Baptisms at the Athletics Complex

[aujeff11 6,243]

15 hours ago, selias said:

If you open the door to hand out Christian literature at school, you have to open it to all religions.

This is fine; I’m all for it. Still feels like there will be repercussions.some time down the road after a minority in faith or political views is denied their desired expression of faith/ political views.  And some day we may be like ultra secular France and ban the wearing of the conspicuous religious objects from the schools such as crosses on necklaces, head scarfs, etc, or any religious display or act of religion instead of trying to appease everyone and hope to avoid conflict.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

This is fine; I’m all for it. Still feels like there will be repercussions.some time down the road after a minority in faith or political views is denied their desired expression of faith/ political views.  And some day we may be like ultra secular France and ban the wearing of the conspicuous religious objects from the schools such as crosses on necklaces, head scarfs, etc, or any religious display or act of religion instead of trying to appease everyone and hope to avoid conflict.

Indeed...that's mostly an idle threat intended to bluff parents.   I mean,  how many kids will even look at stuff handed to them like that.  They have access to far worse stuff on the internet anyway which is more appealing than a "satanic coloring book" as was mentioned elsewhere.   Parents can toss the junk if the kids even bring it home. 

I worry more about what the teachers are telling kids.   Might be worthwhile for parents to be paying more attention to their kids' text books and assigned reading than worrying about what some itinerant Satanist or atheist might be promoting by way of pamphlets.

[triangletiger 1,599]

12 hours ago, toddc said:

Non believers do good works for the sole purpose of what they get out of it, while the true Christian is doing good works to please God and serve others, not self! That’s the difference.

I don't think it's that simple.  Are you saying that non-believers cannot act selflessly or altruistically simply based on being taught that certain things are right and certain things are wrong?  If so, I disagree.   Couldn't the 'true Christian' still be acting out of self-interest?  Namely, "If I please God, my rewards in the next life will be greater".

 

One thing I will say on this is that, while non-believers can (and do) act morally, they struggle to have an objective basis for moral values and duties.  We can all come to some agreement as to what is right or wrong, and even what may be considered evil, but what is the basis for saying something is evil or that a person ought to do this or ought not do that?  We theists can at least say that morality is based in God (or the nature of God), who is outside of ourselves (i.e., objective).  What objective basis can the atheist point to?  We can say that Hitler was evil, but on what basis can we call him evil?  Was it merely that we find his actions (and the actions performed at his command) abhorrent?  Without an objective basis, it's merely a matter of what one human (or group of humans) prefers over another human (or group of humans) - it's just a matter of taste.  On the other hand, to call Hitler's actions truly evil, we need objective standard against which to compare them.  So, what is that standard?  Where does it come from?     

[triangletiger 1,599]

9 hours ago, selias said:

Ok, I'm going to take umbrage with that. I try to be a good person because it's the right thing to do, not to please anyone (including myself) or anything. I am in a position to be able to help others so, I do what I can. I don't do it for any sort of self-satisfaction or for the greater glory of any particular deity. I do it, because it's the right thing to do. Climb down off your high horse, you are no better than anyone else.

How do you define 'a good person'?  What is your basis for calling certain actions 'good' or 'evil'?   I have no doubt that you act in what most consider a moral manner.  But why?  What makes something 'the right thing to do'?  Do you have an objective basis for determining what you ought to do or what you ought not to do? 

[MaxP 137]

10 hours ago, toddc said:

Non believers do good works for the sole purpose of what they get out of it, while the true Christian is doing good works to please God and serve others, not self! That’s the difference.

I'm sorry, but this post is a complete load of horse manure. Morality existed thousands of years before there were ever Christians. People of all faiths and no faith do works of kindness because they want to help others. Simple as that. I make a daily conscious decision to treat everyone the same with dignity no matter their station in life. You never know when a kind word can help others.

[toddc 13,194]

11 hours ago, selias said:

Ok, I'm going to take umbrage with that. I try to be a good person because it's the right thing to do, not to please anyone (including myself) or anything. I am in a position to be able to help others so, I do what I can. I don't do it for any sort of self-satisfaction or for the greater glory of any particular deity. I do it, because it's the right thing to do. Climb down off your high horse, you are no better than anyone else.

Never said, nor thought, I am better than you or anyone else! We are all selfish by nature. Richard Dawkins said we are selfish down to our genes. Saint Paul said no one does good. Deep down we all have selfish motives in everything we do. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, MaxP said:

I'm sorry, but this post is a complete load of horse manure. Morality existed thousands of years before there were ever Christians. People of all faiths and no faith do works of kindness because they want to help others. Simple as that. I make a daily conscious decision to treat everyone the same with dignity no matter their station in life. You never know when a kind word can help others.

True but the foundation for our so-called Judeao-Christian ethics was formed by the commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Lots of people like yourself are good people for abiding by those age old  standards.

P.S.-----no need to call anyone's post horse manure in an otherwise very civil thread.

[Tiger 8,825]

12 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Obviously you don't have the same understanding of Christianity as I do and maybe I have the same misunderstanding about Islamic TERRORISTS.  NONE of the names I saw mentioned were Christians. And I don't know any Christian or Christian organization who thinks God will reward them in "heaven" for killing innocent people. Some Islamic terrorists are going to be sorely disappointed. There aren't enough virgins in their heaven to provide the number of virgins they expect

Dude. Those people are not real Muslims. Just like you don't consider those names you saw mentioned as real Christians because they mask their hate behind a twisted version of the religion. It's the same deal. Real Muslims feel exactly like you do regarding that. "They aren't real Christians" = "They aren't real Muslims". Islam is the second biggest religion in the world. If the religion actually taught that there would be 1.8 billion people acting like this. Just like there aren't 2.2 billion people who buy into the KKK's "version" of Christianity or the people who bomb or shoot up Planned Parenthood, which are in fact acts of terror.

As far as the virgins, that's what I'm talking about as far as twisting things. I was a non-practicing Muslim for I'd say 20 years of my life and been exposed to and am related to real, practicing Muslims. That 72 virgins thing is not even in the Quran like you've unfortunately heard in the media. This idea of 72 virgins waiting for a killer is some completely twisted idea that sick people instill in impressionable, and easily preyed upon people and use that as a guise to cause harm to others. The Quran says you can't kill people just like all other holy books. In fact, take a look at this link it has 10 quick notes on how Islam forbids terrorism kind of like of the Bible forbids the heinous acts of the KKK, Timothy Mcveigh, Planned Parenthood bombers, etc.

Just take 5 quick minutes to open your mind - it includes direct quotes from the Quran : https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

I'd post the notes from the link myself for you but since they're bulletted I don't want to make this post any longer than it needs to be lol

[Tiger 8,825]

Also

You don't need the threat of burning in hell for eternity hanging over your head to not be an ass to people.

As a non-believer it's relatively simple. Be chill and treat people like you'd wish to be treated. If you need scare-tactics, for lack of a better term, to keep you in line, that's fine I can always respect that but to think non-believers only act selfishly when doing the right thing or when they're being a good person is interesting -- I had never heard that before.

But you could actually argue that doing good in the name of any god or higher power is in itself a selfish act because you're trying to earn your way into Heaven rather than doing good just for the sake of doing good.

EDIT: Didn't see @triangletigeralready touched on that last sentence

[toddc 13,194]

16 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Also

You don't need the threat of burning in hell for eternity hanging over your head to not be an ass to people.

As a non-believer it's relatively simple. Be chill and treat people like you'd wish to be treated. If you need scare-tactics, for lack of a better term, to keep you in line, that's fine I can always respect that but to think non-believers only act selfishly when doing the right thing or when they're being a good person is interesting -- I had never heard that before.

But you could actually argue that doing good in the name of any god or higher power is in itself a selfish act because you're trying to earn your way into Heaven rather than doing good just for the sake of doing good.

EDIT: Didn't see @triangletigeralready touched on that last sentence

In Christianity you actually can’t earn your way to heaven. It’s only through faith in Christ’s righteousness and death for our sins in our place. Most, if not all, other religions are however based on your good works.

[triangletiger 1,599]

46 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Dude. Those people are not real Muslims. Just like you don't consider those names you saw mentioned as real Christians because they mask their hate behind a twisted version of the religion. It's the same deal. Real Muslims feel exactly like you do regarding that. "They aren't real Christians" = "They aren't real Muslims". Islam is the second biggest religion in the world. If the religion actually taught that there would be 1.8 billion people acting like this. Just like there aren't 2.2 billion people who buy into the KKK's "version" of Christianity or the people who bomb or shoot up Planned Parenthood, which are in fact acts of terror.

As far as the virgins, that's what I'm talking about as far as twisting things. I was a non-practicing Muslim for I'd say 20 years of my life and been exposed to and am related to real, practicing Muslims. That 72 virgins thing is not even in the Quran like you've unfortunately heard in the media. This idea of 72 virgins waiting for a killer is some completely twisted idea that sick people instill in impressionable, and easily preyed upon people and use that as a guise to cause harm to others. The Quran says you can't kill people just like all other holy books. In fact, take a look at this link it has 10 quick notes on how Islam forbids terrorism kind of like of the Bible forbids the heinous acts of the KKK, Timothy Mcveigh, Planned Parenthood bombers, etc.

Just take 5 quick minutes to open your mind - it includes direct quotes from the Quran : https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

I'd post the notes from the link myself for you but since they're bulletted I don't want to make this post any longer than it needs to be lol

Have you ever asked the practicing Muslims in your family how they interpret some of the Surah's in the Quran that seem to be condoning killing infidels?  For instance, how would a typical Muslim (non-extremist) interpret Surah  2:191-193:

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.  And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.  Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

(Note: Fitnah seems to mean something like persecution or trial or temptation.)

Or Surah 9:5:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." ?

[Tiger 8,825]

23 minutes ago, toddc said:

In Christianity you actually can’t earn your way to heaven. It’s only through faith in Christ’s righteousness and death for our sins in our place. Most, if not all, other religions are however based on your good works.

Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean all that is required is the sheer belief of Christ's righteousness and death for the sins? Meaning you can do as much harm as you want as long as you believe this you will be rewarded with heaven once you pass away?

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Have you ever asked the practicing Muslims in your family how they interpret some of the Surah's in the Quran that seem to be condoning killing infidels?  For instance, how would a typical Muslim (non-extremist) interpret Surah  2:191-193:

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.  And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.  Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

(Note: Fitnah seems to mean something like persecution or trial or temptation.)

Or Surah 9:5:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." ?

Have you ever googled that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Verse

Seems like Muslims can do one better than just lazily saying that the Old Testament doesn't count. 

And, as @Tiger more than adequately pointed out, violence upon other religions is clearly not an actual tenet of Islam. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

5 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean all that is required is the sheer belief of Christ's righteousness and death for the sins? Meaning you can do as much harm as you want as long as you believe this you will be rewarded with heaven once you pass away?

No, that’s not what he meant. He’s saying good works alone doesn’t lead one to Heaven. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

True but the foundation for our so-called Judeao-Christian ethics was formed by the commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Lots of people like yourself are good people for abiding by those age old  standards.

P.S.-----no need to call anyone's post horse manure in an otherwise very civil thread.

Several people like yourself claiming possession of morality is far more offensive than others calling you out on it. 

Basic decency predates Christianity. Get over yourselves. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I think this topic has gone far afield from its original intent.  So unless @RunInRed has any objections and wishes to move this back, it's migrating over to All Things Considered.

[Barnacle 9,064]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think this topic has gone far afield from its original intent.  So unless @RunInRed has any objections and wishes to move this back, it's migrating over to All Things Considered.

Praise God! 

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think this topic has gone far afield from its original intent.  So unless @RunInRed has any objections and wishes to move this back, it's migrating over to All Things Considered.

I was happy that you guys let it stick around as long as you did, and now I'm happy that it's moved.

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

1 minute ago, Barnacle said:

Praise God! 

There is a God after all! Or is there? 

[toddc 13,194]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think this topic has gone far afield from its original intent.  So unless @RunInRed has any objections and wishes to move this back, it's migrating over to All Things Considered.

I agree! Don’t think either side will change their beliefs, but it was awesome and civil beyond my wildest thought!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

32 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Several people like yourself claiming possession of morality is far more offensive than others calling you out on it. 

Basic decency predates Christianity. Get over yourselves. 

You really need to read before barking. I didn't call anyone out for their beliefs one way or the other. And I didn't by any means claim possession of morality. If you read my post it clearly says that moral standards (basic decency as you call it) originated in the OT. So what am I to "get over"? It's been a great thread. Don't turn it into personal attack.

[Tiger 8,825]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

Have you ever asked the practicing Muslims in your family how they interpret some of the Surah's in the Quran that seem to be condoning killing infidels?  For instance, how would a typical Muslim (non-extremist) interpret Surah  2:191-193:

"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.  And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.  Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

(Note: Fitnah seems to mean something like persecution or trial or temptation.)

Or Surah 9:5:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." ?

Well, here's the best I can do on short notice as it'd take a little longer to ask family and also I don't particularly want to start a discussion about religion with any of my religious family members as that will make them think I am considering converting to Islam and I'd rather not open that door lol.

Unfortunately the thing with quoting just one verse from any  ancient holy book, context is key. And @McLoofuslink has some great insight on the context on that particular verse and the surrounding verses. There is an interpretation section there that touches on the surrounding verses which will give some more clarity on this for you.

And this is the best way to describe not only this particular verse, but the verses leading up to and following it to give you full context of what exactly the Quran is talking about at that moment:

"It was these hardened polytheists in Arabia, who would accept nothing other than the expulsion of the Muslims or their reversion to paganism, and who repeatedly broke their treaties, that the Muslims were ordered to treat in the same way - to fight them or expel them….Even with such an enemy Muslims were not simply ordered to pounce on them and reciprocate by breaking the treaty themselves; instead, an ultimatum was issued, giving the enemy notice, that after the four sacred months mentioned in 9:5 above, the Muslims would wage war on them. The main clause of the sentence "kill the polytheists" is singled out by some Western scholars to represent the Islamic attitude to war; even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated other verses on war. This is pure fantasy, isolating and de-contextualising a small part of a sentence. The full picture is given in 9:1-15, which gives many reasons for the order to fight the polytheists. They continuously broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, “expelled” Muslims from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. At least eight times the passage mentions their misdeeds against the Muslims. Consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur'an, the immediate context of this "Sword Verse" exempts such polytheists who do not break their agreements and who keep the peace with the Muslims [9:7]. It orders that those enemies seeking safe conduct should be protected and delivered to the place of safety they seek [9:6]. The whole of this context to v. 5, with all its restrictions, is ignored by those who simply isolate one part of a sentence to build their theory of war in Islam on what is termed "The Sword Verse" even when the words word does not occur anywhere in the Qur'an. (Muhammad Abdul Haleem, “Understanding The Qur’an” {I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd 2005}, pp. 65-66, “Jihad: a war against all Non-Muslims or not? By Kevin Abdullah Kareem”)

 

Unfortunately you can cherry pick verses from all the holy books and kind of apply it without context in today's world and have it look all kinds of screwed up. And it's unrealistic in a modern society to live literally by a holy book, there has just been too much change in the world for that to work and only a small percentage take the lessons from holy books to an extreme and trying to live directly by the book (or taking direct pieces out of context like the one you asked about and twisting in an evil way), hence why extremists of any belief system are the ones doing these terrible things

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

You really need to read before barking. I didn't call anyone out for their beliefs one way or the other. And I didn't by any means claim possession of morality. It's been a great thread. Don't turn it into personal attack.

Your M.O. is alive and well.

It's been a sometimes great and frequently ridiculous thread. 

[Tiger 8,825]

43 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

No, that’s not what he meant. He’s saying good works alone doesn’t lead one to Heaven. 

So believing in those previously mentioned things and also doing good will get you to heaven? That's the same as most religions I think, is it not?

Not trying to sound snarky, seriously asking because, @toddc's comment confused me a little

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Your M.O. is alive and well.

It's been a sometimes great and frequently ridiculous thread. 

Likewise unfortunately. I suppose the "ridiculous" posts are ones you don't agree with.