked up a newspaper (this is also where most of us prefer to read about current events as it tends to be more up-to-date than the scriptures).
Here's a quote from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/modules/clinics/):
Acts of violence against abortion clinics and their employees have been carried out across the United States throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

There were 1,700 acts of violence against abortion providers between 1977 and 1994, with four people killed in 1994 and one in 1993, according to statistics from the National Abortion Federation.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has logged 167 attacks against abortion clinics over the past 15 years.

In 1984, there were 18 bombings against abortion clinics. In 1993, there were 78 death threats aimed at clinic employees. And, in 1996, bombings, threats and harassment affected about one-third of U.S. abortion clinics.
What religious bodies unequivically sanction these acts of violence? How many people are involved?
Now ask yourself what do Islamic texts, legal fatwahs and schools of scholarship say regarding blasphemers and those that insult Islam and/or its prophet?

These 2 things are not alike. Some day you might just catch on. Here's a refresher (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm) for you.
The only thing I see here is that you (and others here) happily trash Islam at the drop of a hat while giving christianity a free pass. Which is fine, but please spare me the history re-write as one doesn't need to be a theologist to keep abreast of current events.
We may be able to reach a point of understanding if you'll let me in on what history is being rewritten by whom?

EDIT: And everything that Skybird said. :roll:

[scandium]

Jesus' message does not command his followers to kill people that were not of bis opinion, or to make them submit and treat them discriminative.

He also died 2,000 years ago which means he isn't around to admonish those who pervert his teachings or selectively ignore them. All of which happens and has happened under the christian banner. In fact there is probably no better cover for irrational behavior on a mass scale than religion, including christianity.

I also do not feel christian fundamentalists on a crusade to make europe submit and delete my home culture and force me to become one of them, or penalize me if I do not join. I also do not see them rage through the streets like a horde of raby monkeys that often and on that scale as it is the case in Islam.

No because being a more evolved religion, christianity exercises more subtle forms of control. The example I cited here has led to censorship, in many countries, of a movie that is pure fiction. More significant than this trite example would be the influence exerted by the christian abstinence lobby on the developed world, where their efforts have succeed in curbing safe-sex practices and condom distribution. This has profound effects on the Western hemisphere as well when sexually transmitted disease are further spread there and find their way here as people emmigrate and travel.

I find it idiotic to compare Muhammad to Jesus, or Islam to Chrsitianity on the basis of Jesus and the new testament.

This is the problem skybird: you equate a critique on christianity with a criticism of Jesus. They are not the same thing. There is, in fact, considerable room for interpretation of the bible and the various christian religions are very diverse from the different faiths interpreting it in different ways - not all of them even remotely "mainstream". And not everyone who goes to church or adopts the banner of christianity is a theologist. Far from it. Many know little more than their pastor's/priest's/minister's interpretation and he can have considerable power over his congregation irrespective of whether or not he "gets it right" or what the New Testament actually preaches. Jonestown is an example. Waco, Texas, is another.

Problem is, scandium, Christians being violent are so in violation to Jesus explicit message.

That is of little consolation to the victims. The fact is that, right or wrong, people who do bad things in the name of christianity are every bit as convinced of their righteousness as those who do bad things in the name of Islam.

[scandium]

Or like non-denominational eco-terrorists (http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/23/eco-terrorism-101/).
I'm not sure what your point here is with the link to paid right- wing shill Michelle Malkin.
LOL! Someone is paid and they become a shill. Oh, they're right-wing, so it's OK.

They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it. That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?


And my point was that numerous people exist with all sorts of beliefs but that doesn't mean they have established foundations backing them up.

As you linked Malkin's commentary on Gore's global warming documentary to this point you really have me confused now. Are you suggesting global warming doesn't exist and comparing Gore's documentary on it to christianity? If so this seems kind of an absurd comparison to me. Whether you like Al Gore or not, global warming has been studied by actual scientists who seem to mostly agree that, if nothing else, the climate is changing and the globe is warming. The disagreement is mainly over the extent, the causes, and the consequences. That is quite a lot of different from a theological expert who is someone that knows everything to know about a single book and adept at rationalizing everything in the world that contradicts it. And who's evidence is impossible to observe or to measure.

[STEED]

Here are six remarks from the office staff here.


“What a load of hype over nothing the book was rubbish and the film is also rubbish”

“I fell asleep from boredom watching the film”

“I gave up on the book and threw it on my log fire”

“The film was weak”

“Droll and predictable”

“Slammer”

As for me I never read the book and I am not wasting money on seeing the film. And why it dose not interest me one bit as for the hype get a life.

Coming in 2007 The Simpson’s film now that’s worth seeing. :up:

[Konovalov]

I'm happy to say that I have not purchased or read a single Dan Brown novel.

[Konovalov]

They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it. That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?

I would place Malkin in the same group as Ann "Thrax" Coulter and Michael "Moronic" Moore. She is a verbal bomb thrower.

[The Avon Lady]

Or like non-denominational eco-terrorists (http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/05/23/eco-terrorism-101/).
I'm not sure what your point here is with the link to paid right- wing shill Michelle Malkin.
LOL! Someone is paid and they become a shill. Oh, they're right-wing, so it's OK.
They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it.
Why?

shill ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shl) Slang
n.
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

This belongs on a separate thread but I asked you before to show us her deceptions.
That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?
This does not define a shill. It defines an idealist or possibly an idealogue.
And my point was that numerous people exist with all sorts of beliefs but that doesn't mean they have established foundations backing them up.
As you linked Malkin's commentary on Gore's global warming documentary to this point you really have me confused now. Are you suggesting global warming doesn't exist and comparing Gore's documentary on it to christianity?
Something strange going on here. My link is to an article titled Eco-Terrorism 101. Watch the movie.

And the point was that there are lots of people with personal beliefs that violence is a legitimate means to achieve an end. Some people base themselves on their own decisions of right and wrong, others on what is dictated to them.

[Skybird]

Jesus' message does not command his followers to kill people that were not of bis opinion, or to make them submit and treat them discriminative.

He also died 2,000 years ago which means he isn't around to admonish those who pervert his teachings or selectively ignore them. All of which happens and has happened under the christian banner. In fact there is probably no better cover for irrational behavior on a mass scale than religion, including christianity.

I also do not feel christian fundamentalists on a crusade to make europe submit and delete my home culture and force me to become one of them, or penalize me if I do not join. I also do not see them rage through the streets like a horde of raby monkeys that often and on that scale as it is the case in Islam.

No because being a more evolved religion, christianity exercises more subtle forms of control. The example I cited here has led to censorship, in many countries, of a movie that is pure fiction. More significant than this trite example would be the influence exerted by the christian abstinence lobby on the developed world, where their efforts have succeed in curbing safe-sex practices and condom distribution. This has profound effects on the Western hemisphere as well when sexually transmitted disease are further spread there and find their way here as people emmigrate and travel.

I find it idiotic to compare Muhammad to Jesus, or Islam to Chrsitianity on the basis of Jesus and the new testament.

This is the problem skybird: you equate a critique on christianity with a criticism of Jesus. They are not the same thing. There is, in fact, considerable room for interpretation of the bible and the various christian religions are very diverse from the different faiths interpreting it in different ways - not all of them even remotely "mainstream". And not everyone who goes to church or adopts the banner of christianity is a theologist. Far from it. Many know little more than their pastor's/priest's/minister's interpretation and he can have considerable power over his congregation irrespective of whether or not he "gets it right" or what the New Testament actually preaches. Jonestown is an example. Waco, Texas, is another.

Problem is, scandium, Christians being violent are so in violation to Jesus explicit message.

That is of little consolation to the victims. The fact is that, right or wrong, people who do bad things in the name of christianity are every bit as convinced of their righteousness as those who do bad things in the name of Islam.

I don'T get what you want to point out.

Islamic violance against infidels is because it is acting in conformity with this ideology's rules and dermands. Muhammad practiced it with his own hands. He ordered it, Quran demands and praises it black on white. Several Hadiths call for it. Where Muhammad felt just offended, he took revenge and answered with massacre of males and boys and ensalving of women and girls. A Muslim being violent for these causes is in congruency with his religion's very basics.

Jesus did talk against violance. He did not raise his hands aginst others, he discouraged his followers to be aggressive against others. Nowhere in his teachings you find a writtendemand to kill and to overcome those that disagree with Jesus. Nowhere you find the written demand to wage war against infidels. Where jesus not only was offended, but even treated brutally and brought to dfeath - he did not call for revenge, but forgave his attackers. Where a Christian is acting violantly against someone of other faiths, or is oignoring the suffering of others caused by his own way of living, he is not in congruency with his religions basics, but he is explicitly violating it.

You cannot compare modern Christianity with Islam. Islam's clerics very much are in conformity with the teahcings of their religion, although sometimes being creative in finding reasons in the scriptures that are justifiying their doing (a good part of the Hadith may have been created that way, eventually). But the christian church IS NOT in conformity with the teachings of Jesus and the new testament where it is acting with war and powerpolitics like in the medieval (I exclude the crusades, becasue they would not have taken place if europe and the ancient Roman heritage of Christianity would not have been attacked by Islam first). Islam is right in it's critizism that the priests of the infidels have abandoned and distorted their own scriptures. In all my posts, for that rreeason I make clear distinctions between church and Christian religion in the understanding of new testament and Jesus, for that reason. I wrote that often enough. So far, so well. Problem is that Islam does not have to offer an altermnative that is of more value. The church in the past acted intolerant in violation of it'S religious basis. Islam still acts intolerant because that is it's religious basis. Chriszian countires have opened their societies for other cultures and religions, and now are overrun by Islam. Islam has progressed with a program of ethnical and cultural cleansing in it'S countries since it's very beginning, until today. The secret service of the Vatican, I referred to that repeatedly, said early in this decade, they have counted 100.000 slaughtered christians in Muslim nations per year, until today, victims of intentional and targetted murder and local progroms. It takes place in ALL Muslim nations, in some more, in some less. Now show me where this happens in Christians countries today! In Germany there is a weeks-long scandal every time there is a single assault against a single foreigner of dark skin or Muslim looking, and I can hardly imagine that in North America and all eiurope Muslims get slaughtered in progroms by the tens of thousands each year.

There has never been a valid fatwah against the slaughtering of infidels in Muslims countries, btw.

Really, I do not understand what you are aiming at. Are you trying to make Islamic danger appear less harmful by distracting attention towards the cruelty of other factions or times? Okay, interesting historical or political comment, then, but in no way it decreases the threat Islam poses to the rest of the world.

[The Avon Lady]

They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it. That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?
I would place Malkin in the same group as Ann "Thrax" Coulter and Michael "Moronic" Moore. She is a verbal bomb thrower.
Michael Moore lies and distorts. Coulter, IMO distorts and has some absurd opinions. But please find me where Malkin does the same? Again, I would prefer a new thread for this issue.

[Iku-turso]

I am feeling sick about all of this hype about Da Vinci -code.The book was absolutely rubbish and i think the film is also.
And i am atheist but i like good literature.
Da Vinci - code was one of the worst books i have tried to read.Maybe i compared too much for Umberto Eco :hmm:

[scandium]

Really, I do not understand what you are aiming at. Are you trying to make Islamic danger appear less harmful by distracting attention towards the cruelty of other factions or times? Okay, interesting historical or political comment, then, but in no way it decreases the threat Islam poses to the rest of the world.

My goal was actually to point out that christianity can incite the same fundamentalist authoritarian behaviour that Islam can attract. In Islam's more notorious recent case it was the cartoons and the outrage we sensible Westerns felt toward their protests and how quickly people were to condemn them for protesting. Here we have something fairly similar: a harmless movie which is purely fictional generates a totally out of proportion response (boycotts, hunger strikes, protests) that results in the movie being banned from at least two countries - so far - and yet there is no similar Western outrage to these christian protests that are limiting freedom of expression in the countries that have banned this film as a result.

In fairness I'm not even that outraged myself, but then again the Danish cartoon thing didn't get my blood boiling either. But then I personally view religion, with its basis firmly rooted in the irrational, as something similar to an international mental illness so their protests and such almost make sense when viewed this way.

[scandium]

They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it. That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?
I would place Malkin in the same group as Ann "Thrax" Coulter and Michael "Moronic" Moore. She is a verbal bomb thrower.
Michael Moore lies and distorts. Coulter, IMO distorts and has some absurd opinions. But please find me where Malkin does the same? Again, I would prefer a new thread for this issue.

One doesn't have to lie to be a political shill. To me its sufficient if they make their living on attacking only one political ideology while promoting the other. Consider for a moment that with the right-wing in power, someone who shills for them is essentially shilling for the government - you are reading something they consistently write in order to make the government look good and its opponents look bad. You are essentially reading Pravda, since that was Pravda's job as well.

If the left-wing were in power then left-wing authors who promoted the government's policy while attacking its opponents would, similarly, be Pravda as well. However until that happens those of us who read such left-wing rants will simply be practicing our right to dissent ;) That is the difference, subtle though it may be.

(in fact all political authors who write with this modus operandi are shilling for one wing or the other, but naturally if we're political and if our politics gravitate to one side of the spectrum especially, then we won't mind those shills who happen to share our world view... whether its ideological or pure opportunism).

[The Avon Lady]

They're a shill if they consistently promote the ideology of only one political spectrum while attacking/undermining the other and making a living doing it. That about describes Malkin to a tee. She's a "right-wing" shill because she consistently promotes right-wing ideology while attacking the left-wing. If she were doing the reverse she would be a left-wing shill, but then you wouldn't be posting her commentary here, would you?
I would place Malkin in the same group as Ann "Thrax" Coulter and Michael "Moronic" Moore. She is a verbal bomb thrower.
Michael Moore lies and distorts. Coulter, IMO distorts and has some absurd opinions. But please find me where Malkin does the same? Again, I would prefer a new thread for this issue.

One doesn't have to lie to be a political shill. To me its sufficient if they make their living on attacking only one political ideology while promoting the other. Consider for a moment that with the right-wing in power, someone who shills for them is essentially shilling for the government - you are reading something they consistently write in order to make the government look good and its opponents look bad. You are essentially reading Pravda, since that was Pravda's job as well.

If the left-wing were in power then left-wing authors who promoted the government's policy while attacking its opponents would, similarly, be Pravda as well. However until that happens those of us who read such left-wing rants will simply be practicing our right to dissent ;) That is the difference, subtle though it may be.

(in fact all political authors who write with this modus operandi are shilling for one wing or the other, but naturally if we're political and if our politics gravitate to one side of the spectrum especially, then we won't mind those shills who happen to share our world view... whether its ideological or pure opportunism).
Besides abusing the word "shill", this is unbelievable rhetoric.

I once again challenge you to point out any untruths that Ms. Malkin has stated.

[The Avon Lady]

My goal was actually to point out that christianity can incite the same fundamentalist authoritarian behaviour that Islam can attract. In Islam's more notorious recent case it was the cartoons and the outrage we sensible Westerns felt toward their protests and how quickly people were to condemn them for protesting.

Here we have something fairly similar: a harmless movie which is purely fictional generates a totally out of proportion response (boycotts, hunger strikes, protests) that results in the movie being banned from at least two countries - so far - and yet there is no similar Western outrage to these christian protests that are limiting freedom of expression in the countries that have banned this film as a result.
Simply astounding. Do the protests against TDVC come anywhere near these messages (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm) or the same extent of violence, destruction and deaths that were a result of the Mohamed toons? :nope:

[Konovalov]

I once again challenge you to point out any untruths that Ms. Malkin has stated.

You previously asked for distortions to which I have pointed in this new thread as per your previos request:

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=52814

[Skybird]

My goal was actually to point out that christianity can incite the same fundamentalist authoritarian behaviour that Islam can attract.
And I answered that one does need to realize that there is a difference between the church and its' followers, and Jesus teachings, whereas such a discrepancy is not given with regard to Islamic ideology (pendant to "church") , and Muhammad's commandments (pendant to "Jesus' teachings"). maybe because Jesus has not created and authorized any church and it's queer thinking at all, but all teaching of Islam has been created by Muhammad himself? ;)

You can twist it as you want, you cannot bypass the fact that Islam's scriptures and teachings explicitly call for violance and war against the infidels (it is no case of interpretation, but explicitly formulated black on white, beyond all doubt), while Jesus teachings as to be red in the bible do exactly this NOT, but the opposite. So when you be violent in the name of Islam, you are in confomrity with it, whereas you are violent in name of Jesus, you abuse him.

One would think that with regard to motivations, this makes an enormous difference.

A quote by one of my favourite writers, a quote that is often given in essays and articles: H.-P. Raddatz: "Von Allah zum Terror?", the second of three books analysing the challenge Islam poses to the West by comparing both cultures' different histories and different dogmatic theologies (my translation):

"In no other culture, not to mention religion, one can find the codyfying of murder, robbery, enslavement and enforcement of tribute payments as an obligatory religious duty. In no other religion one can find the sacred legitimation of violence described as the will of God against believers of different faiths, like Islam has integrated it as an integral part of it's ideology and codiefied it in the Quran, and confirmed it's validity in it's historical praxis. Last but not least beside Muhammad there is no other founder of a great religion, whose exemplary effect does not only includes warfare , but also the liquidation of opponents and critics by ordered murder."

[squigian]

That kind of thing was all over the place during the middle ages; the Futile System, the Barons, the Weak Kings, the Spanish Inquisition, Armadillo etc.

[Iceman]

I find myself liking the word "Shill" now for some reason lol...?

Forshills... :)

[scandium]

Simply astounding. Do the protests against TDVC come anywhere near these messages (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm) or the same extent of violence, destruction and deaths that were a result of the Mohamed toons? :nope:

You're kind of missing the point AL. One of the chief criticisms of Islam here is that Islamic societies are authoritarian and that its practitioners seek to impose their religious intolerence on others. I'm illustrating here, with this example, that this is also true of christians as well, when something comes along that questions or that is believed to be antagonistic toward their religion.

This is not true of all christians, but enough felt antagonized by the film (without having even of seen it) to get it banned in at least two countries. And this is only a trivial example of how chrisianity tries, and too often suceeds, in imposing its authoritarian beliefs on society.

By the way, back when we did live under christian (rather than secular) law, persecution, witch hunts, and trials by ordeal (ie: having your innonence determined by your ability to survive being thrown off a cliff) were the norm. The fact that it isn't now I credit more to the triumph of secularism in society than I do to any supposed "superiority" or "benevolence" of christianity over islam. I think it no coincidence that the same societies that seem so downright midieval to us also happen to be theocracies - very similar to the christian theocracies that many of our ancestors fled from.

[TteFAboB]

For fun: The Da Vinci code shouldn't be the only movie to be banned, we'd be better off without 2/3 of all the movies ever released! We should burn the films and cinemas where all this trash is played and spare ourselves from the embarassment.

Now seriously, leave Da Vinci alone. Dan Brown is a "best-sellerer", one who writes junk entertainment stuff instead of literature, and uses the always best-selling conspiracy theme, most of the time stolen from other authors. The book is just another Romance to feed down the throat, the story is interesting and well-written, but is not worth being remembered till the end of times. Buy it, read it, enjoy it or not, then buy the next one.

Let's take an example, should kids be allowed to read Harry Potter or should responsable parents give them something else with less comercialism, hype, and cult, as a member of this board once questioned? I say, it doesn't matter, you can read to entertain yourself, or to fill your spirit (and I don't mean the supernatural ghost thing, just in case). Harry Potter is not literature, like Dan Brown's books, but it's well-written, and intriguing. However, if you want to slowly devour a book, taste the words, feel the scent of the paragraphs, not for entertainment or joy, but for a deeper pleasure, then you'll put a condition, or however else convince your kid that if he wants to read Harry Potter, he'll have to read Hamlet too. Hamlet, a masterpiece, will not entertain your child, but it will teach the kid about the game of political power, and raise an adult better prepared to face the world of cloak and daggers, and have a sharper eye for power-hungry tyrants. Harry Potter will only make him wish magic existed, and dumb him down (compared to the alternative) possibly letting him vote for the same tyrants who have a magical appeal, false magical solutions to the problems of the world (I'm exaggerating to make a joke here, just in case).

The premise to justify the "banning" of the movie is foolish. Assuming Dan Brown is a liar, all his inventions will continue to exist and circle, receiving space in the media, wether the movie is banned or not, so it simply doesn't work anyway or serve any purpose even if you don't like it or believe it. There is also no excuse to infringe the freedom of expression in such a way in a Democracy. Anyone can make their own films against Dan Brown/Da Vinci Code or presenting their own views, as long as it's not criminal (incite to hatred, etc.), where there is freedom of expression there is the freedom of the press, to print books and articles against the movie, if that is the case/necessary/worth it.

It is important, however, that we do not fall into the trap of equating all religions, putting them all in one basket and discarding it. Religions are not equal, if we are not willing to understand Islam, Christianism, Judaism, Bhuddism, or another, and investigate what's particular to them, and why they are not exactly the same, though still share many similarities, we run the risk of failing this mission, never understanding the phenomenons, and alienating ourselves from any person who wants to use his religion against us.

Let's take this event, how many of us know how to answer the calls for banning, boycotts, etc.? How many of you would know how to talk, for example, to someone who doesn't like the movie at all?

"Go to hell, religious nut!"?

That won't cut it. The reality is out there, way too many Christians exist, like so many Muslims, if we ignore the religion and the churches, how do we expect to deal with all these people realistically? Are we better than a terrorist or an inquisitor when all we have to say about it is that by getting rid of each and every one of them the problem would be solved?

I don't want to live in a world where people are separated by their religion. Christians in Concentration Camp 666, Muslims in Disciplinary Virginal School 79, Jews in Golam, and Bhuddists hiding deep inside the Thai jungle.

I have only recently began studying Islam beyond the surface (I knew of the fundamental difference from other religions philosophically but not that it affected the entire structure so significantly), and now I know what a mistake that was. As most of us, I suppose, I was caught with my pants down.

As the saying goes: All it takes for evil (in this case, I suppose religious, hehe) to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

As long as Christians continue to let Evil men take charge of their churches, we'll find a movie director dead with a cross stuck in his heart someday. Or, as others would prefer, churches burned to the ground with people inside. We've seen this one before, it ended in the Holocaust.

[Skybird]

scandium,

as long as you do not realize that Christian churches and many Christian sects are not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the new testament, your arguments remain a contradiction in themselves. In opposition to that, Islam is very much in conformity with the teachings of it's founder. You simply avoid to adress this major difference. Muhammad gave a textbook of how to act intolerant. Jesus did not, bot taught how not to be intolerant and aggressive. How can you compare these two by saying "Christianity did like Islam?" the church did like Islam. But the church was in violation of it's religion in doing so. Islam is violant becaue it IS in conformity with it's religion and ideology. You compare a true Islam of the present to a perverted chrstianity of the medieval. You compare things that are many centuries apart. And you ignore the difference in authenticity oin both factions.no wonder then that your argument does not make much sense.

Want to tell you that we moved beyond the medieval. ;) That'S why we have protestantism now. and no more inquisition. No inner-religious wars, as we had for centuries. A diverse theology. A multi-faced philosophy. Science. Arts of many kinds. Legal protection of females. You compare the present of Islam to the christian reality several hundred years ago (and even then christianity never acted as aggressive - and as successful in that aggression! - as Islam.) You think it is politically correct that if one says Islam acts intolerant today, one need also to say that Christianity acted or acts the same way. Your demand of justice in argujent here is basing on a quantitaive argument only, not a qualitative argument. And that is were your chain of thoughts becomes weak from.

Islam's history is the history of the - by far - biggest, most expansive and most successful conquest of all times. It overcame all backsteps, all times of temporary defeat, it survived the Mongolian attack, it survived Spain, Vienna two times, the fall of the Osman empire. Not the mongoles can rival it. Not the Romans. Not the Chinese unification of kingdoms. Not the time of the fighting kingdoms in Japan. Not Alexandre. Not the empires of the European powers. None of these empires was as huge, as long-lasting as Islam is until today, and now Islam is expanding - again. the only thing that is different is that this time it does not try with military means in the first.

So again, please pay attention to the difference between Jesus' teachings and the NT, and the church not being in conformity with this, and Islam and it's teachings, both of which ARe in conformity. That the church acted violent when abusing it's religion hardly can be a counterargument in order to put a violent Islam into relation when it is acting in conformity with it's rules. there are qualitative and decisive differences, no matter if they are considered to be politically correct or not.

"Tolerance towards an evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann) Thanks again for that, AL! ;)

[scandium]

scandium,

as long as you do not realize that Christian churches and many Christian sects are not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the new testament, your arguments remain a contradiction in themselves. In opposition to that, Islam is very much in conformity with the teachings of it's founder. You simply avoid to adress this major difference. Muhammad gave a textbook of how to act intolerant. Jesus did not, bot taught how not to be intolerant and aggressive. How can you compare these two by saying "Christianity did like Islam?" the church did like Islam. But the church was in violation of it's religion in doing so. Islam is violant becaue it IS in conformity with it's religion and ideology. You compare a true Islam of the present to a perverted chrstianity of the medieval. You compare things that are many centuries apart. And you ignore the difference in authenticity oin both factions.no wonder then that your argument does not make much sense.

I'm going to have to get into scripture after all, since you seem to be insisting that christian acts of authoritarianism and intolerance have absolutely no basis in scripture and are only due to the church which is what seperates it from Islam. Read the following and then explain how you can feel that way:

Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Psalms 79:6: "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die..."

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

Those are from the Old Testament, and before you respond with "But Jesus...", I'll remind you that the christian book is made up of both the old testament and the new testament. While certain christian faiths may put more weight on one text than the other, there is no such universal practice and the bible contains no instruction to do so. The bible, again, contains both texts and having been raised as a Catholic and attended Catholic school, I know from my own prior reading that there are many more intolerant examples than these few. And this shreds your arguement completely as to the supposed benelovence of christianity versus the intolerance of Islam. Both are filled with intolerance and the fact that Western society isn't authoritarian and backward like Islamic theocracies is because of the rise of secularism and inspite of christianity, not because of it. We no longer live that way because our society is governed by secular, rather than christian, law.


Want to tell you that we moved beyond the medieval. ;) That'S why we have protestantism now. and no more inquisition. No inner-religious wars, as we had for centuries. A diverse theology. A multi-faced philosophy. Science. Arts of many kinds. Legal protection of females.

These things - science, philosophy, women's rights - have again attained prominence in spite of christianity, not because of it. Recall that there was a period in our own history when scientific and philosophical inquiry was carried out only at the peril of one's life - for blasphemy, heresy, etc - and that people really were put to death for these "crimes" against the church. The "church" being the instrument of organized christian religion that had profound, tyrannical rule over people's lives. They were, and still are, the body that interpreted scripture and presribed the "correct" way for people to live in harmony with it.

Islam's history is the history of the - by far - biggest, most expansive and most successful conquest of all times

Really? And yet when one looks at the continents of North America, South America, and Australia, one sees the predominence of christianity in these places and where it was not formerly even known to exist. If one continues to examine these continents a couple other things would stand out as well:

a: they were colonized by states whose national religion was christianity;

b: they were either accompanied, or followed by, christian missionaries to convert the indigenous "heathen hordes";

c: very few of these indigenous peoples remain in much of these places, having in many cases simply been wiped out completely by the supposedly enlightened and benevolent christian Europeans. I live in one such place where the indigenous native tribe that formerly occupied this region was exterminated, completely, by my European ancestors who colonized it.

If that doesn't count as conquest (with a healthy does of genocide mixed in there for good measure) than I don't know what does.

So again, please pay attention to the difference between Jesus' teachings and the NT, and the church not being in conformity with this, and Islam and it's teachings, both of which ARe in conformity.

Sorry skybird, but it doesn't work that way. It is profoundly intellectually dishonest to give christianity a pass by excluding the Old Testament (where all of the intolerance and such is that you profess christianity is free of) to make a point that "only Islam" is intolerant and authoritarian. That might work with someone who knows nothing of christianity, but being a product of one of the most influential christian faiths I know better.

[Iceman]

Scandium...you need to learn it seems the difference in meaning between "OLD Testament" and "NEW Testament"....Until you do your comments here are "shredded" and there is NO compairison...The NEW Testament was made by the testator...Jesus Christ. by the shedding of BLOOD, and ALL LAWS are summed up in one command now...Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.

That is it....This is where myself and Avon Lady come into conflict because the Jew sees this as abolishing the laws of old yet what Christ did was FREE us from the curse of the law...curse being that NO FLESH CAN be justified before God by means of the law.

The law is not abolished by Christ but fufilled, in following and accepting what was done for us we are saved thru grace and the works we do, we do now in pure FAITH that we may now please God and our works will be found acceptable to Him by our obedience to his command...which is....

John 3
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

When this is done in faith a new creature is created one of spirit no longer of this world.This is the difference between Jew and Muslim and "True Christian"...the old ways are dead.

[scandium]

Scandium...you need to learn it seems the difference in meaning between "OLD Testament" and "NEW Testament"....Until you do your comments here are "shredded" and there is NO compairison...The NEW Testament was made by the testator...Jesus Christ. by the shedding of BLOOD, and ALL LAWS are summed up in one command now...Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.


My point was that christianity, and its bible, includes both the Old and New Testaments and that if you exclude either from the discussion then you are no longer talking about christianity. Skybird does this by seeking to exclude the Old Testament from any discussion to focus instead on Jesus. I don't know what religious faith you guys are, perhaps one of the more obscure christian sects that prints its own dogma, but I've mentioned mine and its book does include the Old Testament.

As to the difference between a christian and a jew, I thought it was that Jews wore funny hats and didn't like pork ;)

[The Avon Lady]

"Tolerance towards an evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann) Thanks again for that, AL! ;)
An oldie but a goodie.
This is where myself and Avon Lady come into conflict because the Jew sees this as abolishing the laws of old yet what Christ did was FREE us from the curse of the law...curse being that NO FLESH CAN be justified before God by means of the law.
I regret not having the time to show the falacies of this Christian doctrine.
As to the difference between a christian and a jew, I thought it was that Jews wore funny hats and didn't like pork
And just what's so funny about my hats????!!!!! :hulk:

[Iceman]

Scandium...you need to learn it seems the difference in meaning between "OLD Testament" and "NEW Testament"....Until you do your comments here are "shredded" and there is NO compairison...The NEW Testament was made by the testator...Jesus Christ. by the shedding of BLOOD, and ALL LAWS are summed up in one command now...Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.


My point was that christianity, and its bible, includes both the Old and New Testaments and that if you exclude either from the discussion then you are no longer talking about christianity. Skybird does this by seeking to exclude the Old Testament from any discussion to focus instead on Jesus. I don't know what religious faith you guys are, perhaps one of the more obscure christian sects that prints its own dogma, but I've mentioned mine and its book does include the Old Testament.

As to the difference between a christian and a jew, I thought it was that Jews wore funny hats and didn't like pork ;)

Again...you are dead flat wrong....figure out the meaning of "New Testament" and I will speak with you again on this, until then you wander around in the dark not knowing what you are talking about....

God gave moses 10 commandments on the mt. AL and man could not keep 10...do ya think God is a God that would make entry to heaven so obscure and unobtainable that none could pass the tests? or keep all that was required to enter?.. just think about that ..what kind of Sic God do you believe in...I believe in one that had the foresight to see so far ahead in the garden of Eden when the fall of man occurred and His angels told him weeds were now growing amongst the wheat if they should Reap it all then and there he said NO...let them grow together until the end and then he would seperate them.

We need not continue this at all AL because I know exactly what you belive in and where you are...you are a slave in bondage to the LAW until the time appointed when your eyes will be re-opened.The Muslim is slave to his way as well, as is the Christian.But they are as different as can be.

See I quote Genesis there...the Christian does not "Discount" the Old testament it is a teaching tool yet he is not under it's bondage like the Jew chooses to be and it is a choice you make.

[The Avon Lady]

God gave moses 10 commandments on the mt. AL and man could not keep 10...
Really? Why?

Try it, you'll like it. :rock:
do ya think God is a God that would make entry to heaven so obscure and unobtainable that none could pass the tests? or keep all that was required to enter?..
Read your Bible:
For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.

It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
- Deuteronomy 30:11-14
God gave us Jews 613 commandments, not 10, plus the obligation to abide by Rabbinical laws as well.

We've been doing it for the most part for 3000 or so years. So, where's this problem you keep on referring to?
just think about that ..what kind of Sic God do you believe in...I believe in one that had the foresight to see so far ahead in the garden of Eden when the fall of man occurred and His angels told him weeds were now growing amongst the wheat if they should Reap it all then and there he said NO...let them grow together until the end and then he would seperate them.
This is very sweet but it's blah-blah.

BTW, if such a G-d is sick, why on earth do Christians even retain copies of the Old Testament? It's all wrong. Oops.....
We need not continue this at all AL because I know exactly what you belive in and where you are...you are a slave in bondage to the LAW until the time appointed when your eyes will be re-opened.The Muslim is slave to his way as well, as is the Christian.But they are as different as can be.
I am a very free person. I make all of my choices in life. Whether they are good or bad choices is up to my conscience and my knowledge.
See I quote Genesis there...the Christian does not "Discount" the Old testament it is a teaching tool yet he is not under it's bondage like the Jew chooses to be and it is a choice you make.
It was G-d's commandment to us. Your newfangled religion at the time was just one of numerous similar offshoots at the time. Jesus was a Jewish born blasphemer and false prophet, plain and simple, about whom the Torah states:
Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.
- Deuteronomy 13:1-6
Similarly:
But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.

Now if you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?"

If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.
- Deuteronomy 18:18-20
Enjoy our rejects! :yep:

[jumpy]

*yawn*
three pages about a story of a story of a story, which in all probability has no real bearing on anybody or thing now, or then, alive or dead. Nice to see some of you on your usual form though :lol: ;) (much more interesting than the film).
As a self proclaimed un-believer, cynic and skeptic, I find the whole premise of the Davinci Code to be a little far fetched (along with the bible etc). Even if it is a blatant fiction masquerading as an interpreted, possible truth, I see no reason to get all worked up by a mere film (press) about a fictional claim of a conspiracy of secrets based upon a ficional book. No doubt the film will be mildy entertaining, but as with all things hollywood there's a load of hype with the aim of selling movies; a point which some of the more fervent believers should take notice of... but I guess if you base your life and integrity on (imho) a work of fiction, albeit an allegorical one, then it's not a great leap of faith to find something contentious in a film who's subject matter is close to your own beliefs.

Can't see what all the fuss is about.
*yawn*

[Skybird]

Scnadium, what is so difficult in understanding that I make a strict differenc between christinaity understood as church/old testament on the one hand, and christinaity understood as Jesus' teachings on the other, which are very much the same what Buddha said, btw, just expressed in different culture-dependent verbal symbols...? Has the church been called "the Christ", or was it Jesus? The third or fourth time I tell this difference now (There is this theory, that Jesus, before he stepped onto the public stage, once travelled to In dia and met with and learned from Siddharta, which would explain a lot of the similiarities in both man's teachings). And like siddharta did not pay much attention to classical Hindu scriptures, Jesus did not pay much attention about the content of the old testament. for the most he was independant from that. Which pi$$ed the pharisees.

And you also compare apples with cherries. You accuse the modern West (partially rightfully) of causing harm in the third world, for his own economical benefit, in the present. well, leaveing out that others do like that, too, you all blame it on modern churches, as if they still are as influential as they were in the medieval. But it is not because of the churches today, but becasue of that thing called democracy and capitalism. I have essayed on the fact myself, that the difference between democracy and totalitarianism is that totalitarianism kills with it's own hands, whereas a democracies indirectly kills by letting others die without caring. I also referred to comprehensive academical works pointing out that statistically democracies of the last 110 years or so have more killed ones in their scorebook than all tyrannies, terror and WWI and WWII have caused together in that time. Statistically. Nevertheless, that is not neither because of the church, nor because Jesus. It is for economical interests understood in the way capitalism does: "the world revolves around the most powerful one". Capitalism has abandoned any religion, btw. It even makes deal with our enemy.

And with Islam you are dealing with someone who does not make a difference between religion and politics, like you don't do concerning the West, but in the West church and politics have separated, remember?. So what you acchieve with your intention to make Jesus' message look as bad as that of Islam, is this. Misunderstanding this thing called freedom of religious practicing, you hear the criticism on Islam as a religion - and compare it to western politics that mainly are intentionally triggered by economics and politics - not the churches, and even less by Jesus anymore. But you blame the latter, nevertheless, putting Islam "into relation" that way, on a 1:1 basis: both Islam and church (too weak!), Jesus (is not the church!) do the same evil, for the same reason. And by that you accept Islam to push through it's own and very different (and very totalitarian!) political agenda, wheresas you ignore the political motive of the Western business world (adding their responsebility to that of the church).

I don't understand you. You mess up categories of definition here, and you mess up western religion (in open retreat: the chruches are empty!) and economical powerpolitics as understood by industry and business. You say "the Christians", but you talk about economical politics and their lobbies and parties. Plus you do not differ between Church, which is christian for you, and the real message of Jesus, that in wide parts is in direct oppositiojn to the churche'S practicing in the past, whereas it has become more tame in the recent decades and centuries, due to the hoistorical develoepment that enforced the loss of power of the church.

BTW, I never said anywhere the blossoming of philosophy and arts and science and culture was because Chrstinaiaty or Jesus or church has been there. It all was, here you are right, DESPITE the church. The reformation was an opposing challange to it, the developement of science, and so on. Protestantism put'S it'S major attention on the new testament, calling it the "Frohe Botschaft", and especially on Jesus' message. It is fair to say that modern christianity has significantly moved beyond the old hate-preachings of the old, blood-dripping testament. But Islam has not, and has also prohibited any develoepemnt that could lead to new thinking and new interpretation. It never had a revolutionizer like Jesus who challenged the orthodoxy (that'S why they were after him). those who tried, were killed or eneded in prison, or submitted. No wonder that it still is stuck in the phase that compares to the Christian churches during the dark medieval or the inquisition, when they had their own political ambitions and also the power to push them through - this power the church has lost for the most. Or maybe think of the tribal religion and Judaism before christ's birth, both had not formed anything like christianity at all but still were stuck with the content of the old testament exclusively (the term "christianity" already directly refers to Jesus, called the "Christ". Withoiut Jesus, Christianity is undefinable. the church corrputed that link when starting to abuse Jesus for their own powerpolitics - an old Muslim critizism of Christian's priest that has been there from islam's beginning, and that - one must admit it - is true). These old societies and this way of thinking compares to that of Islam, because both derive from the same time and era and origin.

You simply oversee almost two millenias of slowly, blood, painful moving on for the Western people, and then compare them to something they had left behind centuries ago!

[The Avon Lady]

I don't understand you. You mess up categories of definition here, and you mess up western religion (in open retreat: the chruches are empty!) and economical powerpolitics as understood by industry and business.
Hmmmm..................

Sounds like something a shill would do.

:-j

[Skybird]

Finally I want to know - what is a shill...??? I only know chill, and so does the dictionary.

[The Avon Lady]

Finally I want to know - what is a shill...???
I posted the definition here (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=507854#507854) yesterday.

Taken from Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/).

[Skybird]

I thought that definition was part of a still running joke that I did not understand. :lol:

[scandium]

Skybird I guess I haven't explained it as clearly as it seems to me to be. But I'll take another shot at it anyway:

First, I don't think you can really compare Muhammad and Jesus (at least not when accepting both religions at face value for the purpose of comparison). Muhammed, even though central to Islam, was a prophet - a man. Jesus, on the other hand, is generally considered by Christians to be the son of God (and by other Christian faiths to be one and the same as God but that is a theological issue that is irrelevant to our discussion). That recognition of his tie to God is what binds the New Testament to the Old Testament, since if you don't recognize the Old Testament you have no theological basis to recognize either Jesus or the New Testament (doing so would imply a kind of theological paradox). The reverse, of course, is not true, as one does not need to recognize Jesus as being linked to God to accept the Old Testament; its possible to reject him as a false prophet, however to do so would of course mean to reject Christianity as well.

With that out of the way we come to the more intolerant passages of the Old Testament that I quoted previously as examples of Christian intolerance, and which are based in the very doctrine of their faith (and not just the institutional church). In darker times such passages were taken literally and used to justify all manner of terrible things that we no longer see today. Sure it was "the church" (as an institution) that sanctioned, even instigated, many of the things done in its name but they also exist in the Christian doctrine itself as well (the Bible).

Western society has become more progressive since then due, at least in large part, to a corresponding loss of the institutional power of the church (through the ascension of secularism) where it increasingly lost the power to promote the intolerance that is found in the doctrine itself.

My belief is that Islamic theocracies are the way they are largely because theocracies are themselves tyrannical, and that a Christian theocracy likely wouldn't be a whole lot different. It is very easy when one is raised in a society where one is raised with societal beliefs and values instilled in them that include their religion as only one aspect of it; it is very much another when the religion, beliefs, values and the society itself are all intertwined to the extent that they are almost indistinguishable. And when that happens I don't think it makes a lot of difference whether the religion is Christianity or Islam. But its only not possible because our society has evolved past the theocracy stage while Islamic society is still largely stuck in that stage. That's also why I don't see Islamic culture posing the same threat here that many others seem to see.

[scandium]

I thought that definition was part of a still running joke that I did not understand. :lol:

It was originally meant kind of tongue in cheek and I even had some fun with my expanded definition of it at one point.

[TteFAboB]

Scandium, a church is made of men, hence, if the men are good, the church will be good, or the contrary.

The point is NOT to ignore the Old Testament, the idea is what you make out of it, what Christians make out of it.

Is it correct for a Christian to use the Old Testament to justify a theocracy?

No.

Because a tyranical theocracy is in conflict with Christianity itself, if we understand it as a religion made of men that must be in accordance to the Christian mystic.

You generalize what cannot be generalized, because to abstract, you'd have to have all individual examples to be equal, and they aren't.

An example, while the Dominicans were burning someone, somewhere, St, Thomas Aquinas was writing his work in the back of their monastery.

What Aquinas wrote is in direct conflict, contradictory, to the inquisition.

Likewise, while a Jesuit was exterminating an indigenous tribe somewhere, another Jesuit was treating another tribe as equal.

What if the church was made only of these kind of men, and not the other kind? Who is right? Who is the Chriistian in better syntony with the Christian theology?

If you take the Christian theology, you'll see that the Catholic Church has not been run by faithfull Christians, and cannot claim to have acted in the name of Christianity, if it was in contradiction to the theology itself, especially Jesus Christ.

So the difference you refuse to accept is, if you pick a random Christian today he'll tell you what he understands from those passages. If you take a random Muslim he'll tell you why Sharia must be implemented in the UK.

I suppose whatever the Christian tells you it will be something far more different and preferable to the ear than the consequences of implementing Sharia.

Or explain why life in Israel is better than in the Islamic nation of your choice, if they are massively Jewish, with all that hate and blood of the Old Testament, yet not a theocracy.

Because it depends on how the people understand the theology, if they are power-hungry opportunists, they'll use a church for political power, if not, the church will remain out of the political scenario. But since you do not recognize the particular scenario of Islam, where political support is intrinsicate, I suppose I speak to a wall.

[Skybird]

I give it up, Scandium. You don't get the difference I think that is most essential.
In the last paragraph you essentially say: since Islam is like it is, and Christianity would be much the same if it only still would be where Islam is, there is no difference anyway, and it doesn't matter, so what's the trouble?
If by a fingersnip'S magic suddenly the next twohundred years would run down in just one minute and then you woudl find yourself in the kind of society Islam has turned Europe into, then even you would see the difference, and you would understand, that all explanations why Islam is like it is does not make the situation more comfortable! But then it will be too late. islam has not changed the last 1000+ years, and there is no reason to assume it will change in the next one or more thousand years. ;)

But that is no world I would like to be reborn in.

[Iceman]

God gave moses 10 commandments on the mt. AL and man could not keep 10...
Really? Why?

Try it, you'll like it. :rock:
do ya think God is a God that would make entry to heaven so obscure and unobtainable that none could pass the tests? or keep all that was required to enter?..
Read your Bible:
For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.

It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"

Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
- Deuteronomy 30:11-14
God gave us Jews 613 commandments, not 10, plus the obligation to abide by Rabbinical laws as well.

We've been doing it for the most part for 3000 or so years. So, where's this problem you keep on referring to?
just think about that ..what kind of Sic God do you believe in...I believe in one that had the foresight to see so far ahead in the garden of Eden when the fall of man occurred and His angels told him weeds were now growing amongst the wheat if they should Reap it all then and there he said NO...let them grow together until the end and then he would seperate them.
This is very sweet but it's blah-blah.

BTW, if such a G-d is sick, why on earth do Christians even retain copies of the Old Testament? It's all wrong. Oops.....
We need not continue this at all AL because I know exactly what you belive in and where you are...you are a slave in bondage to the LAW until the time appointed when your eyes will be re-opened.The Muslim is slave to his way as well, as is the Christian.But they are as different as can be.
I am a very free person. I make all of my choices in life. Whether they are good or bad choices is up to my conscience and my knowledge.
See I quote Genesis there...the Christian does not "Discount" the Old testament it is a teaching tool yet he is not under it's bondage like the Jew chooses to be and it is a choice you make.
It was G-d's commandment to us. Your newfangled religion at the time was just one of numerous similar offshoots at the time. Jesus was a Jewish born blasphemer and false prophet, plain and simple, about whom the Torah states:
Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.
- Deuteronomy 13:1-6
Similarly:
But the prophet who intentionally speaks a word in My name, which I did not command him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.

Now if you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?"

If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him.
- Deuteronomy 18:18-20
Enjoy our rejects! :yep:

Galatians 3
[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
[4] Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
[5] He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[6] Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

613 huh?....Good Luck with that..I'll take the obscure fishermen/carpenter you can keep Barabbas. :)

[The Avon Lady]

Iceman, quoting from a text that is in denial of another text isn't very impressive.

In any case, G-d never obligated mankind in the Torah's commandments, only the Jews.

In fact, you're not even obligated to abide by the 10 Commandments, only 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws). Ain't that a relief! :know:

[kiwi_2005]

Hey Avon, my favourite versus from the old testament. Can you guess who said this:

I applied my heart to know, to search and seek out wisdom and the reason of things, to know the wickedness of folly, even foolishness and madness.

Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sad countenance the heart is made better.

Do not be overly righteous, nor overly wise: why should you destroy yourself.

Do not be overly wicked, nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time.


:)

[The Avon Lady]

King Solomon and I had no need to google. :know:

[kiwi_2005]

:yep:

King Solomon is one of my favourites. Filthy rich but a good man, not many of those around these days :-j

[Iceman]

Iceman, quoting from a text that is in denial of another text isn't very impressive.

In any case, G-d never obligated mankind in the Torah's commandments, only the Jews.

In fact, you're not even obligated to abide by the 10 Commandments, only 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws). Ain't that a relief! :know:

From the link you gave...

The Talmud also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws.

This is I guess what Jews and Muslims believe...that Salvation can be earned...Earned by keeping certain commands or killing infidels...Either way it is of works...So I guess a person could boast of himself he earned his way to heaven.

Love was the only command given to Christians.Salvation can't be earned, it is a gift. One cannot "Aquire" the knowledge of God, one must be chosen.,. then choose to receive it.

Matthew 11
[27] All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

I Love ya AL :) :up:

[Rockstar]

I'm cheering for Skybird :up:

[kiwi_2005]

Oh i didn't know we posta take sides? :hmm: Im cheering for noone,.

Im just a dude that reads the book now and then for a bit of inspiration and hopefully some wisdom :-j

[Bertgang]

On my point of wiew, the book is a pleasant decent thriller, but nothing more; not a theological foundation stone, anyway, nor a totally new revelation of unthinkable things.

My only reason of deception was in seeing Aringarosa not guilty, as the killer monk was out of his control.

[The Avon Lady]

From the link you gave...

The Talmud also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws.
This is I guess what Jews and Muslims believe...that Salvation can be earned...Earned by keeping certain commands or killing infidels...
There is only minimal equation between Jewish laws of blasphemy and Islamic laws.

How did you draw another conclusion from the above quote?

BTW, just a reminder, for your point of view:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
- Matthew 12:31 (KJV)
Either way it is of works...So I guess a person could boast of himself he earned his way to heaven.
I fail to comprehend what your point is here.
Love was the only command given to Christians.Salvation can't be earned, it is a gift. One cannot "Aquire" the knowledge of God, one must be chosen.,. then choose to receive it.

Matthew 11
[27] All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
You know, you have yet to respond to my earlier questions regarding the verses in Deuteronomy and how Christians could possibly hold there's anything worthwile respecting in the Torah, known to you as the Old Testament.
I Love ya AL :) :up:
I sincerely hope you're not violating the spirit of the book you claim to believe in:

Ye [Jews] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye [Jews] will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
- John 8:44 (KJV)

[Iceman]

Laws were meant to show sin in it's true light.Your question earlier which I really have no idea what you speak about, Christians do not discount the old testament but it is just that to us...old.Jesus Christ the one you deny, who was nothing more than a blasmephier and such, it is by His blood that we believe our salvation comes from.Hence the word "New Testament" ,not from one word of the old testament or however many lambs were to sacrificed only the Lamb of God Himself was a worthy enough and acceptable offering for the sin of man. This is all nothing new to you, and as I speak with you I have to thank you.I only begin to bareley understand what Christians of old and Jesus Himself went thru in speaking to Jews in particular.Truly only God Himself can open eyes to see and ears to hear... all in sweet time.

Peace Avon Lady.

[The Avon Lady]

Laws were meant to show sin in it's true light.
Since the Torah was handed down to Israel almost a millenia before Jesus existed and Israel was commanded to keep its laws and statutes, on what do you base this sudden negation of a status quo that knows no such prescedent?
Your question earlier which I really have no idea what you speak about, Christians do not discount the old testament but it is just that to us...
Well, simply explain how G-d can command that Israel is to obey the Torah commandments ad infinitum and then comes along a new religion a 1000 years later and says G-d changed his mind.
old.Jesus Christ the one you deny, who was nothing more than a blasmephier and such, it is by His blood that we believe our salvation comes from.
Had you tried saying this to Jews at Jesus' time, they wouldn't have an inkling of what you're talking about. Which leads to the question how can anyone be blames for rejecting a new fangled religious philosophy that was totally bizarre to Israel and in contevention of what G-d had already commanded them to believe and do?
Hence the word "New Testament" ,not from one word of the old testament
Well, there's plenty of plagiarizing in the NT from the Torah. There was no such terminology as "Old Testament" until Christianity evolved and compiled a new one anyway. The point here is mute.
or however many lambs were to sacrificed only the Lamb of God Himself was a worthy enough and acceptable offering for the sin of man. This is all nothing new to you,
I will again use the word "bizarre" to describe this philosophy vis-a-vis the Torah. Of course, ways of the Lord are straight, and the righteous shall walk in them, and the rebellious shall stumble on them.if you're referring to something like the sacrifice of Isaac, this is what happens when you warp its facts to fit your story. Again, these concepts are non-starters to Jews from the time of Abraham (actually since Adam and Eve) through the present.
and as I speak with you I have to thank you.I only begin to bareley understand what Christians of old and Jesus Himself went thru in speaking to Jews in particular.Truly only God Himself can open eyes to see and ears to hear... all in sweet time.
Who is wise and will understand these, discerning and will know them; for the ways of the Lord are straight, and the righteous shall walk in them, and the rebellious shall stumble on them.
- Hoshea 14:10