343 Kerry / 195 Bush

It was an observation on the comments you've made and the comments Chip has made on this thread. That's all. From reading those, I would have to say that the religions do sound an awful lot alike: one supreme 'being', the never-ending threat of a miserable afterlife if we don't adhere to the 'rules', a belief that thiers is THE true faith/diety, disdain for those who do not subscribe to this belief and for those who do *not* believe.

Like I've said before, I'm an athiest, so for me (and me only, don't personalize this) all religions are nothing more than silly mysticism. I believe alot of people have a difficult time in the 'real world' as they go through thier day-to-day lives and alot do not have the inner strength they need to move on, so they find that strenght in their religion.

As Chip pointed out: If you are a literalist in either religion, you can essentially be boiled down to some sort of crazy terrorist type of person. Also as Chip pointed out, both books teach the same values using similiar stories despite pointless differences in names and places.

Oh, oh I know you'd love to point out specific differences, but the general theme is all the same and Chip is very correct in this.

Now a simple reason to ignore literal interpretations: Creation stories. The bible contradicts itself within the first 3 pages of Genesis. Was man created on the second to last day after all the other creations, or was he created first in the garden and then everything else was added? This is just one very stupid example of why the book should be taken in a non-literal sense. The same is true of the Koran and pretty much every religious work out there.

Why? Why not take them literally? Okay well simply because you get groups who will do things in the name of their book (taking something quite literally) that often hurts themselves or (also often) many others.

Lastly, claiming someone is correct or not over an interpretation or meaning of a text, as I have seen done in this thread, is pointless. It's the basis for holy wars for crying out loud. I'd think you'd know better than to take someone to task for that. If you're going to compare one text to another, compare them literally. If you have a problem with the culture attached to a particular text, make a point about the culture as they're two seperate issues.

Now I'm fairly certain I understand both of these religions (bible and koran based) from an analytical standpoint. And from that standpoint, they are vastly similiar. If you want to speak from an alagorical standpoint, you'd have to specify which one and then it'd all get very confusing and pointless from there.

Also note, Chip was, I believe referring to Revelations or something when he mentioned 'rapture'.

Further, if you ARE a literalist of Mr. President Bush's religion, everyone else but his religion is going to hell. And deserves it. Thanks. I have yet to see good evidence that Bush is not a literalist in this respect. I have seen good evidence that Kerry is not a literalist in this respect.

I predict Bush losing by a landslide to Kerry for lying to the American population and starting a war for oil.

And your bible says that there will come a time when all non-Christians will die with the second coming. Only the bible claims that it will be g(G)od himself doing the killing.

Nice fellow, this Christian g(G)od.

- Ace

Humans are bad animals

This thread...

This entire thread is proof positive of (1) not everyone should be allowed to vote, (2) why one should not engage in political discussions with those not educated in politics, (3) the ignorance people have of religion.

There were some really frightening posts.. Like the one by James Miller preferring to vote for a dirty sock and the rest of his post was Spin Cycled news dogma.

There hasn't been one really original post (save for Chip), especially in the area of politics that can quote anything that wasnt first quoted by a TV/Radio News Personality - or worse an actress/actor.

On the issue of religion. Billy made alot of good points, unfortunately it isn't original (once again Spin Cycled thru another source) and can be found here (Billy Madison's source of the problem with Islam". The real eye opener with Billy's post is the statement is this



Are they the same thing? Yes. They are all the same up to a "point". The original teachings by Mohomad are directly from the Torah, the original Old Testament are directly from the Torah - the Torah was translated from Hebrew to Greek - this is called the Septuagent.. Which then became the basis for the old testament.

There are fundamental differences in all 3 and your posts really quote the 'unaccepted verses' of the koran. It would be like using the book of Tobit to justify not going to church, or by using the Old Testament against the New Testament - all religions have many many 'books' or added passages that are not accepted by the greater community. What Billy posted is a classic example. Of course if you studied Islam History, you know that ALL RELIGIONS were accepted in Mecca and Medina Christianity and Judaism specifically - and the Koran actually teaches that you have to respect these individuals (as misguided pious people). This is why the big thing about Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban is referring to Christians and Jews and non-believers and animals, since that allows for them to killed by the laws of Islam.

Everyone wants to only quote these parts that help their argument the most. Fairly sad.

What you all really need to do is put down the Harpers, US News, Time Magazine, and pick-up something scholarly, read it, and gain a broader picture and understanding of the political process, the American presidency, American Foreign Policy, and these issues.

Read some Samuel P. Huntington and Charles Krauthammer and keep away from the Idealogues which have filled all of you radicals full of so much Spin Cycled garbage that allow you to believe that you actually "KNOW" something about what is really happening.

Jeeze it is so damn scary to read some of this stuff and the rationals posted for supporting 1 candidate over the other.

Most of you seem more interested in avoiding inconvienent facts about your presidential choices than anything else.

Briana Dawson

Billy, everyone else has done a pretty good job of clarifying the point I was making. I, like Juro, am an atheist. It amuses me greatly to hear true believers of any religion argue about whose imaginary friend in the sky is biggest, most benevolent, most loving, most powerful, does the best magic tricks, et al. To me it's the same as hearing people claim that their fiction is less fictional that someone else's fiction. All of the major religions indoctrinate their followers in xenophobia and mistrust of outsiders. Your comments about Muslims are proof of how well it works. As much as I know you'd like to pretend it's something else, it's nothing more than indoctrinated bigotry. It's ugly, self righteous, paranoid, and delusional. It's especially amusing that you would disagree with my statement that Christians cherry pick the bible and ignore the bits where God is less than loving by cherry picking my post and ignoring the bits where I showed that God is less than loving, lol... like Jesus asking that non-believers be killed. It's no different than the Koran instructing its true believers to kill the infidels. Of course you can't see it that way because you're thoroughly brainwashed by your particular religious sect and are therefore thoroughly convinced of your own self-righteousness and the correctness of your particular fable.

You asked me to read the book of John and then tell you that God isn't loving...

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John, 3:36)

In other words, all non-believers will be killed.

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

This is a good bit, and always quoted to show Jesus's loving and forgiving nature. Hard to find fault with... except it's directly contradictory to God's law as laid out in Leviticus 20:10...

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Lev, 20:10)

That chapter of Leviticus also instructs anyone who "gives their seed to Molech" (has sex with an Ammonite) be stoned to death, that children who curse their parents should be killed, that having sex with a menstruating woman is grounds for both to be exiled, and that witches and wizards should be stoned to death.

Okay, back to John...

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye 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, 8:42-44)

That was Jesus calling the Jews children of the devil.

"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." (John 3:3-

Yeah, screw the poor! My feet are more important! *chuckle* (According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 300 denarii would be nearly a year's wage for a laborer.)

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John, 12:4

In other words, those that don't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior will be condmned to Hell.

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John, 14:27)

There Jesus claims to have come to bring peace to the world, but this is directly contradicted by Matthew 10:34 where Jesus says "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." and by Luke 12:51 where Jesus says "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division"

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John, 15:6)

More of that loving threat of eternal hellfire.

Sorry Billy, but if we are all the children of God, yet God intends to kill anyone who doesn't accept Jesus, that makes him a genocidal tyrant, not the embodiment of love. In my opinion it's rather stupid to argue about the validity of ancient religious texts. They are far too open to interpretation, as evidenced by the huge disparity among even Christians over the meanings of various parts of the bible.

Apologies to everyone else as this has strayed waaaayyyyy off topic from the original thread. So to bring it back around I agree wholeheartedly with Siro. I like that Kerry puts individual rights above the teachings of his Catholic faith (such as supporting a woman's right to choose), and I detest Bush's fundamentalism. Why does Bush want to remake the Middle East? To save a bunch of people who God plans to cast into the lake of fire anyway? Nope. He wants to secure Israel. Why? So the Jews can control the temple mount so that Jesus can come back

Edit: Great post Briana! Since you revealed Billy's source I'll reveal mine: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

This is a great example of voluntary (or maybe its involuntary) ignorance, intentional or not.

* "Bush lied to the American Population" - I suppose you believe John Edwards when he says "I promise you we will tell the American public the truth every time). Do you really believe this?

We know that a President can't tell the truth about all things at all times, therefore a presidential candidate saying he wont lie to the public and will always tell the truth in and of itself is a lie. Duh... Politics.

* "War For Oil" - Yesterday when i got gas i paid $2.02 at the pump per gallon - if this was a war for oil and we were getting all of Iraq's oil or atleast some extra oil at all, shouldn't our price at the pump be hovering nearer to $1.00 per gallon? Especially since such a price drop would only give the Bush administration favorable consideration from all of us who cant afford to fill up our tanks now?

Such simple simple simple analysis. Yet the average American will choose to follow simple sound bites because it's easier than thinking.

If you can't make a retrospective analysis of the presidency to reach a decision of who you wish to vote for without using sound bites and anecdotes from FOX News, CNN, or Maureen Dowd at NY Times, then you are doing yourself and your country an injustice.

Scary stuff.

Briana Dawson

Thank you for responding and answering my question Juro. I admit that I can see why you think what you do. Let me go back to your original question to see if I can clarify what I meant.



Chip’s viewpoint is that the 3 religions are essentially the same and I have attempted to focus on Christianity and Islam to illustrate how different they are. Do they all use the same text to form their doctrine? Well, sort of. The Jews believe in the Torah which is the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

Christians on the other hand believe in everything that the Jews believe up to Jesus’ appearance on earth. The Jews believe that a savior is yet to come. Christians believe that Jesus was the savior. The New Testament is the story of Jesus and His teachings which builds on the Old Testament as the foundation of Christian doctrine.

Being that Christians believe everything that the Jews believe right up to Jesus yes, the two religions believe a whole bunch of things that are the same. Jesus’ appearance and role is where Christianity and Judaism part ways.

Islam is a different thing altogether. The Old Testament was written thousands of years ago and the New Testament was written two thousand years ago. The Koran was not written until about 700 years after Jesus’ death. The Koran is based upon the teachings of Mohammad who claims that he had a vision from God while in a cave. Mohammad did use the Bible as the basis of his beliefs but the major difference is that while Christians and Jews accept the Old Testament as it is, Mohammad removed much of it and added completely new doctrine, part of which I have described in my earlier post.

Regarding Christianity and Islam are their similarities? Yes. Are there differences? Yes. The thing is that the differences aren’t just a few minor things. They are major theological opposites in many cases. These differences are so great that you really can not even come close to saying that the two religions are the same. They clearly are not. To say that they are is to lack an understanding of the basic belief of the two religions.

I said that it is not possible for an informed believer to view this discussion from the viewpoint that Chip is discussing? Reflecting on my answer I suppose that is not entirely correct. Can I subjectively look at Chip’s assertion that they are all the same? Yes. I would like to think so. Can I come even close to agreeing with his viewpoint? No. The facts are what they are. Weather you are a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew or atheist if you look into the basic beliefs the differences far outweigh the similarities between Islam and Christianity.

I have never heard anyone but you accuse Christians of being “crazy terrorist type people”. Maybe you could give some sort of reason why you believe that.



I will not go into the specific differences. I believe I have already covered that ground. Suffice it to say that the two religions teach vastly different values and themes.



Yes, there are 2 creation stories. The thing is that you have to look at what the purpose behind the two stories are. One is kind of a timeline and story of God creating the eartn. You know the one. On the first day God created the heavens and the earth etc… The second story is a way to relate creation in a much different way. It is kind of like a campfire story with Adam and Eve, the Garden etc… Does the fact that they are different in places mean that there is no value or meaning at all in them? My answer is no.



As I said before Christians do not believe that the Bible is infallible. Yes, it contradicts itself here and in other places too. The reason for this is that it was written by men thousands of years ago. Men with an understanding of the world as it was known to them at that time. Much of the Bible IS meant to tell a story with a specific meaning. One style is meant to convey historical events while the other is meant to convey a specific message to the reader.



The thing is that the texts are not the same. If they were you would have a point that I could possibly agree with.

I believe that this train of thought was started by me comparing the differences in the cultures.



I respectfully disagree. The differences are too dramatic to ignore.



There is no mention of “the rapture” in the Bible.



I have no respect for someone at all who claims to be a Christian, Kerry, but checks his beliefs at the door when politically advantageous. That doesn’t say much for the man’s conviction.

I say Jon Stewart wins by a landslide.

This is a prime example of how I feel this President failed. We are seeing low oil revenue for Iraq. Oil revenue that was supposed to pay for this war.

If you are trying to further point out to me that this administration was completely unprepared for this engagement, then you have succeeded.

As for the post being silly. I kind of liked it and I still stand behind my prediction.

I think you are taking Edwards quote to an extreme. Witholding information for the security of the nation is one kind of lie. Invading a sovereign nation and telling the world there are weapons that aren't there is another. Repeatedly lying to the American people about an Al Queda / Iraq connection is another of those big lies.

I have looked at the history of this administration. Cutting taxes during war? Sending ground troops into Iraq? (even Daddy Bush knew that was a bad idea) Not creating a single job during the entire administration? Turning a record surplus into a record deficit?

I don't need a scholarly journal to verify those facts and neither does the american electorate.


Everyone afforded the right to vote should be allowed to vote. If everyone didn't get the right to vote, there would be no point in voting at all. Not only should everyone be allowed to vote, everyone should vote.

Billy, I just wanted to add that I very much respect that you've done some studying of the various religions so that your opinions aren't simply based on hearsay and what you've been taught. I heartily applaud that. From your perspective as a Christian I can understand why you see such substantial differences between the three major religions. From my vantage point on the outside looking in it's much easier to see them as more alike than not. Thanks for your considered posts.

You obviously don't do much research on the subject then:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/055922.htm
http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/onwardchristianterrorists.htm
http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/RelatedArticles.asp?did=864
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/mat1.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1196-2003Jun1?language=printer
http://www.abcog.org/nh/irish.htm

There is some documentation for you on various perspectives on Christian Terrorists.



There are many mainstream Catholics who respect their faith and still disagree with portions of church teaching. I was raised Catholic and still am a practicing Catholic, yet I disagree strongly with the church views on women, homosexuality, birth control, and not allowing married priests. John Kerry has openly expressed the things he does not agree with. I am so sick of the argument that you have to follow something like a lemming and never ever question or have a different opinion. I would much rather have someone who reflects my views than a fundamentalist who views every word in the bible quite literally. Do Bush supporters have no other argument than "Kerry is a flip flopper"? It is rather tiresome. Someone please whip out the list of all the contradictory things GWB has done and said during his presidency.

Well someone beat me to pointing out examples of crazy terrorist religious nuts on the christian/catholic side of the fence, but I still feel inclined to give you this one:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=6814

I mean, heck, it's a catholic news agency too. Gotta love that. Also it's not something I 'believe', it's something that's documented. When I'm stating an opinion or belief, I'll go ahead and say so.

On the subject of the religions being 'vastly' different. How? They're not. You both have one creator, similiar creation stories and fundamentally similiar value systems. The only major differences are cultural. (Again, this is not something I 'believe' or my opinion, this is something that's objectively observable via text and cultural examination). Now if you want to throw religions with multiple gods (heck even DIFFERENT gods, the three you've mentioned thus far are all based on the same one), 'vastly' different creation stories, and such, then you might get somewhere if you had anywhere to go.

As I tried to point out, none of the three religions as a whole, unless you're a literalist, believe their books are infallible. Don't generalize an entire religion based on one subgroup. It'd be pretty bad if suddenly all the islams started associated with those clinic bombing catholics right? The texts don't need to be exactly the same. They're all based on the same stuff, which, in the end, makes them fundamentally the same.


As to no mention of 'rapture' in the bible. I take issue with you on this. The book of Revelations most certainly does contain several examples where wholesale slaughter of the human race is conducted as a method to put people either in heaven or hell. Rapture MEANS "The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to heaven." so I don't really know where you get off saying it isn't there unless you're cherry picking/being a literalist or just genuinely ignorant of that particular book.

And finally, Kerry. He's Catholic. To quote from factmonster.com : "To belong to the church one must accept as factually true the gospel of Jesus as handed down in tradition and as interpreted by the bishops in union with the pope." Frankly, I'd rather not let the pope run my country. If you do have a problem with people who check their baggage at the door, then I strongly suggest you vote for Peroutka (constitution party) this year. He's all about carrying his religious baggage around with him. Moreso than Bush. "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation."

hehe, the whole biblical foundation of US law bit always makes me laugh, and makes me want to start beating people over the head with history books. I wonder how many history teachers of Christian faith are helping to spread that particular myth in our public schools these days. Our laws have their roots in Saxon common law, which was around for a good two hundred years before Chritstianity was even introduced to the Saxons. That bit of lost history ranks right up next to people not understanding that the majority of the founding fathers of the US were Deists on my list of things that really tick me off. It's hilarious in a tragic sort of way that someone running as the head of something called the Constitution Party could be so ignorant about our history. Biblical foundation indeed

I want to publicly retract and apologize for the above post. While nobody has commented on it, I've come to the conclusion that it was inappropriate.

I try really hard to avoid (most) political and religious discussions, since such discussions tend to be divisive, and do nothing to unite us as community.

Again... to any that I might have offended, I am sorry.

- Ace

Hehe, I'm with Chip, though unsure how it will play out.. if the attack is pre election is will be a Bush underhanded maneuver to assure victory. If its post election it will be from the real enemy enraged Bush was elected. Hehe


I predict Nader in 2.

That's nice of you, Ace. I'm not sure it's really necessary though. It's a fair criticism. I think critical religious comment is important precisely *because* religion is so divisive, especially when there's a fundamentalist in charge of the most powerful nation on earth.

"My g(G)od is holier than your g(G)od" passions have fueled conflict, and the resultant human misery, for far too long. All you have to do is look at this thread, map what is being said onto what is happening in the world, and its clear that these thoughts have brought a lot of death and destruction to humanity, now and in centuries past.

Mark Twain once wrote this "Prayer For War" that I think reflects my view of ANYONE who claims that g(G)od is on their side...

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

I was only stoking these fires by what I said, and so stand by my contention that it was inappropriate.

- Ace

For you politicos that like to keep track of polls and the electoral votes, here are a couple of sites to check out.

http://2.004k.com/#ev


http://www.electoral-vote.com/


I'll be glad when this is over. It almost makes me yearn for a good old fashioned president like Fidel Castro.

-tito

I absolutely agree with you, which is one of the major reasons I'm so uncomfortable with Bush's leadership. When I hear him justify the invasion of Iraq with the line "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity," it frightens the hell out of me (no pun intended)... especially since the "war on terror" is really a war against fundamentalist Islam. We've strayed far from the intentions of the founders of this nation who I think would be apalled to hear people today claim a biblical foundation for our laws or make the kinds of statements that Bush makes from his oval pulpit. It makes me wish we had a time machine so we could get Jefferson and others to set the record straight once and for all.

In a free society everyone should have a vote.



Well, discussing politics is a very good way to help educate people about the issues. If you are going to be “education” limits or levels required to have political discussions then where do you draw the line and how do you even measure it?



It is one of the most misunderstood issues on the planet.


Let me get this straight… I made a lot of good points but somehow they are tainted or something because I used an external source for some of them. What exactly is wrong with using an external source for information? Chip and I both did it and for the record I do not have a problem with it. What are you saying here Briana?

FYI, I thought it was pretty obvious where I cut and pasted and where I didn’t. The majority of what I said was my own but I used SOME external information to back up my points.



I am just curious why this says Billy Madison posted this post? It is mine.



OK, We can just stop here. You say that they are the same “up to a point”. Well, I am happy to agree with you here. The “to a point” means that there is some amount of overlap but also means that there is an amount that does not overlap. Maybe we disagree upon this amount but you admit here that the religions are not the same. Thank you.



This is actually not true. The original teachings of Mohammad were from a vision he had in a cave about 650 years after the birth of Jesus while he was in a cave. They do not claim that the Koran is “based” on the Torah at all by the way.



Well, as for the first 5 books of the Old Testament not only were they the basis Briana, they were and are the same. The rest of the Old Testament doesn’t have anything to do with the first 5 books.



The quotes are referenced. I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that they are not actually verses in the koran? I am not sure I agree with you about these “many many books or added passages”. Christianity is what I know the most about. Can you give some examples regarding the Bible please. I am interested in seeing what you are talking about because I have never heard of even one.



You lost me on this one Briana. How is KILLING you showing you respect?



I am just speaking for myself. My knowledge and opinions are from reading the texts for myself. Yes I do use other sources at times to back up what I think but the opinions I have are my own.



We agree on this point.



I would somewhat agree here too as I readily admit that both candidates have their faults.

Well Chip, since there are mostly atheists who are responding I am not sure how that is surprising.



I can only speak for myself. I have no fear whatsoever of foreigners. I personally know many who are wonderful people and fully trust them as much as anyone I know. Christianity does not teach to be fearful, contemptuous of anyone. It teaches to love them even if we do not agree with their doctrine or any other aspect of their life.



Chip, all I am trying to do is give a little education about some of the basic beliefs in Islam. Please go read the koran for yourself and tell me I am wrong.



Please show us all where I professed my own self-righteousness. I have no claim whatsoever that I am righteous. I will tell you that I am not if you take the time and have the courtesy to just ask me. I struggle with things just like everyone else and resent you accusing me of something like that without even knowing me or asking me yourself what I thought.

As for your other accusation, it is recycled. Please refer to the answers I already gave about each of your scripture quotes. I see no use in answering them again.



Where exactly does it say that they would be killed? I do not see that. This reference is referring to the afterlife.



That is because one of the purposes of Jesus’ live was to bring a new law. The laws of the Old Testament were used by the Pharisees to prove their righteousness. The scribes wrote volumes of rules that were not in the laws of Moses. The Pharisees claimed that they followed those rules and that it proved their self-righteousness. These laws were taken to the Nth degree. They were things like how much you could lift on the Sabbith, how many steps you could walk, what rooms in the house you could go in and many many things.

Jesus saw their abuse of the laws and said that he came to write a new law. He said basically that is was more important what was in your heart, not how many rules you followed. The laws of the Old Testament no longer applied after Jesus.

An interesting note regarding the story of the adulterous woman is that it is thought that Jesus was writing the sins of the men in the crowd in the sand and when confronted with their own sin not one could cast the first stone.



We already talked about this. Those laws were not to be taken as rules for everyday life but as a guide for the judges. Basically that the punishment should fit the crime.



Not all Jews Chip. He was talking to a specific group of leaders who by their actions were followers of the devil. Saying that the devil was their father was another way of saying that they were his followers. People young and old who follow Jesus are called children of God, a direct correlation to the father reference.



Screw the poor was not the point here. They didn’t understand that she was preparing Jesus for his burial. This wasn’t just Mary wasting some oil on Jesus’ feet for no particular reason. I suppose that you would think that if any money was spent on a Christian’s burial then we think “screw the poor”. This act was a selfless one that Mary did for Jesus. One that she did out of her love for Him.



This is accurate. God gives us all a choice here on earth to chose Him or not. He honors the choice that each of us makes.



Peace comes in many forms. Jesus was not saying he brought peace as in peace between nations in John. He was talking about an inner peace that only comes from Him.

The Luke passage is accurate. The sword is referred to several times and is representative of the Bible itself. He did not come promising peace but knew that belief in Him would indeed cause a division between believers and non-believers. It appears he was right if you have read this thread.



Indeed, hell is not a place you want to go. I do not disagree. Once again, God does not “send” anyone to hell. You chose for yourself where you will go.







God does not “plan” to send anyone to hell. It is his hope that everyone have faith in Him.



Now that’s a new one Chip. Never heard that one before. Being that neither Bush nor anyone else knows when Jesus will return I do not know how you could claim that.



Maybe she will come blast you too for using another source. I do not have a problem with it.

Thank you for your kind words Chip. I too respect you and your opinion and aren't we glad we live in a free country where we can voice what we believe and worship how we chose even if we chose no worship at all.

I have no problem at all with anyone worshiping how they like. I am sorry I have had to spend so much time on this thread away from the topic but I stand by my convictions and when told that my religion is the same thing as Islam I have no choice but to attempt to explain why that is not the case.

You always give a hearty debate but above every issue we have discusses I hope that some day you may come to change your views about Christianity. The decision follow Jesus was the most important one I have ever made. Speaking for myself my faith is one of the most enriching things in my life and I can say that the changes it has made in me are all good.

I know that we wind up on opposite sides often in these forums but I do not consider you an adversary. I consider you a friend and wish you nothing but peace and happiness for you and your family.