Taj al-Din al-Hilali tells "Christian women to wear veils" (1 Viewer)

[Bored.Of.Life]

if christian women wanted to wear a veil, they would become a nun.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

lol.... Um are you an idiot. Why would he blow himself up for the purpose of killing his own people. You've misinterpreted the intention. He would've blew himself up to kill the enemy, say that instead.

So you are saying shite and sunni arabs are mortal enemies, since 99% of arab suicide bombers killed muslims, not american soldiers.

The books don't come with a map honey. Israel might be given to the jews, but initially the land they now own wasn't theirs, it was acquired after they migrated in. Which now is part of Israel. =]

The Bible has a map at the end which shows lands assigned to 11 Israeli tribes by God. which include all of the lands owned by Israel plus Jordan, Lebanon and Southern Syria. I believe a good muslim should cede those lands to jews since your own Quran said that its given to jews.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Two questions, first: Do you believe that Judaism is true? Do you believe that, because of their lack of faith, non-Jews may somehow suffer in either this life or after it?

Two question: Do you believe that Islam is true? Do you believe that because of lack of faith all non muslims are kaffir and should be converted into Islam and those who are unwilling to convert must be killed?

 

[JaredR]

As previously said, a Non-Jew, according to Jewish law and tradition must only follow the 7 Noachide Laws, whilst a Jew must observe the 613 Mitzvot.

Now you tell me who is the more burdened and hence more inclined to "suffer"?

 

[Born2baplacebo]

As previously said, a Non-Jew, according to Jewish law and tradition must only follow the 7 Noachide Laws, whilst a Jew must observe the 613 Mitzvot.

Now you tell me who is the more burdened and hence more inclined to "suffer"?

What about someone who deosn't give a fuck about religion full stop?
Do you codemn them to hell and throw pitch forks at them?

 

[JaredR]

The 7 laws are:

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

Most people religious or irreligious would be inclined to follow these out of their own moral upbringing.

So if an irreligious person commits any of the above offences then they will have some answering to do! I can safely say that Christians and Muslims would think the same.

 

[Slidey]

The books don't come with a map honey. Israel might be given to the jews, but initially the land they now own wasn't theirs, it was acquired after they migrated in. Which now is part of Israel. =]

Actually, I believe all three religious texts have rough maps and specifically describe the areas in question.

Not to mention that yeah they migrated there... thousands of years ago.

He was allergic to idiots like you.

Nah, I'm pretty sure TacoTerrorist was allergic to logic.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Two question: Do you believe that Islam is true? Do you believe that because of lack of faith all non muslims are kaffir and should be converted into Islam and those who are unwilling to convert must be killed?

Um, no. Now please explain why you asked me that.

 

[writer'sblock]

Modesty- "Moderation in one's actions or appearance, not wishing to attract undue attention to oneself; Downplaying one's accomplishments; False or Sham modesty."
Moderate for a particular situation, or social construct. Now since this has been established, we can see it applys to the each individual cultural clique. Therefore the way in which one would display "modesty" in say, the Vatican, or the Hermitage would be vastly differing to a pub, night-club, beach, park, cafe, at home or a place where the stituation would call for a more liberal behaviour.
The notion of liberalism bearly exists in the muslim world; and, thus, there is no variable in their definition of "modest." It is a constant, a facist idea and idol.
In precis, a liberal democracy can't funtion correctly if the populous doesn't understand the mere idea of a liberalised government and other perspective; democracy functions on liberal ideas, facist religion shouldn't be allowed to partake if they don't see that the variable in the definement of "modest."

 

[writer'sblock]

The 7 laws are:

Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not worship false gods.
Do not be sexually immoral.
Do not eat a limb removed from a live animal.
Do not curse God.
Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

Most people religious or irreligious would be inclined to follow these out of their own moral upbringing.

So if an irreligious person commits any of the above offences then they will have some answering to do! I can safely say that Christians and Muslims would think the same.

Define "immoral."
Everything applys; the differing social constructs makes everything a variable.
So all animals which are alive you cannot eat; issue here, when meat is nolonger alive it is rotting. Therefore, all people of the islamic variety should be only eating greens. I doubt that is the exact wording, translated, but if that is the case there is a massive hole in their diet.
When it is published, I may read it, I'm not that ignorante, and if it is as poorly written with arguements with more holes than a sieve, there might be the blood of a Sus Suinae in Lakemba. No?

 

[xeuyrawp]

If you're making a semantic argument, at least comment with regards for the original language. Furthermore, if you want to make any legal comment about religious guidelines, then you are silly.

Legal guidelines need to be exact, so people know how to act. Religious guidelines need to be discussable, so people actually think about how and why they act, or should act.

Problem is that a lot of religious texts have mixed legal and religious guidelines, simply because religion and the law were the same. So you have legal guidelines (specific to a context, namely c.1000BC in the ancient Near East) which date extraordinarily quickly, and yet are not updated because idiots think that these are indeed religious guidelines (which should be ageless).

If people read their religious texts critically, they'd realise that whilst there is a lot to gain from them, a lot is simply irrelevant myths, fables, and stories of which some parts may or may not have happened.

 

[scarybunny]

Pwar is pretty much the only smart person in this thread.

 

[Born2baplacebo]

Define "immoral."
Everything applys; the differing social constructs makes everything a variable.
So all animals which are alive you cannot eat; issue here, when meat is nolonger alive it is rotting. Therefore, all people of the islamic variety should be only eating greens. I doubt that is the exact wording, translated, but if that is the case there is a massive hole in their diet.
When it is published, I may read it, I'm not that ignorante, and if it is as poorly written with arguements with more holes than a sieve, there might be the blood of a Sus Suinae in Lakemba. No?

Press edit.
Press quote tags.

THEN FUCKING LEARN HOW TO DOUBLE QUOTE you retard you don't deserve that post count for double posting.

You are ignorate to start with. I'm with scarybunny.

 

[JaredR]

So all animals which are alive you cannot eat; issue here, when meat is nolonger alive it is rotting. Therefore, all people of the islamic variety should be only eating greens. I doubt that is the exact wording, translated, but if that is the case there is a massive hole in their diet.

No, the law actually stipulates that you don't eat the limb of a creature torn whilst it is still living. i.e. animal cruelty. Therefore if you're to consume meat it must be slaughtered first.

It also stipulates that one should not eat or drink the blood of an animal nor to eat the carcas of a dead animal - most practise this for the simple sake of hygeine.

So it is more reasonable than you originally thought.

 

[Gay Captain]

The Muslims are spot on about Christians in 2 ways;

at least the Muslims believe and follow what their book says, and

Paul pretty much made it all up himself.

Problem is that a lot of religious texts have mixed legal and religious guidelines, simply because religion and the law were the same. So you have legal guidelines (specific to a context, namely c.1000BC in the ancient Near East) which date extraordinarily quickly, and yet are not updated because idiots think that these are indeed religious guidelines (which should be ageless).

You might use bigger words than say the american fundies when you decide which parts are religious guidelines and which parts are outdated laws, but how do you know you're right and they're wrong?

 

[Slidey]

Paul pretty much made it all up himself.

No, but nice try.

 

[lyounamu]

Paul pretty much made it all up himself.

Are you talking about the Paul the disciple of Jesus who was the first Pope?

 

[melanieeeee.]

Paul of Tarsus categorically was not the first pope

The first pope was St Peter "The rock upon which I shall build my church".

You stupid non-Catholics, with your perverted religious ideas and nonsensical conclusions.

Um I think the guy is Catholic.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

Um, no. Now please explain why you asked me that.

That was a rhetorical question to what just asked me.

Basically, you are criticising judaism because jews would not spread judaism with forced conversion, threat of rape, murder, wholesale massacre and intimidation, racism, discriminatory taxation etc. which are used by muslims to spread their religion?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Are you talking about the Paul the disciple of Jesus who was the first Pope?

Paul wasn't one of the twelve disciples... He never met Jesus. He turned a religion of life into one of death.

Christ said not to alter one iota of the previous writings and that all of the laws previous to him still held.

He has a very valid point.

I think it's pretty clear that you consistently show you don't know much about Biblical scholarship, mate. Sorry, but maybe stop trying?

There are volumes of discussions about (broadly) antinomianism and other theological/normative issues, which question the place of the Old Testament in Christian norms.

These issues were raging during Jesus' life. I can assue you that Jesus was highly critical of what have now become part of the Old Testament laws. See, for example Mark 7:7, and that's just off the top of my head.