Originally posted by GregoryGleaning the fields was acceptable in the law.
Jesus didn't just do good on the Sabbath; he picked grain on the Sabbath; that isn't "doing good." I already mentioned this. Ignoring someone's points until he gives up and goes away isn't the same as winning an argument.
Also, Gal. is quoting Paul, and Paul taught against the OT and what Jesus taught. Paul changed Jesus message and it was mixed with Mithra teachings.
Since this is the hot thread of the morn, I'll chime in.
Getting back on topic...
I'm sure I am expressing an angry outsider's POV, but I just can't help but feel that many Muslims (certainly Not the majority)) simply need to Grow Up, Deal Constructively with the Modern Pluralistic World, and Become Active in wiping out the disease of Fanaticism which is poisoning how the rest of the world sees their faith.
Otherwise that cartoon is just the beginning.
For evil to triumph, good only has to do nothing.
Originally posted by GregoryIt would be the same as picking an apple off the tree and eating it or berries off a bush, as long as you are not carrying them with you. If you you are gathering and carrying them along then that would be breaking the law......Jesus wasn't gathering them, he was plucking them and eating them.
Since you're stating as a fact that gleaning was acceptable on the Sabbath, prove it.And then you can stop ignoring the ritual purity stuff, unless you're admitting that Jesus did, in fact, nullify those laws.
What purity laws are you referring to.??
Re: Re: Insults to muslims or freedom of speech?
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomThe government didn't have any thing to do with it and the paper has appologized. The reacction fromm the muslim community was un called for IMO. They boycotted danish and other european countries goods and burned their embassies. When egypt ran the same cartoons in occtober 2005 there was no protests made. The hipocracy of it all is that the arab media regularly runs anti cchriistian and anti jewish stuff in their media. This is religious fanaticism and it makes islam look bad because they say islamm is peaceful and then riot over some cartoons. I don't know why they thought that was mohammed because no body knows what he looks like and that could have been any body.
I'm not sure about the intentions of the newspaper, or what they should do now, but I don't really see why the PM should need to apologise for that.
What purity laws are you referring to.??
Just for example: "Or if he touches human uncleanness--anything that would make him unclean--even though he is unaware of it, when he learns of it he will be guilty." When Jesus cleanses the menstrating woman, he is "made unclean" because he touches her, and she is unclean. That's the reason one of the passers-by won't help the injured man in "the Good Sammeritan" story; he was unclean, and touching him to help would make the priest unclean. When Jesus associates with lepers, that's also "unclean," because they have an "infectious skin disease." Likewise, according to Leviticus, you can't eat certain kinds of animals, because they are unclean. Jesus brushed this asside; what you take into your body won't defile you. And when he touched the Synagigue leader's dead child to raiser her up? More ritual uncleanliness. He obviously wasn't concerned with the ritual purity laws.
(Not in the Bible, but part of the Jewish law, was the fact that if a tax collector entered your house, anything he touched would be ritually unclean; Jesus, of course, was known for eating with tax collectors).
Originally posted by BackFireI don't think muslims are allowed to have a sense of humour. They say they don't make pictures of mohammed but they do. Christians and muslimms have been portraying mohammed since islam began and they have never had a problem with it. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ The danish imams took those pictures and some that they drew to the middle east and started the violence. I think the muslims should appologize to denmark and sweden and help themm re build their embassies. http://www.itsallpolitics.com/portraying-mohammed-in-any-way-is-banned-sorry-not-so-vt9117.html?highlight=cartoons+mohammed&sid=f6d770e186033e0a499e062dca82d749
It takes a certain type of retard to get pissed off over a satirical cartoon.A retard like Tom Cruise.
Originally posted by The OmegaI agree in fact the cartoons had very little to do with it. It was just an excuse to riot. The muslims don't want us to satyrize their religion but they can make fun of the jews and christians in their media. It's hipocritical. http://www.memri.org/
BF> 😄Well, my point is that I think the uproar and boycott is more politically motivated than religious, you see? Fatah has instigated burning of the Danish Flag in the Palestinian areas (yes, fatah, after loosing the election) and many Middle Eastern regimes seem to be a little uneasy about the strong religious feelings these days.
Maybe this is more a "the final drop"-kind of reaction? I'm sorry to say that the Danish government (backed by the extreme right) has passed legislature here in DK, that makes it impossible for, say, a mentally injured victim of torture who is unable to learn (danish) to obtain Danish citizenship.
These past couple of years seems to me to be a re-make of the Cold War, the USSR has just been replaced by Islam, just as drugs were in the 90's.
There is a lot of racism abound in the west these days and it focuses on muslims. I'll just whisper "Palestine and Israel", and somehow I can understand these reactions... although I think it's kinda not going the right way.
Originally posted by The Omega
BF> 😄Well, my point is that I think the uproar and boycott is more politically motivated than religious, you see? Fatah has instigated burning of the Danish Flag in the Palestinian areas (yes, fatah, after loosing the election) and many Middle Eastern regimes seem to be a little uneasy about the strong religious feelings these days.
Maybe this is more a "the final drop"-kind of reaction? I'm sorry to say that the Danish government (backed by the extreme right) has passed legislature here in DK, that makes it impossible for, say, a mentally injured victim of torture who is unable to learn (danish) to obtain Danish citizenship.
These past couple of years seems to me to be a re-make of the Cold War, the USSR has just been replaced by Islam, just as drugs were in the 90's.
There is a lot of racism abound in the west these days and it focuses on muslims. I'll just whisper "Palestine and Israel", and somehow I can understand these reactions... although I think it's kinda not going the right way.
Originally posted by GregoryHmmmmmmm guess Jesus is a lier then...cause he said Not one jot or tittle would change from the law
Just for example: "Or if he touches human uncleanness--anything that would make him unclean--even though he is unaware of it, when he learns of it he will be guilty." When Jesus cleanses the menstrating woman, he is "made unclean" because he touches her, and she is unclean. That's the reason one of the passers-by won't help the injured man in "the Good Sammeritan" story; he was unclean, and touching him to help would make the priest unclean. When Jesus associates with lepers, that's also "unclean," because they have an "infectious skin disease." Likewise, according to Leviticus, you can't eat certain kinds of animals, because they are unclean. Jesus brushed this asside; what you take into your body won't defile you. And when he touched the Synagigue leader's dead child to raiser her up? More ritual uncleanliness. He obviously wasn't concerned with the ritual purity laws.(Not in the Bible, but part of the Jewish law, was the fact that if a tax collector entered your house, anything he touched would be ritually unclean; Jesus, of course, was known for eating with tax collectors).
Though the Pharisees were always adding on new laws and made them burdensome...Jesus was saying what was important were people.
He probably just lied though since you say he's breaking all the commandments....He didn't mean his own words....probably just made them up.
If you're not a Christian, the obvious solution might be that he did not, in fact, say the "not a jot" stuff. Even if you are a Christian, actually, if you're not an inerintest(sp?). It sounds like something he might make up--he was always Jewifying Christ's stuff-and I don't think it's in any other gospel.
On an unrelated note, Markie, you might do well to stop talking about "Muslims" like they're a unified group instead of a religion with over a billion members and no single leader. Moderate Muslims have spoken out against this, even if it doesn't make good enough television to be widely reported.
Which is correct?
Exodus 12:14, 17, 24; Leviticus 23: 14, 21, 31; 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 119:151-152, 160; Malachi 4:4, Matthew 5:18-19, and Luke 16:17 state that the laws of the Old Testament are binding forever.
Luke 16:16 states that the laws of the Old Testament are anulled by John the Baptist.
Romans 6:14, 7:4, 6; 10:4, Galatians 5:18, and Ephesians 2:15 state that the laws of the Old Testament are anulled by Jesus.
Originally posted by Hit_and_MissYet they do draw him and have for centuries so I don't see what all the exitement is about beccause that could have a picture of been bin laden for all they know.
Theres a bit of a difference between jesus scoring a goal in a sport and jesus using his powers to kill people... The insinuation that there god and bombs have a close link is wrong... also the fact that its defying a rule he set.. Not to draw him, If jesus was pictured was a killer, then christians would be annoyed...While I don't see drawning him as that bad an offence.. They do...
But I do see the offence of drawing him with a bomb..
Islamic Depictions of Mohammed in Full
Islamic Depictions of Mohammed with Face Hidden
European Medieval and Renaissance Images
Miscellaneous Mohammed Images
Book Illustrations
Dante's Inferno
French Book Covers
Satirical Modern Cartoons
The Jyllands-Posten Cartoons
Recent Responses to the Controversy
This whole re action just shows the immaturity of their faith.
Originally posted by MakeddeI think they offend the jews more than us. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/arabprtoc.html
I get pissed at times, because it seems that Christians are allowed to offend Muslims, and get away with it, but God help if a Muslim offended a Christian.Last year, Muslims were offended by a Christian Pastors rantings about the Muslim religion. This Pastor said that Muslims want to take over the world, they are dangerous and violent, they swap their women around, etc. The Muslims were outraged, as well they should have been, because none of this is true.
They lost their case because the Pastor's words were deemed to be 'Free Speech'.
Imagine if a Muslim offended the Christian religion, it wouldn't be 'Free Speech' then.
Originally posted by MakeddeThey mainly do that to the jews.
I get pissed at times, because it seems that Christians are allowed to offend Muslims, and get away with it, but God help if a Muslim offended a Christian.Last year, Muslims were offended by a Christian Pastors rantings about the Muslim religion. This Pastor said that Muslims want to take over the world, they are dangerous and violent, they swap their women around, etc. The Muslims were outraged, as well they should have been, because none of this is true.
They lost their case because the Pastor's words were deemed to be 'Free Speech'.
Imagine if a Muslim offended the Christian religion, it wouldn't be 'Free Speech' then.
Originally posted by Da preacherSome of the pictures could have been of anybody. I would think the one with the bomb shaped turban was bin laden before I would think of mohammed. Some were humourous and some were just plain sick.
They should be able to take some negativism against their religion, they ask for it with their idiotic believes.Same with Christianity for that matter.