Yeah Islamic extremists have never infiltrated our country before, not sure why I would worry about it now.Braddock wrote:
Jeez, i never figured you for a crackpot conspiracy theorist lowing. You sound like General Ripper from Dr. Strangelove talking about Communists trying to infiltrate your precious fluids.lowing wrote:
No what I fear is the ease of those wishing us harm to infiltrate pretending to be someone they are not using our laws and rights as a weapon against us when the time comes. With people like you fighting for their right of privacy and abandament of profiling to help them. Because someone might get their feelings hurt.Braddock wrote:
The part of your response in yellow is all that concerns you...there is no need to worry beyond that.
Unless you yourself believe in Allah and fear for the fate of their souls.
No. It's a compilation of assorted writings, selected by a bunch of priests and politicians to fit their purposes and tied in together with an updated version of the old testament - a version of the old testament compiled centuries after Jesus' death.lowing wrote:
Nope, it is a totally separate book, the New Testament can stand alone, just like the old testament can. That is why it is OLD and NEW, and not OLD Testament 2.01Bertster7 wrote:
It's an amendment.lowing wrote:
It is not an amendment, it is a "NEW COVENANT". A totally separate teaching or message from God delivered by Jesus.
The old testament is considered canonical by Christians, therefore it is a fundamental part of Christianity. There is a lot of the stuff found in Jewish versions left out in the Christian old testament.
can we get back on topic?
Ever heard of the Mikvah?lowing wrote:
The teachings of Christ, to the best of my knoweldge does not refer to the old testament at all. He did live in a time where certain aspects of society were widely accepted that would not fly today. Now, did Jesus himself shun women... I do not think so. His actions and his words is what developed into CHRISTianity, and the old testament didn't play a part in it.Braddock wrote:
You're missing my point lowing. Jesus himself believed in Judaism's concept of original sin where woman was responsible for man's fall from grace. He didn't look at that concept and think 'that's not really fair towards women, I don't think I'll adhere to that belief', instead he got himself baptised in accordance with it. Many accounts also suggest that Jesus was quite old when he got baptised, lending further weight to the argument that he chose to believe this concept and was not merely entered into it through childhood inculcation.lowing wrote:
Jesus was a Jew Braddock, he was not a Christian. Jesus didn't invent Christianity, it was invented by those that followed his teachings fore-going those of the old testament, hell the bible wasn't even written until 100 years or so after his death. His message and teachings, ( the new covenant) is a different message from that of the old testament
You can deny all you want lowing but the old testament played a big part in Jesus's life and in his own beliefs and thus it is an important part of Christianity itself. If you do not accept this then I guess you must be following your own interpretation.
Question, was baptism by water a part of the old testament? I do not remember
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes. The general message remains constant.lowing wrote:
however it is told, the message of Jesus, as far as I know, is the same and consistent. Now, either follow it, or do not follow it.Bertster7 wrote:
The council of Nicea was the biggest interpretation job of all time. That was essentially the foundation of Christianity as it is known today. How close that is to what actually happened no one can really say, since there isn't enough evidence available. So the written word is nothing but interpretation.
In fact Christianity illustrates this better than anything else because the new testament is made up of a number of contradictory tales describing the same events. If that's not a clear cut illustration of how fundamental interpretation is to religion, then I don't know what is....
The specifics do not.
It's exactly the same with interpretation with Islam. If you follow the general message, you are a Muslim - you don't have to follow every last detail, in fact no one does. Bin Laden doesn't follow Islamic rules to the letter, he's been on film, that's not allowed - nor is having a photo or portrait taken of you (reproductions of the human form are not allowed).
Interpretation is everything.
I can't remember either but baptism with water symbolises the cleansing of original sin and it was with water that Jesus was baptised. In that action Jesus advocated the old testament philosophy of original sin and hence old testament beliefs formed part of his own belief system.lowing wrote:
The teachings of Christ, to the best of my knoweldge does not refer to the old testament at all. He did live in a time where certain aspects of society were widely accepted that would not fly today. Now, did Jesus himself shun women... I do not think so. His actions and his words is what developed into CHRISTianity, and the old testament didn't play a part in it.Braddock wrote:
You're missing my point lowing. Jesus himself believed in Judaism's concept of original sin where woman was responsible for man's fall from grace. He didn't look at that concept and think 'that's not really fair towards women, I don't think I'll adhere to that belief', instead he got himself baptised in accordance with it. Many accounts also suggest that Jesus was quite old when he got baptised, lending further weight to the argument that he chose to believe this concept and was not merely entered into it through childhood inculcation.lowing wrote:
Jesus was a Jew Braddock, he was not a Christian. Jesus didn't invent Christianity, it was invented by those that followed his teachings fore-going those of the old testament, hell the bible wasn't even written until 100 years or so after his death. His message and teachings, ( the new covenant) is a different message from that of the old testament
You can deny all you want lowing but the old testament played a big part in Jesus's life and in his own beliefs and thus it is an important part of Christianity itself. If you do not accept this then I guess you must be following your own interpretation.
Question, was baptism by water a part of the old testament? I do not remember
Like it or not lowing Jesus paid a lot of attention to the old testament. What you're doing with Jesus is exactly what you're complaining about others doing with other religions. You are taking the good positive stuff about his words and actions and negating all of his connections and references to the old testament...that my friend counts as your own interpretation.
no, I have not.Bertster7 wrote:
Ever heard of the Mikvah?lowing wrote:
The teachings of Christ, to the best of my knoweldge does not refer to the old testament at all. He did live in a time where certain aspects of society were widely accepted that would not fly today. Now, did Jesus himself shun women... I do not think so. His actions and his words is what developed into CHRISTianity, and the old testament didn't play a part in it.Braddock wrote:
You're missing my point lowing. Jesus himself believed in Judaism's concept of original sin where woman was responsible for man's fall from grace. He didn't look at that concept and think 'that's not really fair towards women, I don't think I'll adhere to that belief', instead he got himself baptised in accordance with it. Many accounts also suggest that Jesus was quite old when he got baptised, lending further weight to the argument that he chose to believe this concept and was not merely entered into it through childhood inculcation.
You can deny all you want lowing but the old testament played a big part in Jesus's life and in his own beliefs and thus it is an important part of Christianity itself. If you do not accept this then I guess you must be following your own interpretation.
Question, was baptism by water a part of the old testament? I do not remember
Yeah I think the new covenant was something to do with the grand canyon or something? some dinasours on an ark and a tyrannosaurus rex bringing some guy Noel who owned the ark a half chewed dove or something.... and I think there was a rainbow.. maybe..
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-07-31 16:10:05)
That's the commonly accepted interpretation these days. Which is exactly my point.lowing wrote:
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes. The general message remains constant.lowing wrote:
however it is told, the message of Jesus, as far as I know, is the same and consistent. Now, either follow it, or do not follow it.
The specifics do not.
It's exactly the same with interpretation with Islam. If you follow the general message, you are a Muslim - you don't have to follow every last detail, in fact no one does. Bin Laden doesn't follow Islamic rules to the letter, he's been on film, that's not allowed - nor is having a photo or portrait taken of you (reproductions of the human form are not allowed).
Interpretation is everything.
I thought you knew the Qu'ran quite well lowing, you have argued with me on numerous occasions that you know exactly what the Qu'ran teaches.lowing wrote:
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes. The general message remains constant.lowing wrote:
however it is told, the message of Jesus, as far as I know, is the same and consistent. Now, either follow it, or do not follow it.
The specifics do not.
It's exactly the same with interpretation with Islam. If you follow the general message, you are a Muslim - you don't have to follow every last detail, in fact no one does. Bin Laden doesn't follow Islamic rules to the letter, he's been on film, that's not allowed - nor is having a photo or portrait taken of you (reproductions of the human form are not allowed).
Interpretation is everything.
guess not. silly me.usmarine wrote:
can we get back on topic?
anyway, why is this such a stretch? you think 50 years ago people in the US thought mexicans would come close to outnumbering them?
is that not a badass tank??Bertster7 wrote:
[ Ever heard of the Mikvah?
No braddock, what I am doing is telling you Christians do not follow the Old Testament, they have a new covenant with God, and it was delivered by Jesus. they are 2 separate and distinct teachings. Acknowledging the OLD Testament does not mean adhering to it. Christians adhere to the teachings and word of Christ. I do not interpret shit, I can however see the difference between the new covenant and the old testament.Braddock wrote:
I can't remember either but baptism with water symbolises the cleansing of original sin and it was with water that Jesus was baptised. In that action Jesus advocated the old testament philosophy of original sin and hence old testament beliefs formed part of his own belief system.lowing wrote:
The teachings of Christ, to the best of my knoweldge does not refer to the old testament at all. He did live in a time where certain aspects of society were widely accepted that would not fly today. Now, did Jesus himself shun women... I do not think so. His actions and his words is what developed into CHRISTianity, and the old testament didn't play a part in it.Braddock wrote:
You're missing my point lowing. Jesus himself believed in Judaism's concept of original sin where woman was responsible for man's fall from grace. He didn't look at that concept and think 'that's not really fair towards women, I don't think I'll adhere to that belief', instead he got himself baptised in accordance with it. Many accounts also suggest that Jesus was quite old when he got baptised, lending further weight to the argument that he chose to believe this concept and was not merely entered into it through childhood inculcation.
You can deny all you want lowing but the old testament played a big part in Jesus's life and in his own beliefs and thus it is an important part of Christianity itself. If you do not accept this then I guess you must be following your own interpretation.
Question, was baptism by water a part of the old testament? I do not remember
Like it or not lowing Jesus paid a lot of attention to the old testament. What you're doing with Jesus is exactly what you're complaining about others doing with other religions. You are taking the good positive stuff about his words and actions and negating all of his connections and references to the old testament...that my friend counts as your own interpretation.
Sort of Jewish full immersion baptism - much like Jesus had. Baptism is an important part of Judaism.lowing wrote:
no, I have not.Bertster7 wrote:
Ever heard of the Mikvah?lowing wrote:
The teachings of Christ, to the best of my knoweldge does not refer to the old testament at all. He did live in a time where certain aspects of society were widely accepted that would not fly today. Now, did Jesus himself shun women... I do not think so. His actions and his words is what developed into CHRISTianity, and the old testament didn't play a part in it.
Question, was baptism by water a part of the old testament? I do not remember
lol what does the book ACTUALLY say? I will go with that.Bertster7 wrote:
That's the commonly accepted interpretation these days. Which is exactly my point.lowing wrote:
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes. The general message remains constant.
The specifics do not.
It's exactly the same with interpretation with Islam. If you follow the general message, you are a Muslim - you don't have to follow every last detail, in fact no one does. Bin Laden doesn't follow Islamic rules to the letter, he's been on film, that's not allowed - nor is having a photo or portrait taken of you (reproductions of the human form are not allowed).
Interpretation is everything.
usmarine wrote:
guess not. silly me.usmarine wrote:
can we get back on topic?
anyway, why is this such a stretch? you think 50 years ago people in the US thought mexicans would come close to outnumbering them?
HAHAHA good luck telling that to all the fundamental Christian brethren that I share my homeland with.... LMAO .. seriously you're great entertainment Lowing, they preach from little else... Leviticus this... Leviticus that.. they bang on and on constantly about the OTlowing wrote:
No braddock, what I am doing is telling you Christians do not follow the Old Testament...
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-07-31 16:16:27)
No, I have argued with you as to what I have read about the Koran and what it says. I left the research to those that actually read the thing and wrote articles and papers on the topic. Not ot mention the actions of those that have used the Koran to justify their actions against us...Sue me.Braddock wrote:
I thought you knew the Qu'ran quite well lowing, you have argued with me on numerous occasions that you know exactly what the Qu'ran teaches.lowing wrote:
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?Bertster7 wrote:
Yes. The general message remains constant.
The specifics do not.
It's exactly the same with interpretation with Islam. If you follow the general message, you are a Muslim - you don't have to follow every last detail, in fact no one does. Bin Laden doesn't follow Islamic rules to the letter, he's been on film, that's not allowed - nor is having a photo or portrait taken of you (reproductions of the human form are not allowed).
Interpretation is everything.
Jesus adhered to the old testament, does that mean Jesus believed in the concept of "do as I say but not as I do"?lowing wrote:
No braddock, what I am doing is telling you Christians do not follow the Old Testament, they have a new covenant with God, and it was delivered by Jesus. they are 2 separate and distinct teachings. Acknowledging the OLD Testament does not mean adhering to it. Christians adhere to the teachings and word of Christ. I do not interpret shit, I can however see the difference between the new covenant and the old testament.Braddock wrote:
I can't remember either but baptism with water symbolises the cleansing of original sin and it was with water that Jesus was baptised. In that action Jesus advocated the old testament philosophy of original sin and hence old testament beliefs formed part of his own belief system.
Like it or not lowing Jesus paid a lot of attention to the old testament. What you're doing with Jesus is exactly what you're complaining about others doing with other religions. You are taking the good positive stuff about his words and actions and negating all of his connections and references to the old testament...that my friend counts as your own interpretation.
If that approach is allowed then perhaps Bin Laden is allowed to violate countless parts of the Qu'ran and still preach and be seen as an Islamic prophet..."do as I say but not as I do".
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-31 16:17:36)
The book (Koran) doesn't say anything specific (as is often the case in such instances). The Islamic traditions passed down by Mohammed, do. They prohibit it.lowing wrote:
lol what does the book ACTUALLY say? I will go with that.Bertster7 wrote:
That's the commonly accepted interpretation these days. Which is exactly my point.lowing wrote:
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?
And yet when counter arguments by other respected scholars are offered back to you you simply negate them and claim that you know what the truth is.lowing wrote:
No, I have argued with you as to what I have read about the Koran and what it says. I left the research to those that actually read the thing and wrote articles and papers on the topic. Not ot mention the actions of those that have used the Koran to justify their actions against us...Sue me.Braddock wrote:
I thought you knew the Qu'ran quite well lowing, you have argued with me on numerous occasions that you know exactly what the Qu'ran teaches.lowing wrote:
Really? It says in the Koran you are not allowed to have reproductions of the human form? Or was it just of muhammad?
And don't try and use the actions of extremists as a means of interpreting the Qu'ran. For God's sake you've used the argument yourself in this thread that 'Christian' extremists don't actually represent the Christian faith, why have another rule for Islam.
I see so you are a follower of Christ's message tha twas written 2000 years before Christ was born huh?IG-Calibre wrote:
HAHAHA good luck telling that to all the fundamental Christian breatherin that I share my homeland with lol.. you're great entertainment Lowing they preach from little else... Leviticus this... Leviticus that..lowing wrote:
No braddock, what I am doing is telling you Christians do not follow the Old Testament...
I said in its full context, that Christians adhere to the word and teachings of Christ ( the NEW Covenant) for their guidance, and basically acknowledge the old testament as what the word of God was before. Christianity could stand alone with the New Covenant if the old testament never exisited.
For the last time. It was written centuries after Christ's death!lowing wrote:
I see so you are a follower of Christ's message tha twas written 2000 years before Christ was born huh?IG-Calibre wrote:
HAHAHA good luck telling that to all the fundamental Christian breatherin that I share my homeland with lol.. you're great entertainment Lowing they preach from little else... Leviticus this... Leviticus that..lowing wrote:
No braddock, what I am doing is telling you Christians do not follow the Old Testament...
I said in its full context, that Christians adhere to the word and teachings of Christ ( the NEW Covenant) for their guidance, and basically acknowledge the old testament as what the word of God was before. Christianity could stand alone with the New Covenant if the old testament never exisited.
The old testament is not the same as the Jewish versions that came before it. It is revised.
I'm willing to bet that not a single fucking soul on this forum has fully read either the Bible, Torah or Q'uran and yet we're all fucking theologians on the evidence of our posts. This is nonsense. How people can make 'expert' comments on three documents that contradict themselves every ten paragraphs I'll never know.
why is this such a stretch? you think 50 years ago people in the US thought mexicans would come close to outnumbering them?