Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Wisdom Lion

Christianity Is Created By Paul

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Well, Clynn,  I have already told you before. 

 

The problem with discussions on the Internet is the safety net it provides by the anonymity of its members.

 

There is nothing you can do about it.

 

Also, most of these people are very young, some have still not finished school.

 

You will find similar attitudes in other websites, regardless which religion or philosophy they adhere to  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Clynn,  I have already told you before. 

 

The problem with discussions on the Internet is the safety net it provides by the anonymity of its members.

 

There is nothing you can do about it.

 

Also, most of these people are very young, some have still not finished school.

 

You will find similar attitudes in other websites, regardless which religion or philosophy they adhere to  

 

Greetings baqar,

 

So true... but this is why I like the idea that we can so easily talk to one another.

 

Salaam and blessings to you,

CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You see, to me, it seems to give a mixed message in its opinion on those who are not Muslim... wherein I find the confusion.

 

The confusion lies in the fact that, unlike one of the books of the OT or the NT, the Quran is a compilation of messages. It is not a book in the sense that the books of the Bible are. Each of the books of the Bible was written as a book. That is not true of the Quran. The messages in the Quran took 23 years to come and most refer to various situations at the time of revelation.

 

Sometimes but not always, you need to know the historical background relevant to each revelation to understand the full import of the message.

 

At other times, the meaning seems quite clear.

 

Reading the Quran as you read other books you may not necessarily learn much or if you do, you may still be muddled   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the Quran as you read other books you may not necessarily learn much or if you do, you may still be muddled   

 

Besides, even if you know the Arabic language, it does not necessarily mean, you can understand everything perfectly.   Words have many meanings. The meaning imputed even by Arabic scholars may not necessarily be the intended sense. And when it comes to translations, the problem is even bigger.

 

For example, verse [5:51] according to most translations seems to ask  Muslims not to take Jews and Christians for friends.  

 

That is not exactly right though.

 

The Arabic word AWLIYA, translated as 'friends'  has many meanings, 'friends' being one of them.  One translator (PALMER) puts it as 'patrons'.

 

The sense of the verse is something of a mixture of friends, patrons, guardians etc. 

 

Whatever the intended sense, it is important to understand that the verse is neither to be taken literally nor for all time to come.

 

It probably relates to a period of hostilities when it was important to draw the line. 

 

We do this sort of thing all the time.

 

When the Russians and Americans controlled Berlin, American soldiers were very restricted in their contacts with the outside world - that is outside the American sphere of influence.  

 

There are situations when one needs to beware of some groups of people.

 

There were extended periods of hostility with local Jews (the is the Jews of Medina) and the Quran doe reprimand them severely.

 

So when the Quran reprimands Jews, it is not ta;king about Jews in Russia or Poland but about local Jews. 

 

But as we have seen, it also has praise where praise is due.

 

The problems with Christians were much fewer 

 

And that it what the Quran is trying to alert Muslims to  - to be constantly alert and awake..

 

That is all there is to it.

 

But if you go to some websites, you will see this verse being splashed around as if it was the only verse in the Quran. 

 

There is hardly any problem Islam has with any religion that sincerely believes in God and preaches the doing of good.

 

It is important to understand that. 

Edited by IloveImamHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings andres,

It is the regular use of delineating words for groups of people, Jews, Christians, Muslims... as though all people within those groups are equal with one another. I feel that this promotes a prejudice in the mind for all people who fall into a certain ethnic or cultural group.

It was the same as not wanting to be known as a 'German' after WWII. The Qur'an if it does not directly say, it implants the idea in the mind, that the Jews are under the wrath of God... would this be true of all Jews?

CLynn

Sometimes a generalisation is OK. Jesus was not fond of Pharisees. All?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A TREATY WITH CHRISTIANS OF ST. CATHERINE'S MONASTERY

 

 

The following is an extract from an article WHY THE SINAI IS AT PEACE from  the National Geographic, March 2009. As everyone is aware, the National Geographic is published from Washington, DC and it is not a Muslim magazine.The first two paragraphs are a general piece on the St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. The third paragraph talks about the monastic tradition that at some point, Prophet Muhammad took refuge at the monastery. The fourth, fifth and the sixth are a brief conversation with Father Justin, a monk at the monastery, about the shared bonds between Muslims and Christians in the region. And the last two paragraphs tell us of a hand-written copy of a pledge personally signed by the Prophet of peace and amnesty for Christians. He even promises to them full support should the Christians be invaded.

 

The fact that the Prophet made that pledge is in itself a signal in the direction of the quest for peace. Further, if the pledge had been broken by the Prophet at any time, the record would have been kept in the monastery. It is obvious it did not happen.

   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MARCH 2009  PAGE 106

   WHY THE SINAI IS AT PEACE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 For millennia the Sinai Peninsula has served as a bridge. A land bridge for people moving from one continent to another, yes, but also a metaphysical bridge between man and God. The forbears of the three great monotheistic religions have all said to have sought refuge in this triangular desert. According to the Bible, Moses received his assignment in Sinai when God spoke to him from the burning bush, then wandered the desert with his people for forty years.  As a child, Jesus and his family fled into Sinai to escape a jealous King Herod's wrath. Early Christians hid from Roman persecutors among the peninsula's lonely mountains, establishing some of the first monastic communities.

 

The oldest continuously operating Christian monastery in the world - St Catherine's sits at the foot of Mount Sinai, where Moses is said to have received the Ten Commandments. It is Sinai's spiritual hub. "Sinai is the only place where we have icons from the sixth century to the present", Father Justin, a monk told me. He walked in long, black robes, his silver beard reached half way to his thin waist, and his face glowed, all of which recalled Moses descending with the stone tablets. The monastery compound is embraced by mountain peaks, all pink-faced, as though flushed by the high elevation. Among the basilica, the library and other structures, Justin pointed out a less expected one with a small crescent on top: a mosque.

According to monastic tradition, Muhammad also took refuge in Sinai, during the seventh century, and stayed at the monastery. Today the monks live alongside Muslim Bedouin who work in the monastery, and Justin said the relationship - contradictory, at first glance, illustrates something special about this in-between place.

 

"When you look at the world today, so many are centered on the Middle East and tensions have been there for millennia" , he said. "And then, the Sinai becomes a very important symbol, because you have fervent Christians and very fervent Muslims, and we are divided by language, by religion, by culture, by so many things that make the conflict, and at the same time, there has been this amazing harmony."

 

The key, he said is simple. "I think there is a common reverence for Sinai as a holy mountain". Their common interest, that is, supersedes their differences.

 

 Fourteen centuries ago Muhammad agreed. After his encounter with the monks here, he issued an oath of protection for the "Monks of Mount Sinai, and ...... Christians in general", a handwritten copy of which Justin keeps in the ancient library. 

 

Muhammad decreed that "whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village or other habitable place, on the sea or in deserts, or in any convent, church or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them". And further to the point: "No one shall bear arms against them, but, on the contrary, Muslims shall wage war for them."  

 

The Greek Orthodox monastery of St. Catherine on the slopes of Mount Sinai - where tradition says God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses - ought to be the last place on earth targeted by Muslim militants. The monastery's museum displays a copy of a 7th century letter dictated by the Prophet Muhammad , specifically ordering that the compound be protected by armies carrying the flag of Islam into Egypt. "Instead of conflict, we are an example that these things that make for conflict can be transcended," says Father Justin, who runs the monastery's library. "So the Sinai becomes a symbol of peace".    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Clynn

 

The following posts might give a little more insight into what Islam is all about

 

  • (1)  Post #82 and 83 in the thread

           What I have learned from the Quran

 

           http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234967884-what-i-have-learned-from-the-quran/page-4

 

  • (2)  Post #1 in the thread

 

                  Imam Zainul Abedin's extraordinary forgiveness

 

                  http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235020586-imam-zainul-abedins-extraordinary-forgiveness/

 

  • (3) Post #1 in the thread

 

                 Imam Musa Kazim's incredible piety

 

                 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235020606-the-incredible-piety-of-imam-musa-kazim-as/

 

The first one might take a bit of time to go through but I hope it will be time well spent.

 

Cheers


  • (4) Post #1

 

                Tragedy of Karbala for Jewish / Christian friends

 

                 http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234920152-tragedy-of-karbala-for-jewishchristian-friends/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLynn, and everybody:

The most important difference between Islam and other religions - is what you CLynn have criticized. That Islam is more judging, and it separates people - in stead of compromising and overlooking differences and so on. Christianity clearly is much much more like this, and it is in fact almost not judging at all - were as Islam is very judging. Now I use judging in lack of a better word. Same with compromise, and overlooking things.... where Islam is not good at overlooking bad things in people, in contrast to Christianity that is willing to  overlooks lots of things. 

 

Now I prefere Islam - because I do not think we should overlook that a member of the church is a drug dealer. He might be welcome in a Christian church with arguments like Jesus loves you even you are a sinner... but in my believe he should be kicked the heck out... and there really is not enough kicks i would like to plant in this mans face... so there we go, Islam is aggressive - just like the supreme court or America !  Islam does not overlook crime... like Christians do. So yea, it is more strict an violent - just like the Supreme Courts of America.

 

Now the question is - why do Christians follow this satanic idea of overlooking the bad things in people ? Because that is what Satan is all about... never mind, don't worry, it is ok, it is just a little sin... we are still good - even we commit some small crimes.. and so on...

 

No - ISLAM - is clear as crystal - no compromise, sin is sin - forget it ! Drug dealing heroin to kids ? Hang the man by his neck... just like the Supreme Court of America, Islam do not compromise.

 

 

I just do not understand why Christians judge Islam for doing what they themselves can not do  ! Christians have the law in their religion, but don not follow it ! So, in short, Im getting tired of this criticism of Islam, - it is a religion that does what the book is saying. That is not something to talk negatively about. It is just like the police, the courts, that follow the law, with no compromise. If you want Islam to be more lenient, and more forgiving,.. just remember that the word for it is corruption. Then why don't you ask the supreme court of America to be more lenient, and to not come down on crime so hard... bla bla ... until then, accept that in Islam, people that steal might loose a finger or a hand. People that rape someone, might be stoned to death... (don't pretend like it is a bad thing) in contrast to Christianity where they are forgiven... or what ever, some say they are helped !

 

That does not mean that there is no justice system - because again, just like in the supreme court, there is a trial , there is evidence in Islam, that is evaluated, there are witnesses heard in Islam and so on. There is just no compromise like in Christianity where it really seems like it is ok to go compromise with the devil...

 

Wake up / listen, Islam is just following the law - that is NOT the bad thing. The bad thing is that the only other party that does like Islam is the courts. No other religions does. Only Islam and the courts.

 

 

That is why - the only religion that is honest and true, and that does not compromise is Islam. Islam will kick down the bad man, to protect the innocent. If you have a problem with that, then you should go tear down the Supreme Court and tell them the same things you are saying about Islam...

 

Islam even have a system to control the politicians and the lawyers, the courts and even the leaders of the country. Not even those people can get away with anything in Islam. Islam DO NOT COMPROMISE, not even for the president of who ever you are.

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings solitair,

 

I'm just curious...

Do you know how many people have been falsely put on death row?  Found later to be innocent?

Do you know how many times people may be killed falsely?

 

Yshwe said,

'Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.'

 

That would be no one.

How many of us have needed forgiveness in our lives?  How many have turned their lives around to go on and really help others they see falling into their same footsteps and sins?  These repenters help the world.  God has His own purposes for every life.

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings solitair,

 

I'm just curious...

Do you know how many people have been falsely put on death row?  Found later to be innocent?

Do you know how many times people may be killed falsely?

 

Yshwe said,

'Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.'

 

That would be no one.

How many of us have needed forgiveness in our lives?  How many have turned their lives around to go on and really help others they see falling into their same footsteps and sins?  These repenters help the world.  God has His own purposes for every life.

 

What does the supreme court say about these statements you have just made ? They are outraged by them - because if we do not have legal systems - the society you live in will break down, and the gangs and criminals will take over and nobody will be safe anywhere.

 

My question is why do you not fight the Supreme Court, why do you not argue against the modern western democratic countries rulers - like the American Government, the White House and so on ? Why the Muslims ? Do you not realize that the Muslims are very moderate compared to the rest of the rulers out there ?

 

Even if you were correct about the Mulisms - do you not realize that the Muslims rulings, is very liberal compared to - like you said - to death sentencing in the USA ?

 

What do you say about the total lack of security you have for a black man in the court systems in some state of the USA ? Islam is colorblind in that way, so why don't you tear down the legal systems that do stuff like that ?  This man was 15 yeas of what ever in jail waiting to be executed - completely innocent - why do you only think this way about Islam ? Why not the one that you rely on for your safety - that are so much worse than any Islamic rulers ever have been.

 

American legal systems are corrupted and so much worse than the extreme law riders in Islamic society where not even kings or presidents can escape... just take diplomatic immunity. A diplomat can rape a woman and not get arested even. Do you see Islam making such an exception ? I want to see the man that tries to bribe the guardians in Iran.

I do not disagree with you about how bad it is that we have death sentencing in a legal systems like in the USA, but if you are comparing that to Islam you are way of. It is worse in American legal systems, and better in Islamic ruled systems. So what is your point ? I just said - why do you not tear them down ? They are worse then Islam - so you agree with me that they are bad - so why don't you tear them down ? Why do you accept them, when they are worse than Islam ? You argue that they are bad - so take the point and tear them down. But you don't, because for some very strange reason they are acceptable to you - even they are so much worse. That is not honesty.

 

If you have all these arguments against Islam - then you must be against all this - so go tear down the once that are worse. But you dont, you accept it all from the others. Only when it comes from Islam do you object ... why ?

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Christians follow this satanic idea of overlooking the bad things in people ? 

 

Jesus said clearly that hell is an absolute reality.

 

As for punishment before death, if Jesus had completely outlawed them, the Church would not have launched Inquisitions and other punishments for extended periods of time.

 

The only thing is that at the present, Christian countries prefer to keep the Church and state separate.

 

This was not so in the past.

That Islam is more judging, and it separates people - in stead of compromising and overlooking differences and so on. 

 

As far as Islamic law is concerned, it varies very widely from one denomination to another. 

 

But you are right, it is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How many of us have needed forgiveness in our lives?  How many have turned their lives around to go on and really help others they see falling into their same footsteps and sins?  These repenters help the world.  God has His own purposes for every life.

 

It does not matter if you turn your life around after you kill an innocent child or rape a young girl. No matter what you do - it is not going to un-rape the person. It is not going to white out the bad, or bring the dead back to life. Your sin is eternal, the pain of the victim is eternal, and so should your punishment be...

 

I do not care if the rapist does something good for society after committing his evil act... the most important for society is to be relieved of such a person. The raped child does not need to be afraid of running in to him...

 

Money made from selling drugs. People do not want to use that money... and in the same way, society do not want to use the labor of a rapist ... because he earned that bad conscience by rape... it is all bad ... and should be sent to hell ... where it all can burn...

Jesus said clearly that hell is an absolute reality.

 

As for punishment before death, if Jesus had completely outlawed them, the Church would not have launched Inquisitions and other punishments for extended periods of time.

 

The only thing is that at the present, Christian countries prefer to keep the Church and state separate.

 

This was not so in the past.

 

As far as Islamic law is concerned, it varies very widely from one denomination to another. 

 

But you are right, it is there.

 

 

I appreciate your point.

 

You talk about church and state being separate - well the pope that started the crusades is portrait much like a psycopath, should we believe history, so to me they could have benefited by the setup in Iran - where nothing can be allowed if it is not strictly in agreement with the Qur'an... so if that was the case, no crusades, no inquisition ...

 

The model from the catholic church on the other hand is more along the lines of dictatorship, because it ment literally : if the pope wants to do it, nobody can object... that is not a joint state and church that is a crazy man running both...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to the original question some remarks from a Christian perspective:

 

-The New Testament as a whole is a testimony of the coming of the Word in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. The Gospels, the Book of Acts, the Letters and the Apocalypse all form an integrative whole and should not be seperated.

 

-The Apostle Paul was vital for the development of the Christian theology and doctrine. The statement that Paul was the founder of Christianity is a incorrect because it would suggest that he would be only Apostle and acted independently from the others. In the Book of Acts and also in Pauls own letters do we see that Paul was in close contact with the other disciples; especially the original group of the Twelve. They teach them about their experiences with Jesus and he asks their premission before he begins his missionary travels.

 

-Paul testifies having visions of Jesus Christ speaking to him. As Christians we believe that Paul was so guided by Christ and in many ways is a prophetic figure in his own right.

 

-Some have suggested that Paul would be an agent of the Roman Empire. This certainly untrue.The historicity and likelihood of such a thing are absurd. 

                     -There is no evidence for such a conspiracy

                     -Paul was actively persecuted by the Romans. He died as a martyrs under emperor Nero.

                     -Christianity as a religious movement began as a insignifcant movement. Not something that would draw the attention of the                                               empire. That only happened later.


It does not matter if you turn your life around after you kill an innocent child or rape a young girl. No matter what you do - it is not going to un-rape the person. It is not going to white out the bad, or bring the dead back to life. Your sin is eternal, the pain of the victim is eternal, and so should your punishment be...

 

I do not care if the rapist does something good for society after committing his evil act... the most important for society is to be relieved of such a person. The raped child does not need to be afraid of running in to him...

 

Money made from selling drugs. People do not want to use that money... and in the same way, society do not want to use the labor of a rapist ... because he earned that bad conscience by rape... it is all bad ... and should be sent to hell ... where it all can burn...


 

 

I appreciate your point.

 

You talk about church and state being separate - well the pope that started the crusades is portrait much like a psycopath, should we believe history, so to me they could have benefited by the setup in Iran - where nothing can be allowed if it is not strictly in agreement with the Qur'an... so if that was the case, no crusades, no inquisition ...

 

The model from the catholic church on the other hand is more along the lines of dictatorship, because it ment literally : if the pope wants to do it, nobody can object... that is not a joint state and church that is a crazy man running both...

These accusations have no basis in reality. The Pope is bound by the rules of Canon Law (Church law) which govern the way the Church as a body is structured. These laws guard the rights and duties of all members of the Church. If a Pope would be a crazy man he can no longer stay in function. Also if a Pope would be heterodox and go against the Catholic faith he would have to resign.

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These accusations have no basis in reality. .

 

Hi Leto

 

I think this was a departure from Solitar's main point - which is based on a lack of clarity on whether Christianity does (or does not) have punishments for crimes for any sort.

 

As far as I can see, Clynn seems to be trying to push the point that every sin must be forgiven.

 

I wish to know from Christians like you,  whether she is making sense from a strictly Christian point of view.

 

As I have already mentioned, Christ himself said that there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'.

 

In other words, hell will be real bad.

 

No lovey, dovey business there.  

 

Or do you think that angels will tell the likes of Hitler  -  We love you. God loves you, Please walk into heaven. That lovely hotel suite belongs to you. Enjoy!  We love you.  

 

So my main question is whether Jesus outlawed a judicial system.

 

In addition to all this, I would like to know whether Jesus repealed every law in the Old Testament or just the stoning of the adulteress?

 

Clynn keeps repeating her love, love stuff.

 

I think it is all too very unrealistic. Don't you think?  

 

If A kills B,should B be allowed to go free, just because everyone should love everyone else.

 

To be honest,  it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I think  Clynn has probably not suffered sufficiently in her own life.

 

But if you look around, you will see how people react to those who cause them (or their dear ones) great personal hurt or injury.

 

If someone brutally kills the only son of a Christian person, is that person expected to just tell the killer 'It is OK, you have sinned, but I love you'.

 

I live in a Christian country and I listen to the news  intently every day.

 

Every now and then, we hear the father or mother or brother or sister of a person who was raped or brutally killed express their extreme hatred for the culprit.

 

All these people are Christians.

 

And when the court announces its sentence, almost everyone thinks that the sentence was much too low in proportion to the crime.

 

I might add that Islam also expects forgiveness for offenders but that does require it.

 

Forgiveness is the better option in Islam but if you cannot forgive, fine, you are only human, after all. The offender will be punished.

 

How far are Christians expected to love killers and rapists and others like them? 

 

Should everyone just  tell every killer and rapist - 'We love you. Jesus wants us to love you'

Edited by IloveImamHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi IloveImamHussain,

 

My reaction was to the specific statements about the position of Pope and juridical structure of the Catholic Church which are not in conformity with the reality. Thank you for explaining the general context of the debate:

 

Am I correct if I summarize the main question like this:

 

"According to Christians has Jesus' teachings and redemptive work abolished the rule of law?"

 

If that is the core question the answer can be very simple; no that is not the case.

 

Regards,

 

Leto

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Leto

 

That was informative.

 

Just a little more explanation about the concept of love in Christianity  would be nice.

 

If you read my last post again, I have tried to explain my confusion about the claim that seems to say that 'loving people' is so important that it can supersede the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of virtues like charity and justice I don't believe that they should be played off against each other. There has to be a certain ordening to society which promotes justice and protects the people and objective morality. Punishment is part of such a social order and has it's place. This does not contradict the principle of love because love itselves strives for justice and protection of the people in society.

 

On an interpersonal level I think we are called to unite ourselves with God who is forgiving for those that repent and turn to Him with uprightness of hearts. There is nobody that has sinned so much that he cannot repent. I believe that we should try to imitate this when people ask for our forgiveness. But nobody can be obliged to forgive someone else; only with the grace of God is this possible. In God there is no contradiction between love and justice.

 

Anyway; it does not come in the place of the rule of law. Even if a person forgives someone who has harmed him or her there is also the debt a person has to the society and the law. These punishments serve justice; not revenge and, if they are based on sound and righteous principles, are a good in themselves.

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you say about the total lack of security you have for a black man in the court systems in some state of the USA ? Islam is colorblind in that way, so why don't you tear down the legal systems that do stuff like that ?  This man was 15 yeas of what ever in jail waiting to be executed - completely innocent -

 

Greetings solitair,

 

It is actually this very thing that I am speaking against.  Yes, most of those cases of innocent men sitting on death row, now being found innocent through new technology like DNA, are black men.  The system of justice in any country is not fool-proof.  Is it not good that these people get a second chance?

asalaam.

American legal systems are corrupted and so much worse than the extreme law riders in Islamic society where not even kings or presidents can escape... just take diplomatic immunity. A diplomat can rape a woman and not get arested even. Do you see Islam making such an exception ? I want to see the man that tries to bribe the guardians in Iran.

I do not disagree with you about how bad it is that we have death sentencing in a legal systems like in the USA, but if you are comparing that to Islam you are way of. It is worse in American legal systems, and better in Islamic ruled systems. So what is your point ?

 

Pastor Saeed - imprisoned in Iran, for nothing more than being a Christian - tortured, suffering internal injuries, denied medical attention, and kept in shackles....

There are many others suffering the same fate... not for crimes of rape... not for crimes of murder, or any grievous crime...

It does not matter if you turn your life around after you kill an innocent child or rape a young girl. No matter what you do - it is not going to un-rape the person. It is not going to white out the bad, or bring the dead back to life. Your sin is eternal, the pain of the victim is eternal, and so should your punishment be...

 

Greetings solitair,

 

Killing the rapist won't un-rape the person either.  No punishment will help the victim.  The purpose of law should be to prevent further victims.  This prevention does not have to be through death.  What if the rapist turns out to have been wrongly accused, regardless of what a jury has found, and a judge has sentenced.  Will God forgive the killing of an innocent person when we make such mistakes?  It is difficult.  I do not say that I am against all capital punishment.  I am torn on the issue... divided in my thoughts.  I think only when there is no question of the persons guilt... as when they are caught in the act... but this is not often the case, is it?

asalaam.

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leto

 

I think this was a departure from Solitar's main point - which is based on a lack of clarity on whether Christianity does (or does not) have punishments for crimes for any sort.

As far as I can see, Clynn seems to be trying to push the point that every sin must be forgiven.

I wish to know from Christians like you,  whether she is making sense from a strictly Christian point of view.

As I have already mentioned, Christ himself said that there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'.

In other words, hell will be real bad.

No lovey, dovey business there.  

Or do you think that angels will tell the likes of Hitler  -  We love you. God loves you, Please walk into heaven. That lovely hotel suite belongs to you. Enjoy!  We love you.  

So my main question is whether Jesus outlawed a judicial system.

In addition to all this, I would like to know whether Jesus repealed every law in the Old Testament or just the stoning of the adulteress?

Clynn keeps repeating her love, love stuff.

I think it is all too very unrealistic. Don't you think?  

 

Greetings ilove,

 

Are you unfamiliar with the Amish school shooting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting#Amish_community_response

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-of-amish-school-shooter-shares-amazing-story-of-forgiveness/

 

But if you look around, you will see how people react to those who cause them (or their dear ones) great personal hurt or injury.

If someone brutally kills the only son of a Christian person, is that person expected to just tell the killer 'It is OK, you have sinned, but I love you'.

I live in a Christian country and I listen to the news  intently every day.

Every now and then, we hear the father or mother or brother or sister of a person who was raped or brutally killed express their extreme hatred for the culprit.

All these people are Christians.

And when the court announces its sentence, almost everyone thinks that the sentence was much too low in proportion to the crime.

 

I have also heard cases of forgiveness.  Each case is unique.

 

I might add that Islam also expects forgiveness for offenders but that does require it.

Forgiveness is the better option in Islam but if you cannot forgive, fine, you are only human, after all. The offender will be punished.

How far are Christians expected to love killers and rapists and others like them? 

Should everyone just  tell every killer and rapist - 'We love you. Jesus wants us to love you'

 

I think we have mercy and forgiveness.  Forgiveness is a difficult concept.  It does not mean the perpetrator is free to abuse again.  Mercy means that we take pity on their damaged soul and pray that God will reach them.  Forgiveness means we let go of our anger towards that person, or any need for revenge... submitting to God's will to judge.  This does not mean we free the person to commit more crimes.  It does mean we afford them the opportunity to repent in the eyes of God.

In Christianity it is understood that un-forgiveness keeps only yourself in bondage and therefore vulnerable to the whims of satan to use you and that anger.  Hatred is a thing of satan.  Hatred is what the devil wants to perpetuate amongst mankind so that the creation will destroy itself.

We forgive not for the sake of the other person, but for our own sake... to free us from the bondage... to keep ourselves safely in the loving protection of our loving Creator.

 

asalaam.  :)

Edited by CLynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these people are Christians.

 

 

In 2008, 51% of Americans professed to going to church on a regular basis. In 2012 that went down to 36%

All these people are not Christians. They live in a "Christian" country. One that does not allow Bibles nor prayer in their schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These accusations have no basis in reality. The Pope is bound by the rules of Canon Law (Church law) which govern the way the Church as a body is structured. These laws guard the rights and duties of all members of the Church. If a Pope would be a crazy man he can no longer stay in function. Also if a Pope would be heterodox and go against the Catholic faith he would have to resign.

 

No basis in reality ? Did the Canon Law stop the pope from ordering 400 years of crusades ? No, it did not. Who and what exactly was it that was supposed to stop him from not following the canon law ? Is there a council ? And why did they not stop him ? Or are you saying that he did not break the canon law (or what ever you call this law) with his crusaded? I would be very carefuller claiming the latter.

 

There is no such thing to stop a pope, and a pope has never been stoped. He did send soldiers to massacre Muslims for about 400 years repeatedly... in the name of Jesus !! Why did he not love them instead? They did not commit any sin, unless living in their own country is a sin... NO NO, the pope sent soldiers year after year, spending all the military budget on war - not war in his own country, but in other parts of the world were he had no business even going at all.

 

What exactly is it in this canon law that ever stopped the Pope from anything ?

 

You know, you say the accusations have no basis in reality - and i am tired of hearing that  - because it is a sentence used when someone is insulted personally. You should use the sentence when it is a fact, not when ever your feelings are hurt. If your feelings are hurt, say that you feel this to be insulting - despite what I say is true. Don't try to construct a different reality.

 

 

Killing the rapist won't un-rape the person either.  No punishment will help the victim.  The purpose of law should be to prevent further victims.  This prevention does not have to be through death.  What if the rapist turns out to have been wrongly accused, regardless of what a jury has found, and a judge has sentenced.  Will God forgive the killing of an innocent person when we make such mistakes?  It is difficult.  I do not say that I am against all capital punishment.  I am torn on the issue... divided in my thoughts.  I think only when there is no question of the persons guilt... as when they are caught in the act... but this is not often the case, is it?

asalaam.

 

What ?? No punishment will help the victim ? You are now starting to be completely ridiculous, and so extreme that it almost hurtful to listen to you. How can you not see that revenge (a word that for you is only negative i suppose) rectifies that fear inside a raped woman. She will be scared until the day that horrible criminal is severely punished. Only then will she be able to regain some of the feeling of security that was taken away from her. Revenge, is to return the power to the victim, and it is very psychologically important. If you don't get it, you are mentally broken ... and it is for some people impossible to get back up... so you are so wrong that i can almost not believe I'm hearing this.

 

People that suffer mentally after crimes like these in christian society's - are by the christian society denied revenge - because it is bad, so they continue to be afraid. They never get the power and security back because they are supposed to forgive ... what sick non sense...

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these people are not Christians.

 

Are you assuming that I was talking about North or South America?

 

I wasn't.    

 

According to stats, where I was talking about, the people are overwhelmingly Christian.

 

And the fact that most of the relatives of the victims of the rapes, murders and pedophiles had church funerals for their loved ones is enough for me to accept them as Christians.

 

I believe that the overwhelming majority of those I was referring to are indeed Christians. 

 

And in at least in one other non-Christian country, with a small Christian population, I have evidence of the feelings of Christian families towards rapists, in at least one court case that I have watched closely.

 

But don't worry.  Christians are not alone in their lack of forgiveness for such criminals.

 

Muslims, Hindus, Jains, SIkhs etc. - also atheists - none of them is particularly forgiving when it comes to one's own four year old being raped and then killed by a pedophile or being the victim of a similar crime. 

 

I think we have mercy and forgiveness.  Forgiveness is a difficult concept.  It does not mean the perpetrator is free to abuse again.  Mercy means that we take pity on their damaged soul and pray that God will reach them.  Forgiveness means we let go of our anger towards that person, or any need for revenge... submitting to God's will to judge.  This does not mean we free the person to commit more crimes.  It does mean we afford them the opportunity to repent in the eyes of God.

In Christianity it is understood that un-forgiveness keeps only yourself in bondage and therefore vulnerable to the whims of satan to use you and that anger.  Hatred is a thing of satan.  Hatred is what the devil wants to perpetuate amongst mankind so that the creation will destroy itself.

  

I have got all the answers I needed from Leto's post #228.

 

Thank you

 

What ?? No punishment will help the victim ? 

 

The best response on this subject is post #228.  

Edited by IloveImamHussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you assuming that I was talking about North or South America?

 

I wasn't.    

 

According to stats, where I was talking about, the people are overwhelmingly Christian.

 

And the fact that most of the relatives of the victims of the rapes, murders and pedophiles had church funerals for their loved ones is enough for me to accept them as Christians.

 

I believe that the overwhelming majority of those I was referring to are indeed Christians. 

 

And in at least in one other non-Christian country, with a small Christian population, I have evidence of the feelings of Christian families towards rapists, in at least one court case that I have watched closely.

 

But don't worry.  Christians are not alone in their lack of forgiveness for such criminals.

 

Muslims, Hindus, Jains, SIkhs etc. - also atheists - none of them is particularly forgiving when it comes to one's own four year old being raped and then killed by a pedophile or being the victim of a similar crime. 

 

  

I have got all the answers I needed from Leto's post #228.

 

Thank you

 

 

The best response on this subject is post #228.  

Did the mention of Americans give it away?

Please tell me where you are talking about.

Edited by Son of Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing is that regardless of one's religious beliefs, the average human has a forgiveness threshold.

 

You could forgive someone stealing $500 from your wallet.

 

That may not be so difficult for perhaps many of us.

 

But the things I mentioned, like rape, murder, sexual assault, child abuse  -  are well beyond the forgiveness threshold of most people. 

 

When a person is really hurt to see a young son or daughter or brother or sister treated like that - is, for most people, unforgivable.

 

If you watch the news from around the world carefully, whether people are religious or non-religious, that, I believe, will be your conclusion.

So think carefully of all such news you might have heard in, say, the last few years.

 

And try to recall the feelings of the raped woman's mother or the father of the little boy abducted, tortured and killed by a pedophile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They live in a "Christian" country. One that does not allow Bibles nor prayer in their schools.

 

Hi SoP

 

Please don't dismiss non-religious people. Non-religious people are not necessarily anti-religion.

And more importantly, there are some extremely nice, friendly, sweet and kind-hearted people among them.

Also, they are far less susceptible to prejudice and hate.

All the famous Islamophobes in the world today are known to be very religious people, though there are some atheists also in the mix.

Nevertheless, non-religious people are not a very bad lot at all.

I am sure that is also your experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No basis in reality ? Did the Canon Law stop the pope from ordering 400 years of crusades ? No, it did not. Who and what exactly was it that was supposed to stop him from not following the canon law ? Is there a council ? And why did they not stop him ? Or are you saying that he did not break the canon law (or what ever you call this law) with his crusaded? I would be very carefuller claiming the latter.

 

There is no such thing to stop a pope, and a pope has never been stoped. He did send soldiers to massacre Muslims for about 400 years repeatedly... in the name of Jesus !! Why did he not love them instead? They did not commit any sin, unless living in their own country is a sin... NO NO, the pope sent soldiers year after year, spending all the military budget on war - not war in his own country, but in other parts of the world were he had no business even going at all.

 

What exactly is it in this canon law that ever stopped the Pope from anything ?

 

You know, you say the accusations have no basis in reality - and i am tired of hearing that  - because it is a sentence used when someone is insulted personally. You should use the sentence when it is a fact, not when ever your feelings are hurt. If your feelings are hurt, say that you feel this to be insulting - despite what I say is true. Don't try to construct a different reality.

Hi Solitair,

 

The Crusades:

400 hunderd years of Crusades? There were several very distinct military campaigns called crusades that took place between 1095 and 1271. This isn't a "400 years of crusades" like one massive block; it are different wars over a period of 176 years.  

 

They were military expeditions that initially started off as a reaction to two situations:

-a request by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to Latin Christianity for military aid against attacks of the Seljuq Turks on the Byzantine Empire

-enabling pelgrimage to Jerusalem, because there were many stories of pilgrims being killed by the Muslim rulers of Jerusalem

 

Responding to these situations the Pope asked kings and knights of Europe to go to Palestine and reconquer the former areas of the Byzantine Empire that were before were conquered by different Islamic rulers. Remember that Jerusalem was a Christian city and part of the Byzantine Emperor before it was conquered by the Arabs.

 

It also isn't true that there were only Muslims living in Jerusalem, Palestina and Lebanon at that time: the areas had quite recently be conquerd by the Muslims and many people were still Christian. In reality there were wars between different Muslim groups going on in the area as well. Historical context is important in this one. The situation is more complex than you paint it in your post. 

 

So: the main reasons were to halt the further consequenst of the Byzantine Empire and ensure the ability of Chrisitans to worship in the Holy Land. 

 

As it turned out it was true that some Muslim rulers had barred Christians from entering Jerusalem but in reality this was not general policy. And later crusaders like Richard Lionheart were able to come to terms and agreements with some of the Muslim rulers about these matters. It was not a black and white situation. One of the results was that Christians monks (Franciscans) were allowed to administer the holy places of Christianity, the Custodia Terrae Sanctae (a situation that goes on to this day).

 

Does that make the crusades into a good thing? Certainly not. But does that make it into the pinnacle of evil? I don't think either. Within the historical context I think it wasn't that strange. Later history has shown this; what happened to the Byzantine Empire afterwards? What happened to Constantinople? I think these questions give some hint to the context. Don't make an over-simplification of history.

 

Your second question:

If a Pope would proclaim heretical statements or statements that collide with the objective moral order that would result in an ipso facto excommunication and because of that in him losing his office. That would of course lead to a crisis but when it happened the conclave of cardinal has to be convoked to elect a new Pope.

 

In case of deposing a Pope for reasons other than clear acts of heresy; you are right that this is very difficult. Only a general council of the bishops could do this.

 

Your final comment:

I am not insulted or hurt by what you say, I simply don't agree with it. That is why I express my view on the points you mention like I think is normal on a discussion forum. No reason to get upset or angy. ;)

Cheers,

 

Leto

Edited by Leto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Solitair,

 

The Crusades:

400 hunderd years of Crusades? There were several very distinct military campaigns called crusades that took place between 1095 and 1271. This isn't a "400 years of crusades" like one massive block; it are different wars over a period of 176 years.  

 

They were military expeditions that initially started off as a reaction to two situations:

-a request by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to Latin Christianity for military aid against attacks of the Seljuq Turks on the Byzantine Empire

-enabling pelgrimage to Jerusalem, because there were many stories of pilgrims being killed by the Muslim rulers of Jerusalem

 

Responding to these situations the Pope asked kings and knights of Europe to go to Palestine and reconquer the former areas of the Byzantine Empire that were before were conquered by different Islamic rulers. Remember that Jerusalem was a Christian city and part of the Byzantine Emperor before it was conquered by the Arabs.

 

It also isn't true that there were only Muslims living in Jerusalem, Palestina and Lebanon at that time: the areas had quite recently be conquerd by the Muslims and many people were still Christian. In reality there were wars between different Muslim groups going on in the area as well. Historical context is important in this one. The situation is more complex than you paint it in your post. 

 

So: the main reasons were to halt the further consequenst of the Byzantine Empire and ensure the ability of Chrisitans to worship in the Holy Land. 

 

As it turned out it was true that some Muslim rulers had barred Christians from entering Jerusalem but in reality this was not general policy. And later crusaders like Richard Lionheart were able to come to terms and agreements with some of the Muslim rulers about these matters. It was not a black and white situation. One of the results was that Christians monks (Franciscans) were allowed to administer the holy places of Christianity, the Custodia Terrae Sanctae (a situation that goes on to this day).

 

Does that make the crusades into a good thing? Certainly not. But does that make it into the pinnacle of evil? I don't think either. Within the historical context I think it wasn't that strange. Later history has shown this; what happened to the Byzantine Empire afterwards? What happened to Constantinople? I think these questions give some hint to the context. Don't make an over-simplification of history.

 

Your second question:

If a Pope would proclaim heretical statements or statements that collide with the objective moral order that would result in an ipso facto excommunication and because of that in him losing his office. That would of course lead to a crisis but when it happened the conclave of cardinal has to be convoked to elect a new Pope.

 

In case of deposing a Pope for reasons other than clear acts of heresy; you are right that this is very difficult. Only a general council of the bishops could do this.

 

Your final comment:

I am not insulted or hurt by what you say, I simply don't agree with it. That is why I express my view on the points you mention like I think is normal on a discussion forum. No reason to get upset or angy. ;)

Cheers,

 

Leto

 

Well, what i like about Islam is that it is clear - and little compromise. Bad is bad, not like with your pope, where there are so many circumstances, so many this and that... bla bla, we have to understand this and that... and in the end we are so tired in the head that we don't know what to think... so it is all deluded in to bla bla bla...

 

Why do you for example involve Lionhart and so forth ? We are talking about the pope. Not trying to understand the complexity of the crusaded. The fact is that the Pope is a man of God, and he should know better - he should follow Jeusus - regardless of what ever  some crusader freak ended up doing on his crusade. This is about the Pope - so there is no excuse for the pope among the actions of the individual crusaders, the kings or what have you.

 

The fact is - no pope was ever so lacking in intelligence that he did not know the consequence of sending armies in to a village to massacre it in the name of jesus. What ever you say, there is no way that the pope did not know what he was doing. That is the bottom line, and i get sick to my stomach hearing how people talk the seriousness away, in all kinds of bla bla bla... just because  - like i said, it goes against their feelings. To you it is not emotionally acceptable that the pope was a terrorist - and i can understand that that is hard to face ... but history is reality. All the bla bla bla in the world, how many years was it, 100 or 300 or 750... what ever. The fact is that is was repeated massacre of innocent people...

 

Why would you ever want to talk that away in lots of contradicting bla bla bla... ??

 

I can not do that about Hitler and all the jews he masacred... if i say, oh.. maybe he did not kill all the children in the chamber, maybe he drowned them... so what ? Make any difference ? He is still a horrible character.

 

Now just because this is the pope, it does not make it ok for the rest of the world. Only the catholic people and most christian need these excuses ... the rest look at the horrible crimes, and that is all...

 

so disagree all you want, it seems very obvious why you disagree, and it is not because of facts but because of emotions... The facts are against the pope - on all sides and it always have been. People just ignore the reality because it is to horrible to take in... but the catholic Church is behind some of the worst horror in human history.

 

The reason why you don't find this in Islam - is because in Islam bad is bad.... no compromise. That is why I love Islam - even I am not a Muslim. It is the truth, it is pure and clean. No horrible stuff can survive in Islam. I love Islam with all my heart - because any sign of bad - it is ripped of and thrown out.

 

But in Christianity is is understood and discussed, and forgiven... so it pollutes...

 

Does that mean that muslims dont do bad things ? No !! It means that there are bad things there as well as all other places, but the difference is that it is "ripped off" and "thrown away" - unlike with the pope that just continued and continued .... without nothing ever happening...

 

Just look at any law in Islam - there is a consequence that will not be compromised. That is the true God - if there is a God, that is what he would be like. The bible said that it is better that you rip out your eye than to allow it to mislead you... so clearly it is talking about God. So what happened ? It all just gets diluted in to nothing.... where Christians today, are all about forgiving and forgetting what ever it is...

 

... even the most horrible person deserves a new chance in the name of Jesus. Well, that is just not true ! He deserves to burn in  hell  for his crimes !

Edited by solitair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what i like about Islam is that it is clear - and little compromise. Bad is bad, not like with your pope, where there are so many circumstances, so many this and that... bla bla, we have to understand this and that... and in the end we are so tired in the head that we don't know what to think... so it is all deluded in to bla bla bla...

 

The fact is - no pope was ever so lacking in intelligence that he did not know the consequence of sending armies in to a village to massacre it in the name of jesus. What ever you say, there is no way that the pope did not know what he was doing. That is the bottom line, and i get sick to my stomach hearing how people talk the seriousness away, in all kinds of bla bla bla... just because  - like i said, it goes against their feelings. To you it is not emotionally acceptable that the pope was a terrorist - and i can understand that that is hard to face ... but history is reality. All the bla bla bla in the world, how many years was it, 100 or 300 or 750... what ever. The fact is that is was repeated massacre of innocent people...

 

Why would you ever want to talk that away in lots of contradicting bla bla bla... ??

 

I can not do that about Hitler and all the jews he masacred... if i say, oh.. maybe he did not kill all the children in the chamber, maybe he drowned them... so what ? Make any difference ? He is still a horrible character.

 

Now just because this is the pope, it does not make it ok for the rest of the world. Only the catholic people and most christian need these excuses ... the rest look at the horrible crimes, and that is all...

 

so disagree all you want, it seems very obvious why you disagree, and it is not because of facts but because of emotions... The facts are against the pope - on all sides and it always have been. People just ignore the reality because it is to horrible to take in... but the catholic Church is behind some of the worst horror in human history.

 

The reason why you don't find this in Islam - is because in Islam bad is bad.... no compromise. That is why I love Islam - even I am not a Muslim. It is the truth, it is pure and clean. No horrible stuff can survive in Islam. I love Islam with all my heart - because any sign of bad - it is ripped of and thrown out.

 

But in Christianity is is understood and discussed, and forgiven... so it pollutes...

I think with Islam too you need to understand historical context to appreciate the meaning of history. I think in reality many people misjudge Islam because they have little appreciation of just that. That has little to do with the pope or islam but just with common sense I would think.

 

What you say about the Pope giving orders to "Christian soldiers sent into villages to kill people in the name of Jesus". You have any sources for that? Or does it come for the same source as those 400 years? Or are facts just more "bla... bla... bla"?

 

You speak about contradicting nonsense. Where in what I wrote do you find contradiction? If there is any please tell me where but just saying there is without pointing in out does not help our conversation.

 

About your comments about my perceived emotional state I can just say what I said; for me this is just a discussion without any emotional dimension. You can accuse me of lying but that seems strange to me. I think there is little value in psychologizing people you don't know and ascribe every disagreement to emotions.

 

Anyway; please react to the content of what I said instead of just some vague accusations without concrete reference to content. If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong and show me where I made the mistake. That is the only way to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leto

I think this was a departure from Solitar's main point - which is based on a lack of clarity on whether Christianity does (or does not) have punishments for crimes for any sort.

As far as I can see, Clynn seems to be trying to push the point that every sin must be forgiven.

I wish to know from Christians like you, whether she is making sense from a strictly Christian point of view.

As I have already mentioned, Christ himself said that there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'.

In other words, hell will be real bad.

No lovey, dovey business there.

Or do you think that angels will tell the likes of Hitler - We love you. God loves you, Please walk into heaven. That lovely hotel suite belongs to you. Enjoy! We love you.

So my main question is whether Jesus outlawed a judicial system.

In addition to all this, I would like to know whether Jesus repealed every law in the Old Testament or just the stoning of the adulteress?

Clynn keeps repeating her love, love stuff.

I think it is all too very unrealistic. Don't you think?

If A kills B,should B be allowed to go free, just because everyone should love everyone else.

To be honest, it makes no sense whatsoever.

I think Clynn has probably not suffered sufficiently in her own life.

But if you look around, you will see how people react to those who cause them (or their dear ones) great personal hurt or injury.

If someone brutally kills the only son of a Christian person, is that person expected to just tell the killer 'It is OK, you have sinned, but I love you'.

I live in a Christian country and I listen to the news intently every day.

Every now and then, we hear the father or mother or brother or sister of a person who was raped or brutally killed express their extreme hatred for the culprit.

All these people are Christians.

And when the court announces its sentence, almost everyone thinks that the sentence was much too low in proportion to the crime.

I might add that Islam also expects forgiveness for offenders but that does require it.

Forgiveness is the better option in Islam but if you cannot forgive, fine, you are only human, after all. The offender will be punished.

How far are Christians expected to love killers and rapists and others like them?

Should everyone just tell every killer and rapist - 'We love you. Jesus wants us to love you'.

Good post , very informative !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SoP

 

Please don't dismiss non-religious people. Non-religious people are not necessarily anti-religion.

And more importantly, there are some extremely nice, friendly, sweet and kind-hearted people among them.

Also, they are far less susceptible to prejudice and hate.

All the famous Islamophobes in the world today are known to be very religious people, though there are some atheists also in the mix.

Nevertheless, non-religious people are not a very bad lot at all.

I am sure that is also your experience. 

Hi Baqar.

Please don't think I dismiss anyone. Non religious people run the world. Most are not anti religion, they've just heard the same story too many times. All my working career was with (majority) non religious people. (In the corporate world they aren't always so sweet.)

Most non religious people don't have the background to hate someone for their religious beliefs. The world is now pushing peace and love, however, if you don't like it, you're the hater and will never be accepted.  

That is very much my experience ;)

 

Just a note:

Fred Phelps died today of a heart attack after he found out Ellen DeGeneres had a talk show. (any irony in that?) 

Slayer, (heavy metal band) camped on the church lawn waiting for word about the funeral so they could carry signs saying “God Hates Self-Righteous Fanatics”

No funeral for the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church. Go figure.

 

Back to the lovey dovey portion of our Anti Paul thread...(Paul is sure getting off easy)

 

Jesus said "With as much as lies within you, live at peace with all men."

 

Here's a scenario.

Last summer I worked with a fellow for about six weeks. He mentioned he had been away for a while, (which I assumed meant he went to jail). When I asked him what he went to jail for...(At first he jumped back not thinking he had given it away.) Then, head down he admitted he had raped his step daughter. From what he said she was 15 and already very sexually active. He was trying to show his dominance in this ready made family and "went too far". I stopped him about there and never mentioned it after.

What say you?

According to the law he paid his debt to society but regardless, I had a very hard time keeping my emotions in. Because I didn't X communicate him he thinks I'm his friend. Not so sure I'd go so far.

 

Jesus says we have to love them, never said we have to like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...