Given that the very source material of the religion is "radical" (ie. extremely oppressive of women, treats people of unrecognized religious faiths as non-humans, promotes murder of non-Muslims, etc.), why do people convince themselves that they are following Islam by following their significantly altered version? If Allah said "Woman are sexual temptresses who should be covered at nearly all times. Oh, and if they get raped, they should be beaten for being unfaithful to their husband", how can a woman just ignore those vile things, still convince herself that she's properly worshiping that god, and proudly announce her Muslim faith?

Since I know someone will mention Christianity: Christianity's Old Testament was definitely vile, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the New Testament (which replaced the Old) was filled with messages of peace, love, equality, and acceptance.

But I digress: How can someone discard a huge chunk of their religion and still think they are part of it? I'm GLAD that they've discarded all of that bullshit, but my thinking is: If they are going to disobey, that probably means they don't really believe the Koran, in which case, why not find a religion that truly is peaceful and loving and just be done with it? (I think there is some New Testament stuff in Christianity about homosexuality, but since the religion is all about forgiveness and repentance, I can understand why people "discard" things they don't agree with.)

derdrache, i am not sure if you are trolling or what. but i am going to dive into this anyway. i hope a real muslim will find this post an jump in, cause i am no expert on this faith

Given that the very source material of the religion is "radical" (ie. extremely oppressive of women, treats people of unrecognized religious faiths as non-humans, promotes murder of non-Muslims, etc.), why do people convince themselves that they are following Islam by following their significantly altered version? If Allah said "Woman are sexual temptresses who should be covered at nearly all times. Oh, and if they get raped, they should be beaten for being unfaithful to their husband", how can a woman just ignore those vile things, still convince herself that she's properly worshiping that god, and proudly announce her Muslim faith?

your premise is wrong. the source material of the religion is not radical in the sense you mean. most of the things you cited ie oppressive to woman, other religions seen as non humans, an murder of non muslims are in fact recent interpretations of the koran and not what is actually written. and your point on murder is in fact dead wrong. murder is prohibited. period. jihad is different. jihad can only be carried out against combatants.

all one has to believe to be a muslim is the "Six Articles of Faith." According to this list, to be a Muslim one must believe in:

1. One God;
2. The angels of God;
3. The books of God, especially the Qur'an;
4. The prophets of God, especially Muhammad;
5. The Day of Judgment (or the afterlife); and
6. The supremacy of God's will (or predestination).

This list is sometimes shortened to Five Articles of Faith, which leaves off belief in the supremacy of God's will.

the whole thing on rape that you brought up is also not part of muslim doctrine. it is a human interpretation only carried out in a few backward muslim countries. not all of em.

Since I know someone will mention Christianity: Christianity's Old Testament was definitely vile, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the New Testament (which replaced the Old) was filled with messages of peace, love, equality, and acceptance.

the old testament is actually a jewish book, not a christian. but you christians have your own dark past based on interpretations of your religious text. do the crusades or Spanish inquisition ring any bells?

But I digress: How can someone discard a huge chunk of their religion and still think they are part of it? I'm GLAD that they've discarded all of that bullshit, but my thinking is: If they are going to disobey, that probably means they don't really believe the Koran, in which case, why not find a religion that truly is peaceful and loving and just be done with it? (I think there is some New Testament stuff in Christianity about homosexuality, but since the religion is all about forgiveness and repentance, I can understand why people "discard" things they don't agree with.)

you dont know anything about the religion of islam. all you know is what you hear on Faux news. i hope a practicing muslim finds this thread an drops some much needed knowledge on your ignorant ass.

I hate to disagree with you, Derdrache, because you usually make interesting and knowledgeable posts. However, the way you paint Islam is fallacious. I could just as easily open up the Old Testament and call all Christians and Jews sadistic animal abusers, and worse.

Since I know someone will mention Christianity: Christianity's Old Testament was definitely vile, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the New Testament (which replaced the Old) was filled with messages of peace, love, equality, and acceptance.

And it was with this new book in hand, men in red robes burned innocent women alive for having boogey men inside them. It was with this new book that slavery, was accepted. That women were still treated as cum dumpsters and baby factories.

Just as you would not consider the People's Temple of Jim Jones to be a credit to the Christian faith, most muslims do not consider Hamas and Al Quada to be a credit to their faith.

The only difference between the Christianity and Islam, besides the sequel to the Old Testement is one of time. Think of the radical terroristic Muslims today as Christians were 300 years ago.

As soon as they get some Walmarts, McDonald's and good 'ol reality TV, they will be as placated as most of the sedentary Christians are in America.

On the flipside, take away all the creature comforts here in America, and you will see the violence INHERIT in Christianity take root, and you will see the violence that such a loosely interpretated bronze age book of tribal folklore has to offer the world. This time from a Jesus perspective.

You think men throughout the ages have not ran into suicidal combat, screaming praise to Jesus? You think none have been violently executed in his name?

The main difference between these faiths is one of time, so I wouldn't get my Christian noses to high up in the air just yet.

People can use anything as an excuse to kill. To my knowledge, nothing in the New Testament promotes violence and hate under any circumstances, in contrast to the Koran, which directly says it's okay to kill apostates and have Holy Wars. Whereas the Bible basically recanted all of its promotions of violence, the Koran did not. Either way, this thread is about Islam. If Christianity promotes the same things, then I'd regard it just as negatively as Islam. (Don't waste your breath quoting stuff from the Old Testament, as the New Testament's teachings replaced the Old Testament.)

Oppression of women and murder of those who commit apostasy (renouncing one's Muslim faith) is not a "recent interpretation". It's the interpretation that follows exactly what the Koran and Hadith say. (The Koran gives support for the the death penalty, which could be open to interpretation, though Muhammed explicitly supported it.)

I'm happy that many people don't follow the Koran or the teachings of Muhammed strictly (mainly because a lot of people would be getting slaughtered), but it's absurd how you like to paint everything as a "difference of interpretation". How, for instance, can you misinterpret the Prophet of Islam directly advising the death penalty for apostasy (and adultery and murder)? Saying you don't believe in that part of the Koran (or the Hadith, the teachings of Allah's prophet) doesn't magically make such aspects of the religion disappear.

Why not just be honest? "Islam is a major part of my history and culture, yet some of it is filled with barbaric bullshit, so I'm going to keep the good parts and discard the bad."

How could someone use the new testament for violence....

How about this one, where Jesus pretty much says, "the old laws are still in effect, bitches, until the end of time".

Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

So till heaven and earth pass, the laws of the OT are good to go?

There exists other passages, I have looked up, and can post if you care to read through them. I will post them tomorrow if you like, and you can interpret them in the most non-violent way you wish.

Doesn't change the fact that they can ALSO be interpreted to do great evil. Interpreted by men, who believe in witches, or think the holy land should be theirs, and theirs by blood.

Again, I wouldn't hold my nose up too high against the muslims, your demi-god cult was once just like theirs.

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

Christians in the western civlized nation of America, are not desperate people. Here in America we really want for nothing as a people. Take that shit away, and you will see the ugly side of this faith rear it's head, AGAIN.

You would see desperate men leading their flock to whatever evil cruel ends they wish. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would see fat ass soccer moms shout "Praise Jesus" before they trigger the homemade dynamite strapped to their chests.

I hope that if this happens, there will be some sedentary lifestlye having muslim posting online how much better his demi-god cult, and imaginary friends are than yours.

[QUOTE=BrokeProphet;10888960]
[I]Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
QUOTE]

Damnit you beat me to it!

They need to be more like Christians and Jews who only adhere to the politically correct portions of their faith.

How could someone use the new testament for violence....

How about this one, where Jesus pretty much says, "the old laws are still in effect, bitches, until the end of time".

Matthew
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

So till heaven and earth pass, the laws of the OT are good to go?

There exists other passages, I have looked up, and can post if you care to read through them. I will post them tomorrow if you like, and you can interpret them in the most non-violent way you wish.

Doesn't change the fact that they can ALSO be interpreted to do great evil. Interpreted by men, who believe in witches, or think the holy land should be theirs, and theirs by blood.

Again, I wouldn't hold my nose up too high against the muslims, your demi-god cult was once just like theirs.

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

Christians in the western civlized nation of America, are not desperate people. Here in America we really want for nothing as a people. Take that shit away, and you will see the ugly side of this faith rear it's head, AGAIN.

You would see desperate men leading their flock to whatever evil cruel ends they wish. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would see fat ass soccer moms shout "Praise Jesus" before they trigger the homemade dynamite strapped to their chests.

I hope that if this happens, there will be some sedentary lifestlye having muslim posting online how much better his demi-god cult, and imaginary friends are than yours.

Just because I am not afraid to say that Islam is a religion that, from its source material, promotes killing and oppression, that doesn't mean I'm Christian, so stop assuming it.

Your quotation does not mean that the old laws are still in effect; it means the exact opposite, as any minister will tell you. The old laws were originally required in order for sinners to be saved. Jesus took the burden of man's sin on himself and was crucified so that men wouldn't have to do all of the OT things to be saved. He "fulfilled the law" by having the punishment for sin brought down on himself. That's the entire fucking premise of Christianity.

It doesn't matter if people raped babies while setting off explosives and screaming Praise Jesus. It wouldn't have been condoned in the least by the Bible or the teachings of Jesus. Could someone say they are killing and oppressing in the name of Christianity? Of course, but the difference is that there are direct commands in the Koran and from Mohammad that promote such things for Muslims. What's so complicated about this?

And we can get into a long interpretational debate about whether or not Jesus really means that Christians should follow the OT laws (since he does not explicitly say that), but it won't make Islam any less of an explicitly oppressive, belligerent religion.

Given that the very source material of the religion is "radical" (ie. extremely oppressive of women, treats people of unrecognized religious faiths as non-humans, promotes murder of non-Muslims, etc.), why do people convince themselves that they are following Islam by following their significantly altered version? If Allah said "Woman are sexual temptresses who should be covered at nearly all times. Oh, and if they get raped, they should be beaten for being unfaithful to their husband", how can a woman just ignore those vile things, still convince herself that she's properly worshiping that god, and proudly announce her Muslim faith?

Since I know someone will mention Christianity: Christianity's Old Testament was definitely vile, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the New Testament (which replaced the Old) was filled with messages of peace, love, equality, and acceptance.

But I digress: How can someone discard a huge chunk of their religion and still think they are part of it? I'm GLAD that they've discarded all of that bullshit, but my thinking is: If they are going to disobey, that probably means they don't really believe the Koran, in which case, why not find a religion that truly is peaceful and loving and just be done with it? (I think there is some New Testament stuff in Christianity about homosexuality, but since the religion is all about forgiveness and repentance, I can understand why people "discard" things they don't agree with.)

I read the first sentence then stopped. Get fucked.

Given that the very source material of the religion is "radical" (ie. extremely oppressive of women, treats people of unrecognized religious faiths as non-humans, promotes murder of non-Muslims, etc.), why do people convince themselves that they are following Islam by following their significantly altered version? If Allah said "Woman are sexual temptresses who should be covered at nearly all times. Oh, and if they get raped, they should be beaten for being unfaithful to their husband", how can a woman just ignore those vile things, still convince herself that she's properly worshiping that god, and proudly announce her Muslim faith?

Since I know someone will mention Christianity: Christianity's Old Testament was definitely vile, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the New Testament (which replaced the Old) was filled with messages of peace, love, equality, and acceptance.

But I digress: How can someone discard a huge chunk of their religion and still think they are part of it? I'm GLAD that they've discarded all of that bullshit, but my thinking is: If they are going to disobey, that probably means they don't really believe the Koran, in which case, why not find a religion that truly is peaceful and loving and just be done with it? (I think there is some New Testament stuff in Christianity about homosexuality, but since the religion is all about forgiveness and repentance, I can understand why people "discard" things they don't agree with.)

I read the first sentence then stopped. Get fucked. Not following the tiniest details of the koran doesn't make you any less of a muslim. Same with christianity. Not much of the laws and procedures directed by the old testament is followed today.
When I went to Lebanon, my father and I visited a very old sheikh. Besides the typical crap elderly lebanese usually talk about, he said

"There is no such thing as a bad Muslim. You are either a muslim or a non-believer. Or a muslim who isn't as good as he could choose to be."

Nowhere does the OT state that the punishments are supposed to be carried out at the whim of man. Punishment of death is only to be exercised by direct edict of God: We are not to carry out ANY punishment on others unless explicitly directed to do so by God, for it is his righteousness that hates sin, not ours. In our hearts we love sin and fear righteousness, and have not the merit nor righteousness to carry out the judgment nor execution of Wrath.

Upon the life of Christ, through his crucifixion and sacrifice, taking the entirety of God's wrath against sin upon himself, we are not to judge nor execute punishment anymore whatsoever. We are still to rebuke folly and direct our brothers and sisters in the Lord, but never are we, as sinners ourselves, to exercise a vengeful spirit against other sinners.

OP, ANY source material is "radical" by definition. Look the word "radical" up in a good unabridged.

But, IMHO, most adherants of ANY religion are ignorant of most of the finer points of dogma. Sunnis and Shiites are basically having a family feud over some stuff that happened shortly after Mohammed died.

The Sufis are the mystic branch. All the major religions have them, and a darned good thing, too.

I read the first sentence then stopped. Get fucked. Not following the tiniest details of the koran doesn't make you any less of a muslim. Same with christianity. Not much of the laws and procedures directed by the old testament is followed today.
When I went to Lebanon, my father and I visited a very old sheikh. Besides the typical crap elderly lebanese usually talk about, he said

"There is no such thing as a bad Muslim. You are either a muslim or a non-believer. Or a muslim who isn't as good as he could choose to be."

And how does this change the fact that apostates are supposed to be killed, according to Muslim law?

^^

Interesting fact: The islamic version of hell is split up into multiple levels, the lowest and most terrible of which is reserved for apostates :D

I can't explain why that is. All abrahamic religions are extremely hard to apply in modern situations if you want to follow it to a T. Its nigh on impossible. That's why people don't do it; If I go to a priest and ask him to forgive my sins, he won't ask me to slaughter a lamb and sprinkle frankincense over it. To expect that of religion in a modern context is unreasonable.

I conclude, in my personal opinion, Islam is no better or worse than other monotheistic religions.

Question, when you say muslim law, do you mean Sharia law? Or is it from the Sunnah? Or is it what Mohammad himself reccomended?
Because there's a difference. Whether it's "Should be killed" or "Must be killed", depends on where in the Koran it says that.

And we can get into a long interpretational debate about whether or not Jesus really means that Christians should follow the OT laws (since he does not explicitly say that), but it won't make Islam any less of an explicitly oppressive, belligerent religion.

Perhaps the inquisitors failed to interpret Jesus, AS YOU HAVE.

What makes your interpretation correct?

B/C that interpretation was not correct in the 14th and 15th centuries by damn sight.

Guess how “Kill them all. God will know his own" was made famous. I will give you a hint, is wasn't by teaching the love of the new testament.
-----------

I say again, have the christian fuckheads in THIS country live third world for awhile and see how long it takes before communities of filthy uneducated peasants start burning witches.

And how does this change the fact that apostates are supposed to be killed, according to Muslim law?

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods, do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."(Deuteronomy 13:6-9)

Christian law...

Shit, that's old testament.

I just hope whoever reads this also reads the bit about "Jesus came to fufill and not destroy the old law", AND interprets it EXACTLY as you have.

That is the problem with basing life and death beliefs off of something that can be interpreted more ways than a horoscope or fortune cookie I suppose.

Perhaps the inquisitors failed to interpret Jesus, AS YOU HAVE.

What makes your interpretation correct?

B/C that interpretation was not correct in the 14th and 15th centuries by damn sight.

Guess how “Kill them all. God will know his own" was made famous. I will give you a hint, is wasn't by teaching the love of the new testament.
-----------

I say again, have the christian fuckheads in THIS country live third world for awhile and see how long it takes before communities of filthy uneducated peasants start burning witches.

Very true. Humanity's stupidity and barbarism knows no bounds, and Christianity (particularly OT stuff) has been used as an excuse to do disgusting shit for a long, long time.

So, both Christianity and Islam suck, and I think Islam sucks more.

Islam is historically a religion of conquest. Whilst not all Islamic people think that way today the fact is self evident many do. Islamic extremism will not be appeased no matter how many concessions are made in a vain attempt to win peace. These extremists will lie and deceive and continue to cause unrest and instability until they have it all. They will never be stopped by weak will and the peace at any cost mentality. They are seeking to cause unrest in many countries including moderate Islamic states and as of this time of writing they are the largest global threat to the well being of millions. They have been empowered by oil money that has flowed from the West and until alternative energy supplies are in use they will continue to have funds to purchase their tools of terror. My prediction is that at a not so far away future point they will commit a final act of outrage. This may result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents. I predict at this point the world will unite and say enough is enough. The West will move against Islamic states to finally overcome and subdue them. This conflict will see many innocent Islamic people killed. I predict there will be no united will to resist these extremists, particularly from a weak and divided Europe, until the scale of the outrage is so bad it is agreed it has to be done now or all peoples of the world will be destroyed. I hope I am wrong…

Islam is historically a religion of conquest. Whilst not all Islamic people think that way today the fact is self evident many do. Islamic extremism will not be appeased no matter how many concessions are made in a vain attempt to win peace. These extremists will lie and deceive and continue to cause unrest and instability until they have it all. They will never be stopped by weak will and the peace at any cost mentality. They are seeking to cause unrest in many countries including moderate Islamic states and as of this time of writing they are the largest global threat to the well being of millions. They have been empowered by oil money that has flowed from the West and until alternative energy supplies are in use they will continue to have funds to purchase their tools of terror. My prediction is that at a not so far away future point they will commit a final act of outrage. This may result in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents. I predict at this point the world will unite and say enough is enough. The West will move against Islamic states to finally overcome and subdue them. This conflict will see many innocent Islamic people killed. I predict there will be no united will to resist these extremists, particularly from a weak and divided Europe, until the scale of the outrage is so bad it is agreed it has to be done now or all peoples of the world will be destroyed. I hope I am wrong…

Don't worry, you're completely wrong :D

I would assume that you pro-Islam assholes are also pro-women's rights, pro-gay rights, and just pro-civil rights in general. Given that these things are not compatible with Islam (to varying degrees, of course), why defend it?

Stop being tolerant of everything just for the sake of being tolerant. I want a country to say "Hey, this religion is fucking hate speech. Fuck Islam; it's not allowed in our country." I guess I can dream...

I would assume that you pro-Islam assholes are also pro-women's rights, pro-gay rights, and just pro-civil rights in general. Given that these things are not compatible with Islam (to varying degrees, of course), why defend it?

Stop being tolerant of everything just for the sake of being tolerant. I want a country to say "Hey, this religion is fucking hate speech. Fuck Islam; it's not allowed in our country." I guess I can dream...

Meh, i'm not a liberal, I was just brought up in an assimilated (culturally) but muslim family. Most of my friends were either christians or atheists (i'm an atheist myself).

I'm not pro-islam, you just haven't convinced me that islam is any worse than the other religions.

Question, you said that the new testament "replaced" the old. Does jesus specifically say, "hay guiz, disregard old testament plz", or is it just implied that we should?

Question, you said that the new testament "replaced" the old. Does jesus specifically say, "hay guiz, disregard old testament plz", or is it just implied that we should?

As previously mentionted the OT laws have been fulfilled. Aside from this, these old testament laws and covenants were set specifically for the Jewish people at that specific time.

Glad I could enlighten you all.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Nowhere does the OT state that the punishments are supposed to be carried out at the whim of man. Punishment of death is only to be exercised by direct edict of God: We are not to carry out ANY punishment on others unless explicitly directed to do so by God, for it is his righteousness that hates sin, not ours.


If that's the case what do you make of this:
Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

If that's the case what do you make of this:
Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

This verse offers no prescription for who is to punish the man, by what means he is to be found guilty or innocent, nor by what means he will be punished. All it states is that he WILL be punished.

Further, look at verses 12-14:

12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
13 However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.
14 But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

The punishment is exile; the same punishment exerted upon Cain for the slaughter of Abel. This punishment makes a man a wanderer subject to the beasts, elements, and vagabonds so that he may die by God's exertion rather than the vengeful spirit of his former people.

Edit: Wanted to add; if you are using an internet source, they have a misstatement. The last word of verse 21 means 'property', referring to the slave being the property of the assailant.

^ Straws must be a bitch on the hands.

The man is given free reign to "smite" his servants as long as they survive. He can smite them as a punishment. Same thing.

^ Straws must be a bitch on the hands.

The man is given free reign to "smite" his servants as long as they survive. He can smite them as a punishment. Same thing.

Funny that you claim a straw man where there is none. His request was answered and an example of an even greater violation of the Law than beating a servant was given with an explanation of its explicitly commanded punishment. You are covered with your name.

Nor does it say the man has the right to beat his slaves as a punishment, but as a matter of ownership. This law refers to the act of slave-driving, that is, beating a slave not as punishment, but as a driver beats oxen to plow a field. If the owner drives his slaves so cruelly as that they die, he is then subjected to punishment; of which there exists no description. One does not even know what the punishment is, let alone who carries it out.

Don't worry, you're completely wrong

I doubt it. I'm going to pray for you, that the Lord will open your eyes to reality.

And also that he'll forgive you for that profane username of yours.

Don't worry, I'm not judging you.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

I doubt it. I'm going to pray for you, that the Lord will open your eyes to reality.

And also that he'll forgive you for that profane username of yours.

Don't worry, I'm not judging you.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Forgetting what christianity was like back in the day?
And the username is supposed to be ironic. I'm actually celibate :).

I'm actually celibate

Praise the Lord! That's what Jesus did!

God Bless,
Doctor Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Funny that you claim a straw man where there is none. His request was answered and an example of an even greater violation of the Law than beating a servant was given with an explanation of its explicitly commanded punishment. You are covered with your name.

Wrong. You claimed the following:

"Nowhere does the OT state that the punishments are supposed to be carried out at the whim of man."

He provided you with biblical verses giving man the right to smite his servants so long as they live. Smiting can be used as punishment. Unless you can show how the bible explicitly says that man cannot use smiting as a punishment, you stand refuted.

This rust covered man just successfully showed how you were wrong. Sad.

Nor does it say the man has the right to beat his slaves as a punishment, but as a matter of ownership. This law refers to the act of slave-driving, that is, beating a slave not as punishment, but as a driver beats oxen to plow a field. If the owner drives his slaves so cruelly as that they die, he is then subjected to punishment; of which there exists no description. One does not even know what the punishment is, let alone who carries it out.

You fail to realize that the bible is advocating not only slavery, but justifying the abuse of slaves. The slave owner is allowed to act "out on the whim". The whole love thy neighbor thing is completely thrown out the window.

You fail to realize that the bible is advocating not only slavery, but justifying the abuse of slaves. The slave owner is allowed to act "out on the whim". The whole love thy neighbor thing is completely thrown out the window.

Yes, the Bible does condone slavery. For the individual who has no motivation to do anything with his life; not to work, not to dream, not to prosper, the most humane thing to do with that man is to literally force him to do something...anything at all other than rot away in his sloth. If it takes a rod to his back to make him move, so be it. That is not punishment, that is tutelage. How else is a man who makes a burden of work taught to carry himself but by the full infliction of his burden? Sloth's greatest wage is that of slavery: subservience to one who will utilize your body. You think it is done of malice, but its roots are that of love; to give the lost and feeble man a purpose again - to burn hot within his soul the desire and appreciation for freedom and the gift of will.

I don't care if you think I'm evil for seeing slavery as good: history has shown that every society without condoned slavery has a massive bottom rung class that eats away every resource worked for by the other members of society. This class rots in filth, violence, and self-deprecation because it has no will to work nor better itself nor find any purpose and intention to its existence; it suffers cruelly under its own sloth and dies in the same poverty it lives despite mass opportunity to improve its condition. At least a slave has a role to fill and is an integral part of society. Slavery is for the benefit of slave, owner, and society. This is not to say that it has not been practiced poorly in some societies; in the United States, the owners became greedy at the profits they made from slaves, and thus refused education and opportunity to those willing to better their lives - this is not the fault of slavery itself, but the fault of the owners refusing to show the love that is understanding and compassion. Further, in the United States, their slavery rested solely on racial status; condoned for some and not others. It was not based on putting the slothful to work, but upon building a slave economy.

You are blind if you do not see that some men are moved only by the rod. For that man, a beating IS a showing of love. If he ever burns warm enough to desire a better life, he should be given that opportunity. Until then his work is not of his own will, but of his master's. What you see as abuse is the only motivation this degree of sloth will respond to. You see only the action with your intentions placed upon it, because you do not know what love is. You hate God, and thus hate all mankind. You seek to let men die in sloth, to let men empty their souls in self-worship, to let men burn away in lust and its death - you seek to raise the heart of man as a law unto itself, not knowing that you, as every other man, is evil in his heart and knows only how to hate. You trap men with your teaching and they are swallowed by death, all who listen as if you are wise. You, like all our kind, are naught but evil and proud in your heart until the Father breaks it to humble us and bring us to Him; and He then brings new life by a new heart; one of flesh to replace that of stone. Without that breath of His life, you are dead, and all your words and all your thoughts are that of death; seeking to bring all to the grave with it so that all man may suffer in rebellion as you do. For you think that Law can break Law, not understanding it; with your ignorance you speak against it and confess against God those things you do not comprehend for in your heart you know only emptiness; for emptiness is that which thinks it is full, where fullness is that which knows it is empty.

Wrong. You claimed the following:

"Nowhere does the OT state that the punishments are supposed to be carried out at the whim of man."

He provided you with biblical verses giving man the right to smite his servants so long as they live. Smiting can be used as punishment. Unless you can show how the bible explicitly says that man cannot use smiting as a punishment, you stand refuted.

This rust covered man just successfully showed how you were wrong. Sad.

No, actually I don't stand refuted. You're committing a logical fallacy, Rust.

The slave is subject to God's law, yes; but also his owners. You are taking the owner-slave relationship's variation from the God-man relationship and treating them as the same. In the case of owner-slave, the slave is property, and may be beaten for any reason the owner wishes so long as it does not kill the slave - and the slave is also to be given freedom after 6 years of bondage. That is, the slave has only two rights under God's law: life and freedom at seven years. He is given no punishment under God's law for any of His actions, as the slave is under the stewardship of his owner. There do exist, in the Law, examples of the difficulties a harsh master will face, and the eases a soft master will enjoy - but these are not written laws that the owner must obey for a man is given into slavery because his own will fails, as such, he is subjected to the will that does not. Still though, the OT never states that the master should punish his slaves.

I do appreciate him bringing up the subject of slavery though, as it is the one area of the Law that is suggestive only.

didn't even read any of this, but

how can christians be non-radical? because most people don't really take it that seriously even if they do attend church and shit, regardless of how binding the bible is to controlling ones daily acts you don't have to- he's not really there.

Yes, the Bible does condone slavery. For the individual who has no motivation to do anything with his life; not to work, not to dream, not to prosper, the most humane thing to do with that man is to literally force him to do something
So you're saying that according to the bible only lazy people can become slaves?
You hate God, and thus hate all mankind.
No.

You seek to let men die in sloth, to let men empty their souls in self-worship, to let men burn away in lust and its death - you seek to raise the heart of man as a law unto itself, not knowing that you, as every other man, is evil in his heart and knows only how to hate. You trap men with your teaching and they are swallowed by death, all who listen as if you are wise. You, like all our kind, are naught but evil and proud in your heart until the Father breaks it to humble us and bring us to Him; and He then brings new life by a new heart; one of flesh to replace that of stone. Without that breath of His life, you are dead, and all your words and all your thoughts are that of death; seeking to bring all to the grave with it so that all man may suffer in rebellion as you do. For you think that Law can break Law, not understanding it; with your ignorance you speak against it and confess against God those things you do not comprehend for in your heart you know only emptiness; for emptiness is that which thinks it is full, where fullness is that which knows it is empty.
Did you write this on the fly? You certainly have a way with words.
Still, that isn't right, it's not even wrong.

You are taking the owner-slave relationship's variation from the God-man relationship and treating them as the same.

Wrong. I haven't done anything of the sort. I merely showed how man has been given free reign by god to perform an act. That act can be punishment if used as a penalty, which the OT does not preclude. Thus, that a punishment can be carried out by the "whim of man" stands demonstrated.

My argument doesn't require that "owner-slave relationship is the same as the God-man relationship", nor any other of your accusations. My argument only requires that man be given authority to use an action that can be used as punishment is he so wishes (i.e. if it's man's whim). He has.

I don't care if you think I'm evil for seeing slavery as good: history has shown that every society without condoned slavery has a massive bottom rung class that eats away every resource worked for by the other members of society. This class rots in filth, violence, and self-deprecation because it has no will to work nor better itself nor find any purpose and intention to its existence; it suffers cruelly under its own sloth and dies in the same poverty it lives despite mass opportunity to improve its condition. At least a slave has a role to fill and is an integral part of society. Slavery is for the benefit of slave, owner, and society. This is not to say that it has not been practiced poorly in some societies; in the United States, the owners became greedy at the profits they made from slaves, and thus refused education and opportunity to those willing to better their lives - this is not the fault of slavery itself, but the fault of the owners refusing to show the love that is understanding and compassion. Further, in the United States, their slavery rested solely on racial status; condoned for some and not others. It was not based on putting the slothful to work, but upon building a slave economy.


No, I do not think you're evil for thinking slavery is a good thing. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'm simply saying that the bible does allow man to carry out punishment on the whim. There really is no need for you to write a page on how slavery is justifiable. I just wanted to show you my interpretation of a particular verse. Personally I only see one way the verse can be interpreted, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

Bringing this back on topic:

Does anyone know what the consequences are of not following Muslim law? In Christianity, you can ask for forgiveness for sins, since it's established that humans constantly sin. Is the same system in place in Islam?

In other words, when Muslims refuse to kill apostates and oppress women as dictated by the Koran and Hadith, what are the technical consequences?

Bringing this back on topic:

Does anyone know what the consequences are of not following Muslim law? In Christianity, you can ask for forgiveness for sins, since it's established that humans constantly sin. Is the same system in place in Islam?

In other words, when Muslims refuse to kill apostates and oppress women as dictated by the Koran and Hadith, what are the technical consequences?

Don't say the Koran or the Hadith dictates that you must oppress women. That's bullshit. I'm too lazy, but i'll give you this.

"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency; And treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it."[Qur'an 4:19]

"...O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers".

Keep in mind i'm not saying all muslims treat their women fairly. I'm telling you what the koran says.

Anyway, the consequence of not following gods word is obviously winding up in hell. I think the way it works in traditional islam is that all your good deeds and bad deeds are tallied up, then weighed on judgement day. I don't think you need to pray for forgiveness per se, but Allah will supposedly forgive if you if you repent. It's a more personal thing in Islam, you don't need to be forgiven by any kind of religious leader.

They made the analogy that there is an angel on each of your shoulders, and one counts the good deeds, one counts the bad.