| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2006 10:45:50 AM · #1 |
More evidence (in my opinion) of an upcoming world rift between religions. This is a stark contrast to our (western) freedom of choice perspcetives.
christian arrest
gives a bit of meaning to...."and brother will turn against brother, father against son and daughter against mother"....
This is the world we are a part of. A world where state law can authorize death for a belief. We'll see how this trial ends up.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2006 10:55:29 AM · #2 |
You ain't seen nuthin yet...
|
|
|
|
03/20/2006 11:49:58 AM · #3 |
Examples such as this is why I'm such a huge fan of the First Amendment.
Originally posted by The First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
|
|
|
|
03/20/2006 10:03:33 PM · #4 |
Quote from story: "An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday."
Wow. That is disturbing. |
|
|
|
03/20/2006 11:40:26 PM · #5 |
It is just possible that we are 1 or 2 generations away from World War III. The title bout: Christianity vs Islam.
I hope I'm wrong. I am a Christian but I have studied Islam. Interestingly, the values (but not the rhetoric) of both would seem to argue against conflict with each other.
When will we stop arguing to win, and instead commit ourselves to understanding and acceptance? |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 12:21:04 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
It is just possible that we are 1 or 2 generations away from World War III. The title bout: Christianity vs Islam.
I hope I'm wrong. I am a Christian but I have studied Islam. Interestingly, the values (but not the rhetoric) of both would seem to argue against conflict with each other.
When will we stop arguing to win, and instead commit ourselves to understanding and acceptance? |
Have you read Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism? If not, I recommend it. One of her themes is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and violence in the Islamic world today is due to a backlash against a forced modernity and the influence of Western secular ideals within Islamic culture. |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 12:39:44 AM · #7 |
the problem with religion today?
it divides people :( |
|
|
|
03/21/2006 02:47:22 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by crayon:
the problem with religion today?
it divides people :( |
Religion has ALWAYS divided people, unfortunately.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2006 12:09:16 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
03/22/2006 02:19:49 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 08:23:23 AM · #11 |
and this from the moderates...
moderates demand death
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 08:45:53 AM · #12 |
I do not believe that it is religion that divides people--people divide people. Look in Iraq--they are all Muslims, and yet they are fighting each other because they belong to different sects. It has always been in the nature of men to do evil to their neighbor. If there were no religion, then, trust me, there would be a racial issue (as it was in America) that would divide people. If it is not race, then it would be nationality--WWII is a perfect example of that.
You can try to blame religion for dividing humanity, but I think that we as humanity are responsible for it--pride, greed, madness, etc.. That is the reason we need God (and I am talking about the God that teaches us to love each other...) so that we do not follow in the footsteps of those that preceded us. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 10:30:31 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by fall_leaf05:
That is the reason we need God (and I am talking about the God that teaches us to love each other...) so that we do not follow in the footsteps of those that preceded us. |
Originally posted by Luke 14:26 (New International Version):
[Jesus said] âIf anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersâyes, even his own lifeâhe cannot be my disciple.â |
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 11:35:13 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by fall_leaf05:
That is the reason we need God (and I am talking about the God that teaches us to love each other...) so that we do not follow in the footsteps of those that preceded us. |
Originally posted by Luke 14:26 (New International Version):
[Jesus said] âIf anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersâyes, even his own lifeâhe cannot be my disciple.â |
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. |
While I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the "I Hate Skeptics" title, you might be interested to read this with regard to the Luke 14:26 quote. The context of the original words needs to be understood.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 11:36:49.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 12:21:41 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dahved:
While I'm pretty sure I don't agree with the "I Hate Skeptics" title, you might be interested to read this with regard to the Luke 14:26 quote. The context of the original words needs to be understood. |
Yes, Iâm aware of what passes for apologetics to James Patrick Holding (pseudonym for one Robert Turkel). To paraphrase his points, âthe Bible is to be taken literally except when itâs not to be taken literally and Iâve decided not to take this literallyâ and âif you read it in the original Greek (or Hebrew), you would understand that it doesnât mean what it says.â Actually, I could agree with the above interpretation if he could agree that the passage were of an imperfect origin. Doubt thatâll happen.
Here are several critiques of the quality of Robert Turkelâs (aka James Patrick Holding) apologetics.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 05:12:05 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by fall_leaf05:
That is the reason we need God (and I am talking about the God that teaches us to love each other...) so that we do not follow in the footsteps of those that preceded us. |
Originally posted by Luke 14:26 (New International Version):
[Jesus said] âIf anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersâyes, even his own lifeâhe cannot be my disciple.â |
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. |
As I have stated previously, those intent on mocking Scripture should first take the time to read and understand it beforehand.
There are two elements that bear looking at when attempting to interpret this passage from Luke. First and foremost is the character and nature of Christ; the second is evaluating the passage in the light of Scripture as a whole - that is, how does this particular passage compare to others like it, or to the overall message of Scripture?
First, it is not in Christ's nature to compel his disciples to actually "hate" their parents or anyone else. This would be in direct contradiction with His more consistent message - to "love one another".
Secondly, it is not in keeping with the whole of Scripture. If we were to search for a "similar" passage in the New Testament, we would find Matthew 10:37, which states ( Jesus speaking ):
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Note that the verse immediately following after Luke 14:26 ( namely Luke 14:27 ) says: "And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.", the same continuation as is found in Matthew 10:38, lending additional credence to the fact that both gospels refer to the same teaching.
Now, consider also that Luke was NOT an eyewitness to Christ's teaching, but that Matthew WAS. And furthermore, that Luke's account was intended for the Gentiles, while Matthew's was intended for the Jews - leading to the use of different wording for different audiences.
It appears then, that a literal interpretation of the word "hate", as used in Luke 14:26 is a) not in keeping with the nature of Christ, and b) not in keeping with the whole of scripture.
The Matthew passage is more in line with both.
Message edited by author 2006-03-24 17:19:09. |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 05:41:42 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
03/24/2006 06:14:14 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, consider also that Luke was NOT an eyewitness to Christ's teaching, but that Matthew WAS. |
Well, while authorship of Matthew is traditionally ascribed to Matthew, as far as can reasonably be determined with any certainty, the author was anonymous with some scholars proposing perhaps some additional contributions from another author, âQâ, or some mixture thereof. Very likely, however, the author was not an eyewitness, but rather giving a second or third-hand (etc.) account or even, possibly, a second or third-hand account with maybe a little poetic license thrown in to make it zing.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2006 10:29:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, consider also that Luke was NOT an eyewitness to Christ's teaching, but that Matthew WAS. |
Well, while authorship of Matthew is traditionally ascribed to Matthew, as far as can reasonably be determined with any certainty, the author was anonymous with some scholars proposing perhaps some additional contributions from another author, âQâ, or some mixture thereof. Very likely, however, the author was not an eyewitness, but rather giving a second or third-hand (etc.) account or even, possibly, a second or third-hand account with maybe a little poetic license thrown in to make it zing. |
It always amazes me that those who favor macro-evolution choose to dismiss the historical gaps in order to undergird their belief, but in matters of Scripture, every historical nuance must be amplified in order to discredit belief.
That being said, Matthew ( or Levi ) WAS an eye-witness, and likely wrote his gospel in Hebrew, since his intended audience was the Jews. The gospel of Matthew may, indeed, have been written by another or others, based on Matthew's original writings - and hence that book of our bible came to be attributed to him.
At any rate, I do not intend to enter into an argument that can not reach a difinitive conclusion. You are entitled to believe what you believe, and I, likewise.
I do appreciate that you raised a valid question regarding authorship. Such questions are necessary so that when one comes to faith it is just that - faith. |
|
|
|
03/25/2006 10:32:44 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It always amazes me that those who favor macro-evolution choose to dismiss the historical gaps in order to undergird their belief, but in matters of Scripture, every historical nuance must be amplified in order to discredit belief. |
Let me be the first to congratulate you on the birth of your brand-spanking-new non sequitur.
Originally posted by RonB:
That being said, Matthew ( or Levi ) WAS an eye-witness, and likely wrote his gospel in Hebrew, ⦠|
While the early church father, Papias (2nd Century CE), believed Matthew was the author of Matthew in Hebrew (or Aramaic) and that later became part of the Christian tradition under the Augustinian Theory, most modern Biblical scholar, based on my admittedly limited research regarding consensus views on the matter, do not believe Matthew was written in either Hebrew or Aramaic.
Originally posted by RonB:
â¦since his intended audience was the Jews. |
You probably mentioned this because the numerous references to the Old Testament made by the author of Matthew as well as the âcorrectingâ of several âoversightsâ made by Mark regarding Jewish tradition. Mark, of course, is considered to one of the sources used by the author of Matthew, upon whom the author relied heavily, as well by the author of Luke. While there are more, here are two examples:
Example One:
Compare Mark 13:17-20 to Matthew 24:19-21, Matthew makes sure to include a warning about fleeing on the Sabbath.
Originally posted by Mark 13:17-20 (NIV):
How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until nowâand never to be equaled again. |
Originally posted by Matthew 24:19-21 (NIV):
How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowâand never to be equaled again. |
Example Two:
Matthew corrects Mark in the belief that David is the âfatherâ of the Jews. The Jews, of course, considered Abraham to be the ancestral patriarch of the Jewish people, so Matthew cut the âfatherâ reference.
Originally posted by Mark 11:9-10 (NIV):
Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,
"Hosanna!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!"
"Hosanna in the highest!" |
Originally posted by Matthew 21:9 (NIV):
The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
"Hosanna to the Son of David!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Hosanna in the highest!" |
Originally posted by RonB:
The gospel of Matthew may, indeed, have been written by another or others, based on Matthew's original writings - and hence that book of our bible came to be attributed to him. |
The reason that the eyewitness authorship of Matthew is in doubt is its heavy reliance on the book of Mark. According to one author, the author of Matthew makes use of approximately 607 of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel.
Originally posted by RonB:
At any rate, I do not intend to enter into an argument that can not reach a difinitive conclusion. You are entitled to believe what you believe, and I, likewise. |
But it is interesting nonetheless. In my research for this post I found several more âapparentâ inconsistencies contained in the Bible with which I was previously unfamiliar.
Originally posted by RonB:
I do appreciate that you raised a valid question regarding authorship. Such questions are necessary so that when one comes to faith it is just that - faith. |
Yes. Agreed. Just as Muslims have faith that Mohammed wrote the Quâran based on revelations from the angel Gabriel and Mormons have faith that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon based on revelations from the angel Moroni.
Edited: For gramr an spelin
Message edited by author 2006-03-25 16:42:09. |
|
|
|
03/26/2006 08:56:44 AM · #21 |
|
|
|
03/26/2006 10:49:30 AM · #22 |
|
|
|
03/26/2006 12:03:59 PM · #23 |
That's encouraging news ... or at least it's as encouraging as I think one would be able to hope in this instance and at this time. Thank you.
Message edited by author 2006-03-26 12:05:30. |
|
|
|
03/26/2006 06:59:45 PM · #24 |
From world events, it is clear to me that certain muslims are willing to die for thier beliefs. This christian is willing to die for his. I wonder how many other christians throughout the world are willing to make the same sacrifice as the 1st century christians in Rome.
It certainly gives a measured meaning to the phrase;
"And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." I believe this Afganistani certainly qualifies as a desciple. Mentally challenged or not. His belief is worth noting.
Flash (kind of reminds me of the story of Daniel and the Lion's den)
|
|
|
|
03/26/2006 07:09:19 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Flash:
From world events, it is clear to me that certain muslims are willing to die for thier beliefs. This christian is willing to die for his. I wonder how many other christians throughout the world are willing to make the same sacrifice as the 1st century christians in Rome.
It certainly gives a measured meaning to the phrase;
"And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." I believe this Afganistani certainly qualifies as a desciple. Mentally challenged or not. His belief is worth noting.
Flash (kind of reminds me of the story of Daniel and the Lion's den) |
Have I got this right? You're volunteering to wear a bomb suit and head into a Muslim stronghold to take out as many of the heathens as you possibly can? Is this what Jesus had in mind?
R.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 07:03:56 PM EDT.
